Using a deepfake in marketing: what must you disclose?
The system being classified
You are a brand using AI-generated video of a real person's likeness, with their permission, in an EU advertising campaign.
Limited risk — transparency duties
No high-risk category applies, but Article 50 transparency obligations do. These are cheap to fix and expensive to ignore.
This is the classification of the configuration described above, not of your system. One different answer can move it — which is exactly what the comparison further down shows, and what the free assessment settles in about ten minutes.
What produced this verdict
These are the entire inputs. The engine is deterministic, so these answers always produce the verdict above.
Article 50 transparency triggers
- · Generates or manipulates deepfake content
Scope and role
- · Deployer — you use it under your own authority
- · Placed on the EU market, or output used in the EU
What applies, and from when (3)
Every entry cites the article it comes from and the date it binds. That second column is the part most summaries of the Omnibus get wrong.
| Article | Obligation | Binding from |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 4 | AI literacy Ensure staff dealing with AI systems have a sufficient level of AI literacy (training records recommended). | 2 February 2025 |
| Best practice | AI system inventory Maintain a central register of all AI systems in use, their purpose, risk tier and owner. | Good practice |
| Art. 50(4) | Label deepfakes Content that constitutes a deepfake must be visibly disclosed as artificially generated or manipulated. | 2 August 2026 |
What would change this verdict
Each row below is the same scenario with one answer changed, re-run through the same engine. These are not predictions about your system; they are what our classifier returns when that single fact differs. Where one change to the scenario necessarily moves a second answer with it, the row says which, and why.
The likeness is of someone who did not consent
Becomes prohibited practiceConsent is a matter for other law — image rights, data protection, defamation — and the Act's disclosure duty applies either way. Where the output is intimate imagery, a separate Article 5 prohibition applies from 2 December 2026.
- Obligations: 3 → 3
- +1 flagged for counsel review
- Key date changes to Article 5 prohibitions in force since 2 February 2025 (non-consensual intimate imagery: from 2 December 2026)
Your system is not this system
The assessment asks the same questions this page answered for a generic configuration, and produces the verdict, the gap list and the 30-day plan for yours. Ten minutes, free, no sign-up, and it runs entirely in your browser — your answers never reach us.
Classify your own system →Other configurations
Inferring emotions from workers is an Article 5 prohibited practice, not a high-risk category with a 2027 runway. What that means for a system already in production.
Article 5 bans scoring people by general behaviour where it leads to unjustified detrimental treatment. Where an ordinary customer-scoring system crosses that line.
Annex III point 5(b) covers creditworthiness but expressly excludes AI used to detect financial fraud. The engine's verdict for a fraud system, and where the exclusion stops.
Most industrial AI is minimal risk, and the honest answer is a short one. What still applies — including the Article 4 literacy duty that has been live since February 2025.
Produced by rule set 1.6.1, legal state 2026-08-05. The engine is deterministic and contains no language model in the verdict path, and every rule is published at /methodology for you to audit.
AnnexWise is preparation software, not legal advice. This page classifies a described configuration; it is not an opinion on any particular organisation or system.