On 2 December 2026, the period that Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 gave some providers of generative AI to mark what their systems produce comes to an end. The obligation belongs to the provider: whoever uses the tool does not have to mark anything under that provision. What they can do is ask, and know what to ask.
This article does not repeat the explanation of marking —that is in Marking synthetic content: whose obligation it is, and how far the transitional period reaches—. It is the list of questions.
Whose obligation it is, in one sentence
Article 50(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 provides that "providers of AI systems, including general-purpose AI systems, generating synthetic audio, image, video or text content, shall ensure that the outputs of the AI system are marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated".
And Article 111(4), added by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, gives a period only to some of those providers: those whose systems "have been placed on the market before 2 August 2026" shall take the necessary steps "by 2 December 2026". Systems placed on the market after that date have no such period.
Asking the provider is therefore an internal due diligence check: it is not a legal obligation of yours, and it does not make you responsible for the marking. It tells you what the tool you use actually does, and it puts that in writing before anyone asks.
The six questions
1. When was the system we use placed on the market? This is the question that sets the date. If it was before 2 August 2026, the provider has until 2 December 2026 to comply with Article 50(2). If it was after, it had to comply from day one. Ask about the specific system you have contracted, not about the brand in general.
2. What kind of synthetic content does it generate: audio, image, video or text? The article names all four. The answer tells you which part of what you produce with the tool should come out marked.
3. How does it mark its outputs, and what detects the mark? The article requires a machine-readable format, and that the content be detectable as artificial. It does not require a visible label. Ask what the mark consists of —metadata, a technical watermark or another signal— and which tool can check it.
4. Which content comes out unmarked, and why? Article 50(2) requires technical solutions that are effective, interoperable, robust and reliable "as far as this is technically feasible", taking into account the limitations of each type of content, the costs and the state of the art. A provider may have content types or output formats where the mark does not survive. It is better to hear that from the provider.
5. Does any of our uses fall within the standard editing exception? The obligation "shall not apply to the extent the AI systems perform an assistive function for standard editing or do not substantially alter the input data provided by the deployer or the semantics thereof" (the article's other exception, for systems authorised by law for criminal law purposes, is not a company's). If you use the tool to correct or reorder your own texts, ask whether the provider considers that use to fall within the exception, and why.
6. Where is all of this in writing? In the system's documentation, in the terms of service or in the contract. An answer by email will do if you keep it with its date; a spoken answer leaves no trace.
What to do with the answers
Record them next to the system, with the date you asked and who answered. The first answer tells you whether the provider benefits from the 2 December 2026 deadline or had to mark from the start. The others tell you what comes out marked and what does not.
If an answer does not arrive, record that too. It does not oblige you to anything, but it is information about the provider that you only have if you ask in time.
What this article does not cover
Your own Article 50 obligations. Article 50(2) belongs to the provider, but other paragraphs of the same article are addressed to whoever deploys the system. They are in Article 50 on one page.
Technical marking standards. The article refers to the state of the art "as may be reflected in relevant technical standards"; which standard each provider uses is part of what is worth asking, not something this article can answer.
Content in accordance with Article 50(2) and Article 111(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, the latter as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744.
This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.