Article 50 for marketing agencies: provider marking vs deployer disclosure

Your exposure

Article 50's machine-readable marking duty sits with the provider of the generative AI system, not an agency merely using that system. An agency acting as a deployer has different duties: disclose deepfake content, disclose AI-generated or manipulated text published to inform the public on matters of public interest unless the human-review exception applies, and inform people exposed to emotion-recognition or biometric-categorisation systems.

A client contract may allocate who performs a check or adds a label, but it does not change the statutory role or make every AI-assisted deliverable subject to disclosure. Classify the content and each party's role first.

The compliant workflow

Keep human editorial review and a named editorial owner for public-interest text. Label deepfake content clearly. Record which tool produced each asset and preserve content credentials where the tool supplies them; that supports provenance but does not transfer the provider's Article 50(2) duty to the agency. Document client responsibilities and run Article 4 literacy measures for your own team.

Turn it into a service

A documented AI workflow can answer client procurement questions and make reviews repeatable. Treat that as an operational advantage, not as a certificate or proof of legal compliance.