This article was collected and archived by Digital Sovereignty Watch from an institutional or public source relevant to digital sovereignty, technology policy, cybersecurity, cloud services, artificial intelligence or European regulation.
AI
Futurium | Apply AI Alliance - Nothing to hide, this is AI | Sign the Code of Practice on AI Transparency 📣
Join other companies who have already signed the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated content! It’s a compliance advantage.
Just weeks ago, the AI Office published the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated Content and called on AI deployers and providers to sign and make commitments by signing.
One major benefit is legal certainty: Signatories enjoy streamlined compliance, greater predictability, legal certainty across the EU, as well as a reduced administrative burden.
On 22 June, the AI Office organised an info session to present the code and the signature process to providers and deployers. The code was developed by independent experts to support compliance with the AI Act transparency obligations related to marking and labelling of AI-generated content. The aim is to address risks of deception and manipulation, while fostering the integrity of the information ecosystem.
• How the voluntary code of practice can help you meet these obligations
• Deep dive into the code of practice and how it was developed
• Benefits of becoming a signatory to the code of practice now
• Learn how to sign the code of practice: How to sign the Code of Practice on transparency of AI-generated content
• Video on YouTube: Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content - Information Session
The deadline for the first signatures is 22 July with the first list to be announced on 31 July. Companies can still keep signing the code.
Ahead of the transparency rules which start to apply on 2 August, the final transparency guidelines are planned for mid-July.
Hello Daniel, thanks for your interest. The first deadline for companies to sign the code of practice is 22 July and we will publish the first list of signatories on 31 July. Companies can still sign the code of practice the meantime.
The EU AI Act (Regulation EU 2024/1689) is now progressively binding, yet corporate compliance is still demonstrated primarily through self-assessment reports and paper files. Regulatory authorities have no independent technical means to verify these claims, and cannot access corporate environments directly due to trade secrecy and data protection constraints.
This is the gap I have been working on: translating binding legal obligations into technical requirements that can be verified without requiring companies to disclose trade secrets or regulators to access internal systems directly.
The approach covers the provisions of the Act that speak directly to a technical system rather than to institutional or administrative processes: Article 5 (prohibited practices), Articles 9 through 15 (high-risk system requirements), Article 50 (transparency), and Articles 53 and 55 (GPAI obligations).
Each provision is translated through a shared four-layer technical architecture:
- An interception layer positioned between the system and the user, inspecting outputs before they are delivered
- A rule engine that converts legal requirements into automated, auditable enforcement actions
- A behavioral monitor tracking patterns over time rather than single events
- An immutable audit log with automatic alerting to the competent authority upon violation, without disclosing underlying data content
The methodology is grounded in internationally peer-reviewed academic literature and recognized standards (ISO, NIST, IEEE, ACM), with every technical claim traceable to a specific reference. It is jurisdiction-agnostic by design and does not constitute a legal instrument — it is a technical research framework intended for review and validation by qualified engineers, security specialists, and legal experts before any practical deployment.
I am glad to discuss the framework, its scope, or specific provisions with anyone working on the same problem.
This is an excellent initiative. To further support transparency and monitor EU market adoption, would it be possible to share insights or a directory showing the total number of corporate signatories alongside a breakdown by industry sector? Thank you.
Just weeks ago, the AI Office published the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated Content and called on AI deployers and providers to sign and make commitments by signing.
One major benefit is legal certainty: Signatories enjoy streamlined compliance, greater predictability, legal certainty across the EU, as well as a reduced administrative burden.
On 22 June, the AI Office organised an info session to present the code and the signature process to providers and deployers. The code was developed by independent experts to support compliance with the AI Act transparency obligations related to marking and labelling of AI-generated content. The aim is to address risks of deception and manipulation, while fostering the integrity of the information ecosystem.
• How the voluntary code of practice can help you meet these obligations
• Deep dive into the code of practice and how it was developed
• Benefits of becoming a signatory to the code of practice now
• Learn how to sign the code of practice: How to sign the Code of Practice on transparency of AI-generated content
• Video on YouTube: Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content - Information Session
The deadline for the first signatures is 22 July with the first list to be announced on 31 July. Companies can still keep signing the code.
Ahead of the transparency rules which start to apply on 2 August, the final transparency guidelines are planned for mid-July.
Hello Daniel, thanks for your interest. The first deadline for companies to sign the code of practice is 22 July and we will publish the first list of signatories on 31 July. Companies can still sign the code of practice the meantime.
The EU AI Act (Regulation EU 2024/1689) is now progressively binding, yet corporate compliance is still demonstrated primarily through self-assessment reports and paper files. Regulatory authorities have no independent technical means to verify these claims, and cannot access corporate environments directly due to trade secrecy and data protection constraints.
This is the gap I have been working on: translating binding legal obligations into technical requirements that can be verified without requiring companies to disclose trade secrets or regulators to access internal systems directly.
The approach covers the provisions of the Act that speak directly to a technical system rather than to institutional or administrative processes: Article 5 (prohibited practices), Articles 9 through 15 (high-risk system requirements), Article 50 (transparency), and Articles 53 and 55 (GPAI obligations).
Each provision is translated through a shared four-layer technical architecture:
- An interception layer positioned between the system and the user, inspecting outputs before they are delivered
- A rule engine that converts legal requirements into automated, auditable enforcement actions
- A behavioral monitor tracking patterns over time rather than single events
- An immutable audit log with automatic alerting to the competent authority upon violation, without disclosing underlying data content
The methodology is grounded in internationally peer-reviewed academic literature and recognized standards (ISO, NIST, IEEE, ACM), with every technical claim traceable to a specific reference. It is jurisdiction-agnostic by design and does not constitute a legal instrument — it is a technical research framework intended for review and validation by qualified engineers, security specialists, and legal experts before any practical deployment.
I am glad to discuss the framework, its scope, or specific provisions with anyone working on the same problem.
This is an excellent initiative. To further support transparency and monitor EU market adoption, would it be possible to share insights or a directory showing the total number of corporate signatories alongside a breakdown by industry sector? Thank you.