2 Sources
[1]
Retailers want AI-generated ads exempt from EU transparency rules
As the AI Act's labelling rules near their August deadline, Europe's retailers want commercial AI content carved out. Europe's retailers would like the law to make an exception for them. AI-generated advertising should be carved out of the European Union's incoming transparency rules, a retail association has argued, according to Reuters, taking aim at provisions that would require companies to label commercial content produced by artificial intelligence before those rules begin to bite in August. The target is Article 50 of the EU AI Act, the section that governs transparency for AI-generated content. It requires deployers to disclose when image, audio, or video material has been artificially generated or manipulated, and obliges providers to embed machine-readable markers in the output. Crucially for advertisers, the article carries no minimum spend threshold and, as drafted, no blanket exemption for advertising as a category, which is precisely the gap the retail lobby wants closed. The association's case, as reported, is one of proportionality. Labelling every AI-touched advert, the argument runs, imposes a compliance burden out of step with the actual risk to consumers, particularly for routine promotional material that no one mistakes for journalism or evidence. The EU framework already contains a narrow version of that logic: an editorial-review exemption that applies where a human takes responsibility for AI-assisted copy, and a separate carve-out where the AI involvement is obvious to a reasonably observant person. What the retailers want is broader than those slivers. The existing exemptions are conditional and case-by-case, not a clean exclusion for ads, and the obligation attaches to both the AI tool's provider and the advertiser deploying it, creating dual responsibility for a single piece of content. For a sector that has rushed to adopt generative tools for everything from product images to social campaigns, that dual liability is the sting. The stakes are set by the calendar and the penalties. The transparency obligations apply from 2 August 2026, with generative systems already on the market given until 2 December to meet the machine-readable marking requirement. Non-compliance can draw fines of up to €15m or 3% of global annual turnover, whichever is higher, the kind of exposure that turns a labelling debate into a board-level one. The lobbying lands at a moment when Brussels has already shown some willingness to ease the load. The European Commission published a final Code of Practice on marking and labelling AI-generated content earlier in June, a voluntary route to compliance drafted with input from scores of stakeholders, and successive drafts were streamlined to reduce the burden on signatories. The retail association's push is an attempt to convert that softening mood into a harder exemption. It also fits the broader pattern of how industry has engaged with the AI Act since it passed. The legislation has been the subject of sustained lobbying over scope and timing, part of the wider contest over how heavily Europe should regulate a technology its competitors are racing to deploy. It is the same balancing act that shaped the bloc's Chips Act, where industrial ambition and regulatory caution pulled in opposite directions. The same anxiety runs through the debate over whether Europe's regulatory instincts are quietly undermining its own ambitions, a worry sharpened by warnings about the illusion of European AI sovereignty. The retailers' argument, that transparency rules risk smothering legitimate commercial use, is a familiar one in that debate. The counter-argument is the one the rule was written to serve. Transparency advocates hold that consumers have a right to know when the imagery and voices selling to them are synthetic, and that an advertising carve-out would hollow out Article 50 in one of the places it is most likely to mislead. A blanket exemption for ads, on this view, is not a tidy-up but a loophole. So far there is no indication the Commission intends to grant a category-wide exemption, and the editorial and obviousness carve-outs remain the only relief on offer. Whether the retail sector's argument gains traction will be tested as the August deadline nears and enforcement priorities take shape. For now, the rules apply to AI-generated ads like everything else, and the labels, absent a change, will have to go on.
[2]
AI-generated ads should be exempt from EU transparency rules, retail association says
The European Union AI Act, which enters into force on August 2, requires companies to clearly label where artificial intelligence has been used to generate or modify images, video or audio content "constituting a deep fake". Eurocommerce, the European retail association whose members include Amazon, H&M, Inditex, and Ikea, is asking EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen to exempt AI-generated advertisements from the bloc's new regulation requiring disclosure of AI use. The European Union AI Act, which enters into force on August 2, requires companies to clearly label where artificial intelligence has been used to generate or modify images, video or audio content "constituting a deep fake". In a letter sent to Virkkunen on Thursday and seen by Reuters on Friday, the industry group's director general Christel Delberghe said AI-generated ads not meant to mislead users should not be included under the definition of "deep fake". The regulation should not include AI-generated ads "not intended to mislead users, for example, generating an image of a living room to showcase a sofa, or enhancing product visuals for presentation purposes", the letter said. Retailers are already using AI widely to generate marketing images, with German online retailer Zalando saying the technology has allowed it to cut content production costs by 90%, while fast-fashion retailers H&M and Zara are using AI-generated clones of models. Applying the regulation to AI-edited or AI-generated ads risks forcing retailers to label "a very large share of AI-assisted content", diluting the value of the disclosure to consumers, Delberghe wrote. The European Commission did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Share
Copy Link
European retailers including Amazon, H&M, and Ikea are lobbying to carve out AI-generated advertising from the EU AI Act's transparency requirements. The regulation, which takes effect August 2, requires companies to label AI-generated or modified content as deep fakes. Eurocommerce argues that routine promotional material poses minimal risk to consumers and shouldn't face the same compliance burden, especially when retailers like Zalando have already cut content costs by 90% using AI.
As the EU AI Act approaches its August 2 enforcement date, Europe's retail sector is mounting a significant challenge to the regulation's transparency provisions. Eurocommerce, the European retail association representing major players including Amazon, H&M, Inditex, and Ikea, has formally requested that AI-generated ads be exempt from EU transparency rules
1
2
. In a letter sent to EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen, the association's director general Christel Delberghe argued that AI-generated advertising not intended to mislead consumers should fall outside the regulation's scope2
.
Source: ET
The dispute centers on Article 50 of the EU AI Act, which governs the labeling of AI-generated content. The provision requires companies to clearly disclose when image, audio, or video material has been artificially generated or manipulated, treating such content as deep fakes
1
2
. Crucially, the article carries no minimum spend threshold and, as currently drafted, no blanket exemption for advertising as a category1
. The regulation also obligates AI tool providers to embed machine-readable markers in their output, creating dual responsibility between the provider and the advertiser deploying it1
.Retailers contend this compliance burden is disproportionate to the actual risk posed by routine promotional material. Delberghe's letter specifically cited examples like "generating an image of a living room to showcase a sofa, or enhancing product visuals for presentation purposes" as AI-generated or modified content that shouldn't require deep fake labeling
2
. The association argues that forcing retailers to label "a very large share of AI-assisted content" would dilute the value of disclosure to consumers2
.The urgency behind this lobbying effort stems from both the calendar and the financial penalties at stake. Transparency obligations under the EU AI Act apply from August 2, 2026, with generative systems already on the market given until December 2 to meet machine-readable marking requirements
1
. Non-compliance can draw fines of up to €15m or 3% of global annual turnover, whichever is higher—the kind of exposure that elevates this from an operational concern to a board-level issue1
.For a sector that has rapidly adopted generative tools across operations, these stakes are particularly acute. German online retailer Zalando has reported that AI technology allowed it to cut content production costs by 90%, while fast-fashion retailers H&M and Zara are already using AI-generated clones of models in their marketing
2
. This widespread adoption means the dual liability structure could affect thousands of marketing campaigns across the retail sector.Related Stories
The EU framework does contain narrow exemptions that retailers currently can access. An editorial-review exemption applies where a human takes responsibility for AI-assisted copy, and a separate carve-out exists where AI involvement is obvious to a reasonably observant person
1
. However, what Eurocommerce seeks is broader than these conditional, case-by-case allowances—they want a clean exclusion for ads as a category1
.The lobbying arrives at a moment when Brussels has shown some willingness to ease implementation. The European Commission published a final Code of Practice on marking and labeling AI-generated content in June, offering a voluntary compliance route drafted with input from numerous stakeholders
1
. The retail association's push attempts to convert this softening mood into a harder statutory exemption1
.The counter-argument from transparency advocates centers on consumer rights. They maintain that people have a right to know when the imagery and voices selling to them are synthetic content, and that an advertising carve-out would hollow out Article 50 precisely where it's most likely to affect daily consumer interactions
1
. From this perspective, a blanket exemption for ads isn't a proportionate adjustment but a loophole that undermines the regulation's core purpose1
.This debate reflects the broader tension in AI regulation in Europe between fostering innovation and protecting consumers. The retail sector's argument—that transparency rules risk smothering legitimate commercial use—echoes concerns about whether Europe's regulatory approach might undermine its competitiveness as other regions race ahead in AI deployment
1
. So far, there's no indication the Commission intends to grant a category-wide exemption, and the existing editorial and obviousness carve-outs remain the only relief available1
. The European Commission has not yet responded to the request for comment2
.Summarized by
Navi
1
Policy and Regulation

2
Policy and Regulation

3
Business and Economy
