Transparency in human-AI interaction – An analysis of Article 50(1) AI Act

This paper critically examines Article 50(1) of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, which establishes an obligation for providers of AI systems intended for direct interaction with natural persons to develop and design their AI systems in such a way that the natural persons concerned are informed about the interaction with an AI system. Through a doctrinal and functional analysis, the study explores the scope, legal structure, and limitations of this provision. It highlights significant uncertainties surrounding the definitions of “direct interaction” and “obvious” use cases and critiques the asymmetric allocation of responsibility to providers while excluding deployers. The analysis reveals that the current framework insufficiently safeguards the rights of individuals, particularly vulnerable groups, due to narrow content requirements, lack of effective remedies, and exemptions for law enforcement and ostensibly “obvious” AI use. The paper argues that transparency, while normatively essential, risks becoming a symbolic rather than a functional safeguard under the current regulatory design. It advocates for the extension of obligations to deployers, greater standardisation of disclosure mechanisms, and a restrictive interpretation of exemptions, particularly in contexts involving children, persons with disabilities, or covert AI deployment. The findings suggest that without further legislative or interpretative measures, Article 50(1) of the European AI Act will remain a formalistic gesture rather than a substantive guarantee of trustworthy human-AI-interaction. As such, the paper calls on the European Commission to issue comprehensive implementation guidelines and to address the regulatory asymmetries that hinder the provision’s effectiveness in real-world contexts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Computer law & security review
Published
2026-04-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2026.106327
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Transparency in human-AI interaction – An analysis of Article 50(1) AI Act

Martina J. Block
Computer law & security review
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Transparency in human-AI interaction – An analysis of Article 50(1) AI Act

Martina J. Block
article en

Abstract

This paper critically examines Article 50(1) of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, which establishes an obligation for providers of AI systems intended for direct interaction with natural persons to develop and design their AI systems in such a way that the natural persons concerned are informed about the interaction with an AI system. Through a doctrinal and functional analysis, the study explores the scope, legal structure, and limitations of this provision. It highlights significant uncertainties surrounding the definitions of “direct interaction” and “obvious” use cases and critiques the asymmetric allocation of responsibility to providers while excluding deployers. The analysis reveals that the current framework insufficiently safeguards the rights of individuals, particularly vulnerable groups, due to narrow content requirements, lack of effective remedies, and exemptions for law enforcement and ostensibly “obvious” AI use. The paper argues that transparency, while normatively essential, risks becoming a symbolic rather than a functional safeguard under the current regulatory design. It advocates for the extension of obligations to deployers, greater standardisation of disclosure mechanisms, and a restrictive interpretation of exemptions, particularly in contexts involving children, persons with disabilities, or covert AI deployment. The findings suggest that without further legislative or interpretative measures, Article 50(1) of the European AI Act will remain a formalistic gesture rather than a substantive guarantee of trustworthy human-AI-interaction. As such, the paper calls on the European Commission to issue comprehensive implementation guidelines and to address the regulatory asymmetries that hinder the provision’s effectiveness in real-world contexts.

Computer law & security reviewVol. 61
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.