Short answer
For ordinary product or marketing copy on a company website, the wording does not require it. Paragraph 4 treats text more narrowly than images — it names text published in order to inform the public on matters of public interest, and exempts content that went through human review with someone holding editorial responsibility.
Why that is
This is the most common misreading we see: "AI content must be labelled" gets stretched into "every AI-assisted sentence on a website needs a badge". The text itself distinguishes. Image, audio and video are covered by the deep-fake disclosure; text is covered by the narrower rule tied to the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest, with the editorial-responsibility exemption on top. A product page, a post about your own service, or an opening-hours page does not fall under it on those words. Where the line sits in a specific case — a corporate blog reporting on industry developments, say — is a question of interpretation, and we do not pre-empt it here.
What this means in practice
If you do publish editorial content on matters of public interest, the workable route is not a badge on every paragraph but demonstrable editorial responsibility: a named person and a review step before publication that leaves a trace. For ordinary website copy there is nothing to label — which does not mean a voluntary statement hurts. Our own AI transparency page states that our texts were written with AI assistance and reviewed by a human afterwards.
Check it on your own page
Here the honest answer is also our limit: we do not build an AI text detector. Those tools are unreliable and produce false accusations. The check therefore measures nothing about your prose — it looks at the chat, the images, and whether your transparency notice can be found.
Run the free checkRelated questions
Legal note
This page provides general information on the EU AI Act — it is not legal advice and not a legal assessment of your individual situation (cf. German Federal Court of Justice, judgment of 9 September 2021, I ZR 113/20). It does not replace review by a lawyer. When in doubt, consult one.