Short answer
Not for the disclosure inside a dialogue. The information has to be there at the latest at the time of the first interaction, clearly and distinguishably — a paragraph in the privacy policy reaches the visitor only if they open it, which in practice means never. As supporting documentation it is still worth having.
Why that is
Paragraph 5 requires the information under paragraphs 1 to 4 to be provided clearly and distinguishably, at the latest at the time of the first interaction or exposure. A legal text reachable through the footer does not achieve that for a chat, because the interaction starts in the chat window. Our measurement mirrors the split: P2 reads only the visible text at the point of interaction — the opened chat window including embedded frames — and never the imprint or the privacy policy. A dedicated transparency page is measured separately as P4, explicitly as supporting evidence and never as a substitute. Two checks, because these are two different things.
This is measured in check point P2 — AI disclosure inside the chat (Art. 50 Abs. 1).
What this means in practice
Split the two texts by purpose. The opening chat message carries the fact that an AI is answering. The privacy policy carries what happens to whatever the visitor types into the chat: who processes it, where, for how long, and whether it is passed to the chat vendor or into a language model. The second half is the one people forget while arguing about the first, even though it is usually the more delicate one under data protection law.
Check it on your own page
If you want to know what a reviewer finds at the point of interaction, that is exactly what P2 measures. The check reads the chat, not your legal pages — and reports separately under P4 whether a findable transparency notice is linked at all.
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.