Official-source-backed technical resource

Review AI-related disclosure in a newsletter

Assess the newsletter's content and editorial process, then verify any applicable disclosure in the delivered email and archive. Includes a free implementation worksheet.

Short answer

Assess the newsletter's content and editorial process, then verify any applicable disclosure in the delivered email and archive. Treat a test send as a rendering check, not permission to contact subscribers.

Download the blank working record (.md)

When to use this guide

An AI-assisted newsletter has a reviewed web archive but a separately generated email introduction that nobody checked.

This is a fictional implementation scenario. The procedure below is Article 50 Hub's suggested working method, not a prescribed legal form, a customer result or a claim that every step is an additional statutory requirement.

Review procedure

  1. Identify the actual text and review process for both email and archive versions.

  2. Record the scope and disclosure decision with the responsible reviewer.

  3. Render the final email in representative clients using authorized test accounts.

  4. Check the delivered wording and preserve the exact sent-version reference.

What the example review finds

  • The email introduction differs from the reviewed archive.

  • The disclosure is hidden in a clipped footer.

Keep these example observations separate from your own results. An unknown or untested state should stay open until the relevant evidence has been inspected.

Fields for your working record

  • Email version

  • Archive version

  • Review scope

  • Disclosure rendering

  • Sent reference

Use the downloadable blank worksheet linked on this page to connect the observed behavior with the deployed system. Add a reviewer, date, evidence reference, unresolved questions and a next action. The worksheet is editable locally and does not upload your records to Article 50 Hub.

Completion and handoff

Close the task only for the scope actually reviewed. Preserve the result that another authorized reviewer can reproduce, identify the owner of remaining work, and record a retest when the implementation changes. A completed worksheet is not a substitute for the underlying evidence.

Decision boundary

This guide does not authorize sending email or assess subscription, marketing and privacy requirements.

The official references below provide legal or technical context. Resolve applicability and exception questions with the responsible qualified reviewer; use the product's tools to organize implementation work within that assessment.

Official sources

  1. EU AI Act — legal text and contextEUR-Lex
  2. Commission FAQ — transparency obligations and scopeEuropean Commission
  3. Article 50 Service Desk — read with its amendment notice and current Commission guidanceEuropean Commission

Last reviewed: 2026-09-23. This is technical implementation information, not legal advice.

Share this source-backed guideLinkedInEmail