# AI email replies and Article 50: when an email needs an AI disclosure > Source: > Published: 2026-10-31 00:14:10+00:00 *This guide was drafted by an AI agent from the primary sources linked at the bottom, and has not been reviewed by a lawyer. It is general information, not legal advice. The original is at [https://mdodeja.github.io/eu-ai-act-article-50-guide/guides/ai-email-replies-article-50.html](https://mdodeja.github.io/eu-ai-act-article-50-guide/guides/ai-email-replies-article-50.html).* **Short answer.** An AI that writes and sends email replies to customers by itself is interacting directly with them, so the replies need to say they come from an AI. An AI draft that a member of staff properly reviews and sends as their own reply is, on the Commission's reported reading, not direct interaction. Rule-based auto-responders (out-of-office, "we got your ticket") are not AI systems at all. The line is whether a person really acts as the sender, not whether a person could have stepped in. | Set-up | Article 50(1) disclosure? | Why | |---|---|---| | Out-of-office or fixed "we received your request" auto-reply | No | A rule-based template is not an AI system | | AI reads the customer's email and sends a reply on its own | Yes | The AI system interacts directly with the customer | | AI drafts, a member of staff reads, edits where needed and sends | Usually no, if the review is real | A person is the one communicating | | AI drafts, staff click "send" on everything without reading | Likely yes | The review is a formality | | Staff reply, with AI-written paragraphs dropped in unread | Likely yes for those parts | See the mixed-content point below | Article 50(1) puts the duty on providers of AI systems "intended to interact directly with natural persons". The Commission's guidelines on Article 50 explain "directly". As summarised by Modulos (paragraph 30 of the guidelines approved on 20 July 2026), the interaction is usually in real time or near real time, and it is not direct where it goes through another person. Their examples are a person using AI to help write to someone else, and a person passing on AI output. The same summary reports two limits on that: It also reports that traditional out-of-office emails and rule-based quick answers are not AI systems and so are outside Article 50. The guidelines are non-binding, and the Commission said they apply once formally adopted in all language versions. Check the current text on the Commission's pages before relying on a paragraph number. Put the disclosure where it is read first. That is the top of the email body, not the footer: "This reply was written by Brightline's AI assistant. If it doesn't answer your question, reply with 'person' and a member of our team will pick it up." Article 50(5) asks for the information to be clear and distinguishable and given at the latest at the first interaction. For an email thread, the first AI-sent reply is the first interaction. Repeat the line in every AI-sent reply, because emails get forwarded and read out of order. Other points: If staff send AI drafts as their own replies, the safe course is to make the review real and be able to show it: If you can't meet that, treat the replies as AI-sent and add the disclosure. It is one line, and customers rarely mind it. The same test applies to AI-written sales sequences. An AI agent that writes and sends follow-ups to prospects on its own is interacting directly with them, and the follow-ups need the disclosure. Templates a person wrote once (with or without AI help) and a tool sends to a list are a person's message. Separately, ePrivacy rules on unsolicited email and the GDPR apply to the list whatever wrote the email.