The EU AI Act started applying to your chatbot two days ago

Legalithm, an open-source MCP server, now helps developers comply with the EU AI Act's transparency duties, which took effect on 2 August 2026. The tool classifies AI features by risk tier, cites the relevant articles, and runs fully offline for core functions, with optional hosted services for compliance records. It is designed to be used in coding assistants like Claude Code, Cursor, and Codex.

Article 50 of the EU AI Act Regulation EU 2024/1689, as amended by Regulation EU 2026/1744 started applying on 2 August 2026 . Not "is coming". Applied. If you ship a chatbot, or generate text, images, audio or video for EU users, the transparency duties are live now. Two more dates worth putting in your calendar: The text is around 100 pages, and most of us either ignore it or eventually pay a lawyer. I wanted a third option that runs where I work. Legalithm is an MCP server, so it works in Claude Code, Cursor and Codex: claude plugin marketplace add legalithm-org/legalithm claude plugin install legalithm@legalithm Then ask your agent "does the EU AI Act apply to this feature, and what tier?". It calls classify and answers with the Article cited, rather than recalling the regulation from training data, which is exactly where these answers go wrong. Four tools: classify , explain obligation , generate disclosure Article 50 text, EN or DE , and check record . The first three run fully offline. The rule corpus is bundled with the server, so there is no API key and no source code, prompt or result leaves your machine. Real output for a CV screening feature, as the provider: { "risk": "high", "confidence": "high", "citations": { "article": "6 2 ", "annex": "III", "asOf": "2026-08-03", "appliesFrom": "2027-12-02" } , "matchedRules": "high risk employment", "high risk domain selected" , "confidenceScore": 0.72, "reviewRequired": false } Note matchedRules , asOf and confidenceScore . You can see which rule fired, how old the corpus is, and how sure the engine was. That is the difference between this and asking a model the same question. npm i -g legalithm legalithm mark ./out.png --watermark C2PA + pixel watermark legalithm verify ./out.signed.png No key. The hero image on the repo is AI-generated and marked with this exact command, so you can download it and verify both layers yourself. npx legalithm init detects the stack, writes a dated compliance record npx legalithm check re-verify in CI, non-zero exit on drift These two need a free API key, because unlike everything above they talk to the hosted record service. I would rather say that than let you find out. It is a rule engine that cites the Article it matched. A starting point, not legal advice, not a certification, and with no lawyer validation yet. The design choice I am proud of: when it is not confident it sets reviewRequired and defers to a human instead of asserting. A compliance tool that is confidently wrong is worse than none. Free, open source, and it stays free through the high-risk deadline. https://github.com/legalithm-org/legalithm https://github.com/legalithm-org/legalithm Tell me where the classification is wrong. That is the most useful feedback I can get.