AI Content Labeling & Guardrails (AI Act): Pragmatic for Law Firms

The Real Question: Trust, Not Just Labeling

The EU AI Act brings transparency requirements, but for law firms the practical question is different: How do you use AI content without damaging client trust?

Labeling is one piece. But guardrails, approval processes, and editorial control matter more. A perfectly labeled post that makes unsubstantiated claims still damages your firm.

What the AI Act Actually Requires

For content generation (not high-risk AI), the Act focuses on:

• Transparency about AI involvement in content creation
• No deceptive practices that could mislead consumers
• Documentation of AI usage for accountability

For law firms producing marketing content, this typically means:

1. Internal documentation of your AI-assisted workflow
2. Clear editorial oversight and approval processes
3. Optional public disclosure (footer note, transparency page)

The Act does NOT require labeling every AI-assisted sentence. It requires honesty about your processes.

Practical Guardrails (Copy/Paste Ready)

These rules prevent problems before they happen:

Content Rules:

• AI drafts structure and initial text – final approval always human
• No absolute promises ("guaranteed results", "always wins")
• No language that sounds like specific legal advice
• All examples must be anonymous or clearly hypothetical
• Factual claims require verifiable sources

Process Rules:

• Every post reviewed by qualified person before publishing
• No-go list checked automatically (see below)
• Approval timestamp logged for audit trail
• Monthly review of published content for issues

No-Go List: What AI Content Must Never Include

Three Labeling Approaches (Choose One)

1. Internal Documentation Only

• Document your AI-assisted workflow internally
• Maintain approval logs and edit history
• No public disclosure unless asked
• Best for: Firms concerned about perception

2. Transparency Page

• Add note to About/Imprint page: "We use AI tools to assist with content research and drafting. All content is reviewed and approved by our team."
• No per-post labeling
• Best for: Balanced transparency

3. Footer Disclaimer

• Small note on each post: "AI-assisted | Reviewed by [Firm Name]"
• Most transparent approach
• Best for: Firms that want to lead on transparency

All approaches satisfy AI Act requirements when combined with proper oversight.

QA Checklist Before Publishing

Every AI-assisted post should pass these checks:

• Claims verified: No unsubstantiated numbers or promises
• Tone appropriate: Informative, not promotional or pushy
• Advice distinction clear: General information, not specific advice
• CTA neutral: "Learn more" or "Contact us", not pressure tactics
• Sources cited: External claims have references
• No-go list clear: Automatic check passed
• Approved by: Name and timestamp logged

Measuring Success

Track these metrics monthly:

Next Step

Content automation works when guardrails are solid. Start with your no-go list and approval process before scaling production.

Full Guide: Content Automation for Law Firms

Related:

• No-Go Claims + Safe Alternatives
• QA Criteria for AI Texts