AI ACT GUIDE
Updated 25 August 2026 · 6 min read
AI Act fines: what you actually risk
Up to €15m or 3% of worldwide turnover. The real issue is inspection, formal notice, and proof.
AI Act sanction ceilings are high. They mainly target serious breaches. The immediate risk is operational: having to explain, quickly, what the chatbot does and how users are informed.
Keeping a dated log of displayed notices, a register of AI tools and scan dates is more useful than a one-off report forgotten in a folder.
The path, in order
- 1
Scan the homepage
Paste the URL. In under a minute you see whether a known chatbot is present, and whether a notice is visible. With no chatbot there is no /100 score.
- 2
Show the notice next to the chat
One script line (w.js) sits on Crisp, Intercom, Tidio and known widgets. On Crisp, the sentence is also shown once in the conversation.
- 3
Re-scan the homepage
Clairia should appear in the findings. This is not a certification: it confirms the script is on the page.
- 4
Let the log run
Each page load with the script is dated. It is not proof that the chat was opened.
Frequent questions
- Who must show the notice: the site or the chat vendor?
- The visitor is talking to your site. The vendor (Crisp, Intercom, Tidio…) provides the tool. The site must inform, at the first interaction.
- Is a notice in the terms or legal notice enough?
- No. Too late and too easy to miss during the chat. Article 50 requires clear information at the latest at the first interaction.
- How do you prove the notice was shown?
- A useful file: a register (tool, vendor, use), a dated log of script loads, homepage scans. A /100 score is not proof.
General information, not legal advice.
Official reference: European Commission Article 50 guidelines ↗