What the EU AI Act actually requires on August 2<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nArticle 50 of Regulation (EU) 2024\/1689<\/a> sets transparency obligations for certain AI systems. It is not a ban, and it does not classify cold outreach as high risk. It requires, in defined situations, that people be told when they are dealing with AI or with AI-generated content.<\/p>\n\n\n\nArticle 50 is a transparency rule, not a ban<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe article covers four situations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Providers must inform users when they interact directly with an AI system, such as a chatbot. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Providers of generative AI must mark synthetic output in a machine-readable format. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Deployers of emotion recognition or biometric categorization systems must notify the people exposed to them. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Deployers must disclose deepfakes, along with AI-generated text that is published to inform the public on matters of public interest. <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The European Commission published draft guidelines on May 8, 2026<\/a>, and a Code of Practice on transparency on June 10, 2026, to clarify how these duties work in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe deadline held even after the Omnibus<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nA political agreement reached on May 7, 2026, often called the Digital Omnibus<\/a>, deferred the high-risk obligations for Annex III systems to December 2, 2027, pending formal adoption. It did not move Article 50. Transparency remains live on August 2, 2026. <\/p>\n\n\n\nThe one narrow exception is the machine-readable marking duty under Article 50(2), where generative systems already on the market have until December 2, 2026, to comply. Treat the two enforcement tracks separately, because conflating them is how teams end up planning against the wrong date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Who is actually in scope, and who is not<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThis is where the headlines and the legal text part ways. The obligations attach to specific roles and specific kinds of content, and routine sales email sits at the edge of, or outside, most of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Providers carry the marking obligation, not senders<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe machine-readable marking duty under Article 50(2) falls on the provider of the generative AI system, meaning the company that builds and supplies the model or writing tool. A sales team using an AI assistant to draft outreach is a deployer, not a provider. The burden of watermarking output rests upstream with the tool vendor, not with the person clicking send.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The duty to mark AI output sits with the company that builds the model, not the team that uses it to write an email.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe disclosure rule for text is narrower than the headlines suggest<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe deployer text disclosure duty under Article 50(4) applies only to text published to inform the public on matters of public interest. Law firms, including Bird & Bird and analyses of the Commission text are consistent on this point: marketing copy and ordinary commercial communication generally fall outside it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
A one-to-one sales email selling a product is not a public-interest publication. There is also a carve-out for content that goes through human review where a person holds editorial responsibility. So the sweeping idea that AI cold email broadly requires a disclosure line does not hold up against the statute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Where email warm-up sits in the compliance picture<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nWarm-up is frequently swept into AI Act conversations by association, since it lives near AI-driven sending. The distinction that matters is between generating content and managing how mail is delivered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Warm-up manages reputation and behavior, not words<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nA warm-up platform does not write your emails. It manages sending behavior: ramping volume gradually, building positive engagement signals, and strengthening domain and IP reputation so that legitimate mail reaches the inbox. Article 50 governs AI-generated content and direct AI interaction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Warm-up produces neither. It is reputation infrastructure, which places it outside the scope of the transparency obligations entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why clean infrastructure matters more than ever<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe deadline does not change what makes warm-up valuable, but it raises the stakes around deliverability. As scrutiny of AI in outreach grows, mailbox providers keep tightening filters, and authentication plus consistent sending behavior remain the foundation of inbox placement. Getting your <\/strong>sender reputation<\/a> monitored and authentication<\/a> right is the part of compliance that genuinely affects whether your mail lands.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat email teams should actually do before August 2<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe useful work is narrower and more concrete than the panic suggests. Run this checklist:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Map where AI generates content in your stack, and confirm which vendor is the provider responsible for marking under Article 50(2).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Check whether any of your AI-generated text is published to inform the public on matters of public interest. If it is, plan disclosure or rely on the documented human-review carve-out. If it is plain commercial outreach, the text disclosure duty likely does not apply.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Keep a written record of how and where you use AI in your workflows, since documentation is what authorities ask for first.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Verify your authentication and warm-up setup so that deliverability holds as filters tighten. Use a free email deliverability test <\/a>to confirm your current standing.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Confirm your GDPR and ePrivacy footing for EU recipients, covered below, because that is the law already governing your sending.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The real legal floor for EU cold email<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nWhile attention fixes on the AI Act, the rules that actually decide whether your EU outreach is lawful are older and unchanged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
GDPR and ePrivacy still govern your sending<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nB2B cold email to EU recipients generally relies on the legitimate interest basis under GDPR Article 6(1)(f)<\/a>, which requires a documented assessment, a clear opt-out, and sender identification. <\/p>\n\n\n\nOn top of that sits the ePrivacy Directive<\/a>, implemented differently in each member state. France is comparatively permissive for B2B, while Germany requires prior consent in most B2B scenarios under its UWG rules. <\/p>\n\n\n\nA campaign that is lawful in one country can be unlawful in another. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
GDPR penalties reach 20M euros or 4 percent of global turnover, a more immediate exposure for most senders than the AI Act. Your <\/strong>DMARC\/SPF\/DKIM setup guide handles<\/a> the technical side, but the lawful basis is a separate, documented step.<\/p>\n\n\n\nStay compliant without slowing down<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n![\"Book](\"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Warmy-Flyer-Book-Demo-1-1024x536.png\" "\\"\\"")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nAugust 2 is fixed, and the teams that prepare against the real obligations will spend the next 45 days on work that counts rather than work that does not. Clean infrastructure, correct authentication, and a documented lawful basis are the foundation, and they are the part you control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keep your sending infrastructure clean and compliant. Try Warmy free for 7 days<\/a>, or book a demo<\/a> to get your sending setup ready. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The EU AI Act transparency rules under Article 50 take effect on August 2, 2026, and the date is held even after Brussels delayed other parts of the law. For email teams, the period before then is full of louder claims than facts. The most common misconception\u2014that every AI-personalized cold email will soon require a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":7375,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[120],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7373","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-email-best-practices"],"acf":[],"lang":"en","translations":{"en":7373},"pll_sync_post":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7373","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7373"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7373\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7378,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7373\/revisions\/7378"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7375"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Article 50 is a transparency rule, not a ban<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe article covers four situations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Providers must inform users when they interact directly with an AI system, such as a chatbot. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Providers of generative AI must mark synthetic output in a machine-readable format. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Deployers of emotion recognition or biometric categorization systems must notify the people exposed to them. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Deployers must disclose deepfakes, along with AI-generated text that is published to inform the public on matters of public interest. <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The European Commission published draft guidelines on May 8, 2026<\/a>, and a Code of Practice on transparency on June 10, 2026, to clarify how these duties work in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe deadline held even after the Omnibus<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nA political agreement reached on May 7, 2026, often called the Digital Omnibus<\/a>, deferred the high-risk obligations for Annex III systems to December 2, 2027, pending formal adoption. It did not move Article 50. Transparency remains live on August 2, 2026. <\/p>\n\n\n\nThe one narrow exception is the machine-readable marking duty under Article 50(2), where generative systems already on the market have until December 2, 2026, to comply. Treat the two enforcement tracks separately, because conflating them is how teams end up planning against the wrong date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Who is actually in scope, and who is not<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThis is where the headlines and the legal text part ways. The obligations attach to specific roles and specific kinds of content, and routine sales email sits at the edge of, or outside, most of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Providers carry the marking obligation, not senders<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe machine-readable marking duty under Article 50(2) falls on the provider of the generative AI system, meaning the company that builds and supplies the model or writing tool. A sales team using an AI assistant to draft outreach is a deployer, not a provider. The burden of watermarking output rests upstream with the tool vendor, not with the person clicking send.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The duty to mark AI output sits with the company that builds the model, not the team that uses it to write an email.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe disclosure rule for text is narrower than the headlines suggest<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe deployer text disclosure duty under Article 50(4) applies only to text published to inform the public on matters of public interest. Law firms, including Bird & Bird and analyses of the Commission text are consistent on this point: marketing copy and ordinary commercial communication generally fall outside it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
A one-to-one sales email selling a product is not a public-interest publication. There is also a carve-out for content that goes through human review where a person holds editorial responsibility. So the sweeping idea that AI cold email broadly requires a disclosure line does not hold up against the statute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Where email warm-up sits in the compliance picture<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nWarm-up is frequently swept into AI Act conversations by association, since it lives near AI-driven sending. The distinction that matters is between generating content and managing how mail is delivered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Warm-up manages reputation and behavior, not words<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nA warm-up platform does not write your emails. It manages sending behavior: ramping volume gradually, building positive engagement signals, and strengthening domain and IP reputation so that legitimate mail reaches the inbox. Article 50 governs AI-generated content and direct AI interaction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Warm-up produces neither. It is reputation infrastructure, which places it outside the scope of the transparency obligations entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why clean infrastructure matters more than ever<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe deadline does not change what makes warm-up valuable, but it raises the stakes around deliverability. As scrutiny of AI in outreach grows, mailbox providers keep tightening filters, and authentication plus consistent sending behavior remain the foundation of inbox placement. Getting your <\/strong>sender reputation<\/a> monitored and authentication<\/a> right is the part of compliance that genuinely affects whether your mail lands.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat email teams should actually do before August 2<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe useful work is narrower and more concrete than the panic suggests. Run this checklist:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Map where AI generates content in your stack, and confirm which vendor is the provider responsible for marking under Article 50(2).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Check whether any of your AI-generated text is published to inform the public on matters of public interest. If it is, plan disclosure or rely on the documented human-review carve-out. If it is plain commercial outreach, the text disclosure duty likely does not apply.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Keep a written record of how and where you use AI in your workflows, since documentation is what authorities ask for first.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Verify your authentication and warm-up setup so that deliverability holds as filters tighten. Use a free email deliverability test <\/a>to confirm your current standing.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Confirm your GDPR and ePrivacy footing for EU recipients, covered below, because that is the law already governing your sending.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The real legal floor for EU cold email<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nWhile attention fixes on the AI Act, the rules that actually decide whether your EU outreach is lawful are older and unchanged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
GDPR and ePrivacy still govern your sending<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nB2B cold email to EU recipients generally relies on the legitimate interest basis under GDPR Article 6(1)(f)<\/a>, which requires a documented assessment, a clear opt-out, and sender identification. <\/p>\n\n\n\nOn top of that sits the ePrivacy Directive<\/a>, implemented differently in each member state. France is comparatively permissive for B2B, while Germany requires prior consent in most B2B scenarios under its UWG rules. <\/p>\n\n\n\nA campaign that is lawful in one country can be unlawful in another. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
GDPR penalties reach 20M euros or 4 percent of global turnover, a more immediate exposure for most senders than the AI Act. Your <\/strong>DMARC\/SPF\/DKIM setup guide handles<\/a> the technical side, but the lawful basis is a separate, documented step.<\/p>\n\n\n\nStay compliant without slowing down<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nAugust 2 is fixed, and the teams that prepare against the real obligations will spend the next 45 days on work that counts rather than work that does not. Clean infrastructure, correct authentication, and a documented lawful basis are the foundation, and they are the part you control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keep your sending infrastructure clean and compliant. Try Warmy free for 7 days<\/a>, or book a demo<\/a> to get your sending setup ready. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The EU AI Act transparency rules under Article 50 take effect on August 2, 2026, and the date is held even after Brussels delayed other parts of the law. For email teams, the period before then is full of louder claims than facts. The most common misconception\u2014that every AI-personalized cold email will soon require a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":7375,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[120],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7373","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-email-best-practices"],"acf":[],"lang":"en","translations":{"en":7373},"pll_sync_post":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7373","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7373"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7373\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7378,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7373\/revisions\/7378"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7375"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
The European Commission published draft guidelines on May 8, 2026<\/a>, and a Code of Practice on transparency on June 10, 2026, to clarify how these duties work in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A political agreement reached on May 7, 2026, often called the Digital Omnibus<\/a>, deferred the high-risk obligations for Annex III systems to December 2, 2027, pending formal adoption. It did not move Article 50. Transparency remains live on August 2, 2026. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The one narrow exception is the machine-readable marking duty under Article 50(2), where generative systems already on the market have until December 2, 2026, to comply. Treat the two enforcement tracks separately, because conflating them is how teams end up planning against the wrong date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is where the headlines and the legal text part ways. The obligations attach to specific roles and specific kinds of content, and routine sales email sits at the edge of, or outside, most of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The machine-readable marking duty under Article 50(2) falls on the provider of the generative AI system, meaning the company that builds and supplies the model or writing tool. A sales team using an AI assistant to draft outreach is a deployer, not a provider. The burden of watermarking output rests upstream with the tool vendor, not with the person clicking send.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The duty to mark AI output sits with the company that builds the model, not the team that uses it to write an email.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The deployer text disclosure duty under Article 50(4) applies only to text published to inform the public on matters of public interest. Law firms, including Bird & Bird and analyses of the Commission text are consistent on this point: marketing copy and ordinary commercial communication generally fall outside it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A one-to-one sales email selling a product is not a public-interest publication. There is also a carve-out for content that goes through human review where a person holds editorial responsibility. So the sweeping idea that AI cold email broadly requires a disclosure line does not hold up against the statute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Warm-up is frequently swept into AI Act conversations by association, since it lives near AI-driven sending. The distinction that matters is between generating content and managing how mail is delivered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A warm-up platform does not write your emails. It manages sending behavior: ramping volume gradually, building positive engagement signals, and strengthening domain and IP reputation so that legitimate mail reaches the inbox. Article 50 governs AI-generated content and direct AI interaction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Warm-up produces neither. It is reputation infrastructure, which places it outside the scope of the transparency obligations entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The deadline does not change what makes warm-up valuable, but it raises the stakes around deliverability. As scrutiny of AI in outreach grows, mailbox providers keep tightening filters, and authentication plus consistent sending behavior remain the foundation of inbox placement. Getting your <\/strong>sender reputation<\/a> monitored and authentication<\/a> right is the part of compliance that genuinely affects whether your mail lands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The useful work is narrower and more concrete than the panic suggests. Run this checklist:<\/p>\n\n\n\n While attention fixes on the AI Act, the rules that actually decide whether your EU outreach is lawful are older and unchanged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n B2B cold email to EU recipients generally relies on the legitimate interest basis under GDPR Article 6(1)(f)<\/a>, which requires a documented assessment, a clear opt-out, and sender identification. <\/p>\n\n\n\n On top of that sits the ePrivacy Directive<\/a>, implemented differently in each member state. France is comparatively permissive for B2B, while Germany requires prior consent in most B2B scenarios under its UWG rules. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A campaign that is lawful in one country can be unlawful in another. <\/p>\n\n\n\n GDPR penalties reach 20M euros or 4 percent of global turnover, a more immediate exposure for most senders than the AI Act. Your <\/strong>DMARC\/SPF\/DKIM setup guide handles<\/a> the technical side, but the lawful basis is a separate, documented step.<\/p>\n\n\n\n August 2 is fixed, and the teams that prepare against the real obligations will spend the next 45 days on work that counts rather than work that does not. Clean infrastructure, correct authentication, and a documented lawful basis are the foundation, and they are the part you control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Keep your sending infrastructure clean and compliant. Try Warmy free for 7 days<\/a>, or book a demo<\/a> to get your sending setup ready. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The EU AI Act transparency rules under Article 50 take effect on August 2, 2026, and the date is held even after Brussels delayed other parts of the law. For email teams, the period before then is full of louder claims than facts. The most common misconception\u2014that every AI-personalized cold email will soon require a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":7375,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[120],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7373","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-email-best-practices"],"acf":[],"lang":"en","translations":{"en":7373},"pll_sync_post":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7373","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7373"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7373\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7378,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7373\/revisions\/7378"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7375"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.warmy.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}The deadline held even after the Omnibus<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Who is actually in scope, and who is not<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Providers carry the marking obligation, not senders<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The disclosure rule for text is narrower than the headlines suggest<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Where email warm-up sits in the compliance picture<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Warm-up manages reputation and behavior, not words<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Why clean infrastructure matters more than ever<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
What email teams should actually do before August 2<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
The real legal floor for EU cold email<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
GDPR and ePrivacy still govern your sending<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Stay compliant without slowing down<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n