Civil Law And AI-Generated Commercial Content Disputes In Europe

1. Introduction

AI-generated commercial content includes advertisements, product descriptions, promotional images, videos, slogans, reviews, influencer material, synthetic voices, chatbots, marketing emails and other content created wholly or partly through generative AI.

Civil disputes can arise where such content:

copies another person's copyrighted work;

reproduces a person's image or voice;

falsely represents a product;

contains fabricated product claims;

creates a misleading advertisement;

falsely attributes a statement to a person;

generates a deceptive review;

infringes a trademark or other IP right;

uses personal data unlawfully;

fails to disclose relevant AI-generated or commercial characteristics;

causes consumers or competitors economic loss.

There is still no large body of European case law directly deciding civil claims concerning generative-AI advertising or AI-generated commercial copy. The legal analysis therefore relies heavily on established CJEU case law concerning copyright, advertising, consumer protection, personal data and digital content, together with the newer AI Act and Digital Services Act.

2. Main Legal Framework

AI-generated commercial content can potentially fall under several overlapping regimes:

EU AI Act

Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC

Digital Services Act 2022/2065

Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC

DSM Copyright Directive 2019/790

GDPR

EU trademark law

Consumer contract law

National tort/delict law

National unfair-competition law

The same AI advertisement can therefore generate several independent legal questions.

Example

An AI creates an advertisement stating:

“This medicine guarantees a 90% improvement in symptoms.”

The statement may raise:

misleading advertising;

consumer protection;

product-specific regulation;

professional liability;

potentially personal-data issues if targeted;

AI-transparency questions.

3. AI Act and Commercial Content

The EU AI Act contains specific transparency rules for certain AI-generated or manipulated content.

Article 50 requires certain providers/deployers to ensure that people are informed when they are interacting directly with an AI system, unless this is obvious from the circumstances. It also establishes transparency requirements concerning certain AI-generated or manipulated content, including machine-readable marking in specified circumstances. (EUR-Lex)

This matters for commercial content because an AI-generated:

sales chatbot;

advertising image;

synthetic influencer;

product video;

voice advertisement;

may create confusion about whether the content is authentic or human-generated.

Important distinction

AI disclosure does not automatically make an advertisement lawful.

An advertisement labelled:

“AI-generated”

can still be:

false;

misleading;

defamatory;

infringing;

discriminatory;

deceptive.

4. Digital Services Act

The Digital Services Act is particularly important where AI-generated commercial content is distributed through online platforms.

Article 26 requires platforms displaying advertisements to make clear:

that the material is an advertisement;

who is advertising;

who paid for it, where different;

meaningful information about the main parameters determining to whom the advertisement is shown. (EUR-Lex)

The DSA also prevents online platforms from presenting advertisements based on profiling using special categories of personal data under GDPR Article 9. (EUR-Lex)

Example

An AI system generates advertisements based on inferred:

health condition + ethnicity + religious belief.

Even if the advertisement itself is factually accurate, the targeting method may create separate legal problems.

5. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

The principal EU consumer-protection instrument is Directive 2005/29/EC.

It prohibits unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices and distinguishes between:

misleading actions;

misleading omissions;

aggressive practices;

prohibited practices listed in the Directive's annex.

AI-generated content does not receive an exemption simply because a machine produced it.

Thus:

AI-generated falsehood = potentially ordinary misleading commercial practice.

The fact that a business says:

“The AI generated it”

does not automatically transfer responsibility away from the trader.

6. Case 1 — Trento Sviluppo and Centrale Adriatica, C-281/12

Court: CJEU
Date: 19 December 2013

This case concerned a promotional advertisement for consumer goods.

The advertisement represented products as being available at attractive promotional prices, while the actual availability of one product was disputed.

The CJEU interpreted the concept of a misleading commercial practice under Article 6 of Directive 2005/29/EC. (Infocuria)

AI application

Imagine an AI marketing system automatically creates:

“50% discount — available now.”

But the product is actually unavailable.

The company cannot necessarily escape responsibility by saying:

“The statement was generated automatically.”

The legally relevant question remains whether the commercial practice is misleading under the applicable consumer-protection rules.

Principle

Commercial content must be assessed according to its effect and circumstances, not merely according to who or what generated the wording.

7. Case 2 — Canal Digital Danmark, C-611/14

Court: CJEU
Date: 26 October 2016

This case involved advertising for a satellite-TV subscription.

The advertised monthly price was presented prominently while an additional six-monthly charge was omitted or given less prominence.

The CJEU held that the circumstances could constitute a misleading action or omission where the presentation was capable of causing the average consumer to take a transactional decision that otherwise would not have been taken. (Infocuria)

AI application

An AI advertising system may automatically optimise:

“€9.99/month”

while hiding:

“€60 annual service charge.”

Even if the AI selected the presentation automatically, the legal issue remains whether the overall commercial communication materially misleads consumers.

Principle

AI optimisation does not eliminate the duty to present material commercial information fairly and transparently.

8. Case 3 — Pereničová and Perenič, C-453/10

Court: CJEU
Date: 15 March 2012

The case concerned an incorrect annual percentage rate in consumer credit advertising/contractual documentation.

The CJEU considered the relationship between misleading commercial practices and the consequences for the underlying consumer contract. (Infocuria)

AI application

Suppose a generative-AI system creates:

“APR: 4.9%”

when the actual effective APR is substantially higher.

Possible consequences may extend beyond regulatory penalties to:

consumer remedies;

contractual consequences;

damages;

potentially unfair-term issues.

Principle

A misleading AI-generated commercial representation can potentially affect not only advertising legality but also the consumer transaction itself.

9. Case 4 — Painer, C-145/10

Court: CJEU
Date: 1 December 2011

Painer concerned copyright protection of portrait photographs.

The Court recognised that a photograph can be protected by copyright where it reflects the author's own intellectual creation through free and creative choices.

AI-commercial-content application

Suppose an advertising company instructs AI:

“Create an image that looks almost exactly like this photographer's campaign photograph.”

The resulting image may raise copyright questions even though the final image was technically generated by AI.

The legal inquiry may include:

whether the source photograph is protected;

whether protected expressive elements were reproduced;

whether the output is sufficiently similar;

whether an exception applies;

who is responsible for the commercial use.

Principle

The fact that AI creates the final image does not automatically remove copyright issues arising from the underlying protected work.

10. Case 5 — Cofemel, C-683/17

Court: CJEU
Date: 12 September 2019

Cofemel concerned the copyright protection of clothing designs.

The CJEU emphasised the EU concept of a “work” and the requirement that the subject matter be identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity and reflect the author's own intellectual creation. (Infocuria)

AI application

Suppose AI produces:

a logo;

packaging design;

advertising illustration;

product artwork.

A separate question arises:

Does the output qualify for copyright protection at all?

European copyright law generally focuses on human intellectual creation rather than merely asking whether a machine produced an aesthetically attractive result.

Therefore, one must distinguish:

Copyright infringement

Did the AI-generated material unlawfully use someone else's protected work?

from:

Copyright ownership

Does the new AI-generated material itself qualify for copyright protection, and if so, who is the relevant human author under national law?

These are separate questions.

11. Case 6 — Pelham, C-476/17

Court: CJEU
Date: 29 July 2019

Pelham concerned sampling from a protected phonogram.

The CJEU examined reproduction rights and the relationship between copyright and fundamental rights.

The case is highly relevant to AI-generated commercial music.

Example

A company asks AI:

“Create an advertising song in the style of a famous recording.”

If the AI actually incorporates protected audio material rather than merely producing an independently generated musical style, copyright and related-rights questions may arise.

Principle

“Style” and “protected expression” must not automatically be treated as the same thing.

The precise legal assessment depends on what the AI actually reproduces.

12. Case 7 — Pelham, C-590/23 — 2026

Court: CJEU Grand Chamber
Judgment: 14 April 2026

This is a significant recent copyright decision concerning the concept of “pastiche” under Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29.

The case concerned sampling and the interaction between copyright exceptions and fundamental rights. (Infocuria)

Importance for AI commercial content

It is relevant to generative AI where businesses use AI to create:

parody-style advertisements;

pastiche campaigns;

stylistic imitation;

transformative promotional content.

However, it should not be described as an AI case.

The judgment concerns sampling and copyright, but its principles are potentially relevant by analogy when AI-generated commercial content uses protected expressive material.

Key point

An argument such as:

“This is merely AI-generated imitation”

does not by itself answer the copyright question.

The court must examine the actual use and any applicable exception.

13. Case 8 — Kwantum Nederland and Kwantum België, C-227/23

Court: CJEU
Date: 24 October 2024

Kwantum concerned copyright protection for applied art originating outside the EU.

The CJEU held that EU law precludes Member States from applying the relevant material-reciprocity criterion in a way that denies copyright protection to qualifying works merely because of their foreign origin. (Infocuria)

AI-commercial application

This becomes relevant to globally trained and deployed AI systems.

A commercial AI platform might use:

American artwork;

Japanese designs;

Swiss photographs;

Korean advertising material.

The fact that the source material originates outside the EU does not automatically mean it is irrelevant to EU copyright protection.

Principle

Cross-border origin does not by itself remove copyright protection within the EU.

14. AI Training and Commercial Advertising

Another major dispute occurs before the advertisement is even created.

Suppose:

AI company trains a commercial image generator on millions of copyrighted photographs.

The company subsequently sells advertising-generation services.

The legal questions include:

Was copyrighted material copied during training?

Was access lawful?

Does the DSM Directive's text-and-data-mining framework apply?

Was a rights reservation made?

Was the material used commercially?

Did the resulting output reproduce protected expression?

Article 3 DSM Directive establishes a mandatory TDM exception for specified research organisations and cultural-heritage institutions with lawful access. Article 4 establishes a broader TDM exception for lawfully accessible works, subject to the rights-holder reservation condition. (EUR-Lex)

This is particularly important for commercial AI systems because commercial AI training should not simply be assumed to fall within the scientific-research exception in Article 3.

15. Training Stage vs Advertising Stage

This distinction is essential.

Stage 1 — Training

Copyrighted works → AI training.

Stage 2 — Model

Training produces the AI model.

Stage 3 — Generation

Prompt → AI → commercial advertisement.

Stage 4 — Distribution

Advertisement → consumers/platforms.

Stage 5 — Consumer transaction

Consumer relies on advertisement → purchases product.

A legal claim may arise at any one or several of these stages.

16. AI-Generated False Product Claims

Suppose an AI creates:

“This skincare product permanently removes wrinkles.”

The manufacturer knows the claim has not been scientifically established.

The legal problem is not that AI made a mistake.

The important questions are:

Who instructed the AI?

Who approved the advertisement?

Did the business verify the claim?

Was the claim objectively substantiated?

Was the statement likely to affect consumer behaviour?

The Trento Sviluppo and Pereničová cases are useful because they focus on the legal consequences of inaccurate commercial representations. (Infocuria)

17. AI-Generated Fake Reviews

A particularly serious commercial-content problem is synthetic reviews.

Example:

AI generates 10,000 apparently independent customer reviews.

The business publishes them as if they were genuine.

This could involve:

misleading commercial practice;

consumer deception;

unfair competition;

platform liability;

contractual disputes;

potentially damages to competitors.

The key fact is that the consumer is being presented with an apparently independent experience that does not actually exist.

18. AI-Generated Influencers

A company may create a synthetic person:

“Anna, 24, beauty influencer.”

AI generates:

her face;

her voice;

her social-media posts;

product recommendations.

Potential disputes include:

Right of personality

Does the avatar resemble a real person?

Copyright

Was another person's photograph used?

Trademark

Does the avatar reproduce protected branding?

Advertising law

Is it sufficiently clear that this is commercial communication?

Consumer law

Would consumers reasonably believe the recommendation was independent?

AI Act

Does the applicable transparency rule require disclosure?

19. AI Voice Cloning in Advertising

Suppose a company uses AI to imitate a famous actor's voice:

“I personally recommend Product X.”

The actor never made the statement.

Potential claims may involve:

personality rights;

passing off/unfair competition under national law;

trademark or related rights;

consumer deception;

copyright/performer's rights where applicable;

contractual issues.

The central problem is false commercial attribution.

20. AI-Generated Celebrity Images

Imagine an advertisement shows a realistic image of a famous athlete holding a product.

The athlete never endorsed it.

Potential claims may include:

false endorsement + personality rights + consumer deception + unfair competition.

The exact cause of action depends heavily on the Member State's national law.

EU law does not completely harmonise every aspect of personality/image rights.

21. AI and Copyright Ownership

Suppose AI creates a completely original advertisement.

Who owns it?

The answer cannot simply be:

“The AI owns the copyright.”

AI is not automatically a copyright-owning legal person.

European copyright protection generally requires the legally relevant work to satisfy the applicable originality requirements.

Painer and Cofemel are useful authorities for the concept of human creative choices and intellectual creation.

Three separate questions

Was protected material copied?

Is the AI output itself protected?

Who owns any resulting rights?

These should never be collapsed into one question.

22. AI-Generated Trademark Content

An AI may create an advertisement containing a brand name or logo.

Possible problems include:

identical reproduction;

confusing similarity;

dilution;

unfair advantage;

misleading association;

comparative advertising.

A company may therefore face a trademark claim even if:

“The AI independently selected the logo.”

The relevant question is whether the commercial use falls within the applicable trademark rights and exceptions.

23. AI and Comparative Advertising

AI can automatically generate statements such as:

“Our product is 30% better than Brand X.”

If the claim has not been substantiated, the business may face:

consumer-law issues;

comparative-advertising restrictions;

unfair-competition claims;

trademark disputes;

damages claims.

The AI's generation of the statement does not itself establish the truth of the comparison.

24. Personal Data in Commercial AI Content

AI advertising can also use personal data to generate personalised content.

Example:

User searches for pregnancy products → AI infers pregnancy → generates targeted advertisement.

This raises GDPR questions because the system may be processing or inferring sensitive information.

The DSA expressly prohibits online platforms from presenting advertisements based on profiling using GDPR special-category personal data. (EUR-Lex)

Thus:

AI-generated advertising + sensitive profiling = additional regulatory risk.

25. AI-Generated Advertising and Dark Patterns

Generative AI can automatically personalise:

wording;

urgency;

discounts;

emotional appeals;

product recommendations;

interface design.

An AI system could therefore produce:

“Only 2 minutes left — buy now!”

for a consumer for whom no genuine time limitation exists.

This can potentially intersect with EU unfair-commercial-practice rules and the DSA's rules on online interfaces.

The legal issue is not merely whether the sentence was AI-generated but whether the overall commercial practice improperly influences the consumer.

26. AI Commercial Content and DSA Advertising Transparency

Under Article 26 DSA, users must be able to identify advertisements clearly and understand who is advertising and who paid for the advertisement where relevant. (EUR-Lex)

Therefore:

AI-generated content + platform advertising

may require analysis under both:

AI Act transparency

and

DSA advertising transparency

where their respective conditions are satisfied.

These obligations are complementary rather than interchangeable.

27. Platform Liability

Suppose a platform hosts millions of AI-generated advertisements.

Possible issues include:

failure to identify advertising;

failure to provide advertiser information;

inadequate systems for illegal-content handling;

targeting using prohibited data;

insufficient transparency;

recommender-system issues.

The DSA requires transparency around advertising and recommender systems. (EUR-Lex)

However, platform responsibility must be distinguished from the advertiser's own liability.

28. AI Commercial Content and Consumer Reliance

A consumer may purchase a product because:

“AI-generated advertisement said the product was medically proven.”

If that representation is false, the consumer's claim may potentially involve:

false representation → transactional decision → economic loss

The exact remedy depends on national implementation of EU consumer-protection law and the applicable contractual/tort rules.

29. AI-Generated Content and Economic Loss

Possible damages include:

Consumer

price paid;

consequential economic loss;

contractual remedies;

other legally recognised damages.

Competitor

lost sales;

reputational damage;

unfair-competition losses.

Copyright owner

infringement remedies;

damages or compensation;

injunction;

destruction/withdrawal where available.

Person whose likeness was used

personality-right remedies;

damages;

injunction;

removal.

30. Causation

Causation may become difficult where AI-generated content is one of many marketing factors.

For example:

AI advertisement → influencer repost → consumer review → discount → purchase.

A claimant may have to establish that the unlawful content materially contributed to the transaction or loss.

AI therefore does not eliminate ordinary causation requirements.

31. Responsibility of the Business

The company using AI commercially is likely to be a central actor.

Important questions include:

Did it instruct the AI?

Did it approve the output?

Did it know the output could be false?

Did it have a human review process?

Did it verify factual claims?

Did it verify copyright?

Did it verify trademarks?

Did it disclose AI-generated content where required?

Did it maintain records of prompts and outputs?

A business that uses AI as part of its marketing operation generally cannot treat the AI system as a legal shield.

32. Responsibility of the AI Provider

A separate dispute may arise between:

advertiser ↔ AI provider

For example, the AI provider contract says:

“The system is suitable for commercial advertising.”

But the system repeatedly generates false product claims.

Potential claims may involve:

breach of contract;

negligent misrepresentation;

product liability where applicable;

indemnification;

defective software;

failure to warn.

The exact outcome depends on the contract and applicable national law.

33. Copyright Infringement by AI Output

A useful analytical test is:

Step 1

Is the source work protected?

Step 2

Did AI training involve a legally relevant reproduction/extraction?

Step 3

Was the source lawfully accessed?

Step 4

Does a TDM exception apply?

Step 5

Was rights reservation made?

Step 6

Does the generated advertisement reproduce protected expression?

Step 7

Does an exception apply?

Step 8

Who commercially used the output?

The DSM Directive expressly establishes TDM exceptions and, for Article 4, conditions its broader exception on the absence of an appropriate rights reservation. (EUR-Lex)

34. Important Distinction: Style vs Copying

Suppose the prompt is:

“Create a luxury fashion advertisement inspired by 1960s European photography.”

This is different from:

“Copy this exact copyrighted advertisement but change the product.”

The legal analysis must focus on protected expression, not merely aesthetic similarity or a general style.

The copyright reasoning in Painer, Cofemel and Pelham is useful for understanding these distinctions.

35. AI-Generated Commercial Content and Trade Secrets

Businesses may argue:

“The AI model is proprietary, so we cannot disclose how the advertisement was generated.”

That does not necessarily resolve the dispute.

A court may need to balance:

trade secrets;

copyright;

evidentiary needs;

consumer protection;

transparency;

privacy.

The precise balance depends upon the applicable EU and national rules.

36. Evidence in AI Commercial-Content Litigation

Important evidence may include:

prompt;

model version;

system instructions;

generated output;

editing history;

human approvals;

training-data documentation;

copyright licences;

advertiser instructions;

platform logs;

targeting information;

consumer interaction data.

A major litigation issue will be proving:

What exactly did the AI generate, and who approved it?

37. Deepfake Commercial Advertising

This is one of the most important emerging categories.

Example:

AI creates a realistic video of a celebrity saying, “I recommend Brand X.”

The person never made the statement.

Potential legal issues include:

false endorsement;

personality rights;

misleading advertising;

consumer protection;

unfair competition;

copyright;

AI transparency.

The AI Act's transparency rules are particularly relevant to certain AI-generated/manipulated content. (EUR-Lex)

38. Synthetic Product Images

AI can generate a product that does not actually exist.

Example:

Advertisement shows a smartphone with a 3-day battery.

Actual product:

8-hour battery.

Potential claims could concern:

misleading advertising;

false product representation;

consumer deception;

unfair commercial practice.

The legal problem is the materially false commercial representation, not simply the use of generative AI.

39. AI-Generated Medical Advertising

This area is especially sensitive.

Example:

“AI analysis proves this supplement cures diabetes.”

Such advertising may implicate:

consumer law;

medical-product regulation;

misleading advertising;

health claims;

professional liability.

AI-generated text cannot convert an unsupported medical claim into a legally valid scientific claim.

40. AI-Generated Financial Advertising

Similarly:

“AI predicts guaranteed 25% annual returns.”

Potential issues include:

misleading commercial practice;

financial-services regulation;

consumer protection;

investment law;

contractual liability.

The key issue remains the substantive truth and regulatory status of the representation.

41. AI-Generated Reviews and Testimonials

A business that creates fictional testimonials through AI may create a particularly strong consumer-law issue.

Example:

“I saved €3,000 using this service.”

The supposed customer does not exist.

The AI therefore creates a fictional commercial experience represented as genuine.

Potential consequences include:

misleading commercial practice;

unfair competition;

platform policy violations;

damages.

42. AI Advertising and Discrimination

AI may generate different advertisements for different consumers.

Suppose:

Consumer A receives a premium offer.

Consumer B receives a substantially inferior offer.

The system uses inferred socioeconomic or protected characteristics.

Potential issues may involve:

GDPR;

equality law;

consumer protection;

DSA advertising rules;

national civil law.

The DSA specifically restricts certain targeted advertising based on special-category personal data. (EUR-Lex)

43. Six Core Liability Categories

AI-generated commercial content disputes can therefore be divided into:

1. Copyright liability

AI output copies protected content.

2. Trademark liability

AI output uses protected branding unlawfully.

3. Personality/image liability

AI reproduces a person's identity or likeness.

4. Consumer liability

AI generates false or misleading advertising.

5. Data-protection liability

AI uses personal data unlawfully.

6. Contract/tort liability

AI-generated content causes contractual or economic damage.

44. Case-Law Synthesis

45. Most Important Distinction

The phrase “AI-generated commercial content dispute” actually contains several different legal disputes.

A. AI generated something false

→ Consumer/advertising law.

B. AI generated something copied

→ Copyright.

C. AI generated someone's likeness

→ Personality/image rights.

D. AI generated something using personal data

→ GDPR.

E. AI generated targeted advertising

→ DSA + GDPR + consumer law.

F. AI generated content on a platform

→ DSA + advertiser/platform obligations.

G. AI-generated content itself is claimed as copyrighted

→ Copyright originality/ownership questions.

These must be analysed separately.

46. Potential Defendants

Depending on the facts, claims may be brought or directed against:

advertiser;

product manufacturer;

marketing agency;

AI provider;

AI model developer;

platform;

influencer;

distributor;

publisher.

The fact that several entities participated does not mean that all are automatically liable.

47. Defences

Potential arguments may include:

“The AI was only a tool.”

Relevant to attribution but not automatically exculpatory.

“A human approved the advertisement.”

Important for responsibility and causation.

“The output was independently created.”

Relevant to copyright.

“The statement was obviously fictional.”

Relevant to misleading-practice analysis.

“The consumer could not reasonably rely on it.”

Potentially relevant to consumer law.

“The image was sufficiently transformed.”

Relevant to copyright analysis, depending on the circumstances.

“The content was clearly labelled AI-generated.”

Potentially relevant to transparency, but labelling does not cure a separate falsehood or infringement.

48. Future Litigation Issues

European courts are likely to confront:

Who owns an AI-generated advertising image?

Can AI copy an existing advertising campaign?

When does AI imitation become copyright infringement?

Who is liable for an AI-generated false product claim?

Does disclosure that content is AI-generated satisfy transparency duties?

Can a company delegate advertising responsibility to an AI provider?

Are synthetic testimonials misleading?

How should AI-generated celebrity endorsements be treated?

Can an AI-generated voice infringe personality or performer rights?

Who bears responsibility for AI-generated trademark use?

What evidence proves the AI's source material?

Can AI-generated advertising be targeted using inferred sensitive data?

How should courts assess causation when millions of personalised advertisements are generated?

How should damages be calculated where each consumer sees a different AI-generated advertisement?

49. Exam-Oriented Conclusion

AI-generated commercial content disputes in Europe are governed by a combination of copyright, consumer protection, data protection, platform regulation and the emerging AI Act framework.

The Trento Sviluppo, Canal Digital Danmark and Pereničová cases demonstrate that AI-generated advertising remains subject to established principles governing misleading commercial representations. (Infocuria)

Painer, Cofemel, Pelham and Kwantum demonstrate that AI-generated commercial images, music, designs and other creative material can raise ordinary EU copyright questions concerning protected works, reproduction and exceptions.

The DSA adds specific transparency requirements for online advertising, including identification of advertisements, advertiser information and certain restrictions on targeted advertising based on special-category personal data. (EUR-Lex)

The AI Act adds another layer of transparency concerning certain AI-generated or manipulated content. (EUR-Lex)

The crucial principle is:

AI generation does not create a legal exemption from ordinary commercial, copyright, consumer or data-protection obligations.

A business cannot normally transform an unlawful commercial representation into a lawful one simply by saying:

“The AI wrote it.”

Ultra-basic revision formula

AI CREATE → COPYRIGHT → ADVERTISING → CONSUMER → DATA → PLATFORM → LIABILITY → REMEDY

One-line exam answer

“In Europe, AI-generated commercial content is generally assessed under the same substantive civil, copyright, consumer and data-protection principles applicable to other commercial content, with the AI Act and DSA adding specific transparency and platform obligations.”

Available next action: Create a downloadable PDF file here in this chat containing the findings and recommendations above