If you use an AI email assistant to respond to customer emails, specific transparency requirements apply. Under the EU AI Act and the GDPR, in most cases you must inform customers that they are communicating with an AI system, and you must be able to explain how that system makes decisions. In this article, we answer the most frequently asked questions about transparency in AI-powered email processing.
What laws impose transparency requirements on AI email systems?
AI systems that respond to customer emails are primarily governed by two European laws: the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) and the GDPR. The AI Act imposes transparency obligations on both providers and users of AI systems, depending on the risk level. The GDPR applies as soon as the system processes personal data, which is almost always the case with customer emails.
The EU AI Act took effect on August 1, 2024, but the requirements will be phased in. As of February 2, 2025, the prohibitions on manipulative AI practices and the requirement for AI literacy within your organization will already apply. Most of the requirements for high-risk systems will become enforceable as of August 2, 2026. This means that, as an organization, you must take action now to ensure you are compliant in a timely manner.
In addition to the AI Act and the GDPR, sector-specific regulations may apply, such as the Telecommunications Act, Wft regulations in the financial sector, or Wmo guidelines in the healthcare sector. These laws may impose additional disclosure requirements on top of the European frameworks.
Should customers know that an AI is responding to their emails?
Yes, in most cases, customers need to know that an AI is responding to their email. The EU AI Act requires providers and users of low- and high-risk AI systems to inform people when they are interacting with an AI. This certainly applies when the AI’s response is phrased in a way that mimics human communication.
This obligation does not apply only when the AI responds completely on its own. Even if an AI drafts a message that an employee sends with minimal changes, there may be a situation in which transparency is appropriate or even required. The line is drawn at systems that are deliberately designed to appear human without the recipient’s knowledge.
Exceptions may apply when the AI nature of the communication is obvious to the recipient, or when the messages are purely administrative, such as a confirmation of receipt. In cases of doubt, it is wise to make transparency the default. This protects you legally and strengthens customer trust.
What should a transparency statement for AI-based email processing include?
A transparency statement for AI-based email processing must clearly inform customers about the use of AI, the nature of the processing, and their rights. The statement does not need to be technical, but it must be understandable and comprehensive enough to meet the obligation to provide information.
Based on the AI Act and the GDPR, a good transparency statement must include at least the following elements:
- Identification of the AI system: a clear description of what the system does and what it is used for
- Purpose of the processing: Why AI is used to respond to customer emails
- Human oversight: whether and how an employee reviews the AI responses before they are sent
- Processing of Personal Data: What Data Is Processed, on What Legal Basis, and How Long It Is Retained
- Rights of the data subject: the right to access, correct, and delete data, and, in the case of high-risk AI, the right to an explanation of the factors determining a decision (Article 86 of the AI Act)
- Contact Information: How Customers Can Contact Us with Questions or Concerns
Make sure the transparency statement is easy to find, for example, in your privacy policy and in the footer of automated emails. A brief note in the email itself, such as “This message was generated using AI and reviewed by a staff member,” is a simple and effective addition.
What are the risks of non-compliance with AI transparency rules?
Failure to comply with AI transparency rules can result in significant fines, reputational damage, and a loss of customer trust. The AI Act features a tiered fine structure: non-compliance with most obligations can result in fines of up to 15 million euros or 3% of global annual revenue, whichever is higher.
In addition to financial risks, there are also operational and reputational risks. Customers who discover that they were communicating with AI without realizing it may perceive this as misleading. This can lead to complaints, negative publicity, and customer churn. Especially in sectors where trust is paramount—such as healthcare, finance, and government—transparency is not an option but a prerequisite.
Supervision and enforcement are the responsibility of national market surveillance authorities. In January 2026, Finland became the first Member State to officially grant enforcement powers to its authority. Other countries are following suit. It is therefore realistic to expect that enforcement will become increasingly active in 2026 and beyond.
How does the transparency requirement vary by sector?
The basic obligations under the AI Act and the GDPR apply to all sectors, but the level of compliance and additional requirements vary significantly. In regulated sectors, transparency requirements are stricter and are sometimes supplemented by sector-specific legislation.
Financial Services and Insurance
In the financial sector, in addition to the AI Act, the Wft and European regulations such as MiFID II also apply. When an AI-based email system is involved in decisions regarding creditworthiness, insurance, or investments, it quickly falls under the high-risk category of the AI Act (Annex III). In such cases, customers have an explicit right to an explanation of the factors that determined the decision.
Health Care and Government
In the healthcare sector and within government agencies, the sensitivity of personal data is particularly high. A DPIA (Data Protection Impact Assessment) is almost always required when implementing AI-powered email systems. In addition, patients and citizens have higher expectations regarding the transparency and traceability of automated communications.
How do you implement AI transparency in an existing email system?
You can implement AI transparency step by step by first identifying which AI systems you’re already using, then updating your documentation and customer communications, and finally setting up processes for human oversight and logging. This doesn’t have to be a major undertaking if you approach it in a structured way.
A practical approach consists of the following steps:
- Take inventory of your AI systems: document which systems you use, what their role is (provider or deployer), and what risk level applies
- Update your privacy policy: Add a clear description of how AI is used in customer communications
- Add an AI notice to emails: In many cases, a short sentence in the footer is sufficient
- Establish human oversight: assign qualified staff to monitor AI responses and ensure they are properly trained
- Retain logs: As a deployer, you are required to retain logs for at least six months
- Train your employees: the AI literacy requirement (Article 4 of the AI Act) has been in effect since February 2025
Also verify that your AI email system provider is fulfilling its obligations as a service provider. This includes technical documentation, a user manual, and a design that allows for human oversight. As the deployer, you share responsibility for ensuring the system is used correctly in accordance with those instructions.
How Pegamento Helps Ensure AI Transparency in Customer Communications
We understand that navigating AI regulations can be complex, especially when you’re also looking to improve the quality of your customer interactions. Our Agentic AI for customer service was developed with transparency and human oversight as its guiding principles. Agentic AI is the evolution of traditional RPA: whereas executive bots follow instructions, self-thinking AI assistants take the initiative independently and act proactively, while human oversight remains guaranteed.
Here’s what we specifically offer to organizations that want to implement transparent AI-powered email processing:
- Customized solutions using standard building blocks, without costly customization
- Built-in logging and audit trails that comply with the retention requirement of at least six months
- Assistance with drafting transparency statements and privacy documentation
- Human oversight as a standard part of the process, not an afterthought
- Everything under one roof: from implementation to management and support, without complex supplier structures
- ISO 27001-certified information security as a foundation, supplemented by ISO 9001 and ISO 26000
Would you like to know how to set up AI-powered email processing in a compliant and effective way within your organization? Contact us, and we’d be happy to help you figure it out.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the transparency requirement also apply if the AI is used solely internally to sort or prioritize customer emails?
If the AI is used exclusively for sorting or prioritizing emails internally without responding on its own, the direct obligation to inform customers is less strict. However, the GDPR may still apply as soon as the system processes personal data, which is almost always the case when analyzing customer emails. In that case, you are required to state in your privacy policy that you use AI for internal email processing. If in doubt, consult a legal advisor, especially if the system affects the processing time or priority of customer requests.
What is the difference between a 'provider' and a 'deployer' under the AI Act, and what obligations apply to me?
A provider is the party that develops and markets the AI system, while a deployer is the organization that actually uses the system for a specific purpose, such as responding to customer emails. If your organization uses a ready-made AI email system from a supplier, you are the deployer. As a deployer, you are responsible for using the system correctly in accordance with the provider’s instructions, establishing human oversight, retaining logs, and informing customers. So always verify that your AI provider is fulfilling its obligations as a provider, because as a deployer, you are jointly liable for any incorrect use.
How specific does the AI disclosure in an email need to be? Is a short sentence in the footer sufficient?
In many cases, a short, clear sentence in the footer is sufficient, such as: 'This message was generated using AI and reviewed by a staff member.' The notice must be understandable to the average recipient and must not be hidden in the fine print. For high-risk applications, such as AI systems involved in credit or healthcare decisions, more detailed explanations and actively highlighting the right to an explanation are mandatory. Always combine the footer notice with a more detailed description in your privacy policy to ensure full compliance.
What should I do if a customer asks for an explanation of how the AI arrived at a particular answer or decision?
Under Article 86 of the AI Act, data subjects affected by high-risk AI systems have the right to a comprehensible explanation of the main factors that led to a decision. As a deployer, you must be able to respond to this request, which means you must have access to logs and your employees must be sufficiently AI-literate to provide the explanation. Therefore, ensure that your AI vendor provides transparency regarding decision-making logic as standard and that this is stipulated in your data processing agreement. Establish an internal procedure for handling such requests, similar to how you handle GDPR access requests.
How long do I need to retain logs from AI-powered email processing, and what exactly must those logs contain?
The AI Act requires deployers to retain logs of high-risk AI systems for at least six months, unless other legislation mandates a longer retention period. The logs must contain sufficient information to allow for the retrospective reconstruction of which AI decisions were made, when human oversight took place, and what data was processed. Ensure that your data processing agreement with your AI vendor explicitly specifies who is responsible for creating and retaining these logs. Combine this with your GDPR obligations regarding retention periods for personal data to avoid conflicting timeframes.
Do I need to conduct a DPIA before implementing an AI-powered email system?
A DPIA (Data Protection Impact Assessment) is required under the GDPR when processing is likely to pose a high risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects. AI systems that process personal data on a large scale or that make automated decisions with significant consequences for customers almost always fall under this category. In the healthcare sector and at government agencies, a DPIA is practically always required for AI email systems. Conduct the DPIA before the system goes live, involve your Data Protection Officer (DPO), and document the results and measures taken in writing.
What are the most common mistakes organizations make when implementing AI transparency in customer communications?
The most common mistakes are: including the transparency statement only in the privacy policy without actively drawing customers’ attention to it; arranging for human oversight on paper but failing to implement it in practice; and forgetting to train employees in AI literacy, even though this has been mandatory since February 2025. Another common mistake is failing to verify whether the AI vendor itself is meeting its obligations as a provider, such as preparing technical documentation. Start with an honest assessment of your current situation and address the most obvious risks—such as missing notifications in emails and insufficient logging—first.
