Table of Contents

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less.

  /

  / Vanta Implementation Checklist for Your First Audit

Vanta Implementation Checklist for Your First Audit

Most companies configure Vanta backwards. They connect integrations first, watch tests turn green, and only then ask which framework they are actually being audited against. By the time the auditor asks for the observation window start date, half the account needs to be rebuilt. The order you set things up in Vanta matters almost as much as what you set up, and getting it wrong costs weeks you do not have before a first audit.

This checklist walks through the sequence that actually holds up under audit: the decisions to make before you touch the platform, the sequence of configuration inside it, and the final readiness checks before you hand the account to an auditor.

Vanta Implementation Checklist

Why a Vanta Implementation Checklist Matters Before Your First Audit

Vanta is compliance automation software, not a compliance program. It monitors, syncs, and flags. It does not decide your scope, pick your framework, or tell you when your observation window can safely begin. Those calls are yours, and if you make them after connecting integrations rather than before, you end up rescoping mid-implementation, which resets test history and pushes your audit timeline back by weeks.

A first-time implementation typically runs six to twelve weeks from account creation to a fully passing test suite, depending on how much of the underlying control environment already existed. Companies that skip the pre-implementation planning stage and jump straight into connecting AWS and Okta tend to discover, three weeks in, that half their integrations are out of scope, their policies do not match their actual operations, and their observation window needs to restart.

Ready for your first audit?

Get audit-ready with expert Vanta implementation support.

Pre-Implementation: Foundational Decisions to Make First

Define Your Target Framework (e.g., SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA)

Every downstream Vanta setting, from which integrations you connect to which policies you publish, depends on the framework you are pursuing. SOC 2 Type II evaluates your controls against the AICPA’s five Trust Services Criteria, security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy, with security as the only mandatory category. ISO 27001 asks you to build a full Information Security Management System (ISMS) under a structured set of clauses, backed by a broader set of technical, physical, and organizational controls in Annex A. HIPAA and PCI DSS bring their own control sets tied to specific data types, protected health information and cardholder data, respectively.

If your customers are asking for a specific report, let that drive the decision rather than defaulting to whichever framework has the most templates in Vanta’s library. A fintech company with enterprise banking customers may need SOC 2 first and PCI DSS second. A healthcare SaaS vendor almost always needs HIPAA regardless of what else it pursues. Mapping frameworks to actual customer and contractual requirements before configuration saves you from scoping controls you will never use.

Important: Choosing multiple frameworks at once is common, but sequencing them wrong creates duplicate work. Configure your primary framework fully, get through a full observation cycle if pursuing Type II, and add secondary frameworks once your evidence collection habits are established. Vanta will map shared controls across frameworks automatically, but only once both are active in the account.

Set Your Audit Timeline and Observation Window

If you are pursuing SOC 2 Type I, there is no observation window. The audit evaluates whether your controls are designed correctly as of a single point in time, and you can move to audit as soon as your tests pass. SOC 2 Type II is different: the observation window, also called the audit window or monitoring period, is the span during which the auditor samples evidence to confirm your controls actually operated, not just that they existed on paper. For a first Type II audit, a three to six month window is standard. Mature organizations settling into an annual cadence typically move to a full twelve-month window once they have proven consistent operation.

Do not start the observation window until you are confident your controls are actually running as designed. Auditors can sample any event from the first day of the window forward, and a control failure in week two of a six-month window is just as damaging to your report as one in week twenty. This is the single most common timeline mistake first-time customers make in Vanta: they start the clock the day they finish connecting integrations, before policies are published, before HR sync is confirmed, and before access reviews have actually happened once.

Identify Internal Owners and Stakeholders

Every control needs a named owner inside Vanta, not a department. “Engineering” is not a control owner. The engineering manager who reviews production access quarterly is. Before you start configuring, map out who owns identity and access management, who owns vendor risk, who owns HR onboarding and offboarding, and who owns policy publication and employee acknowledgment. If your organization is small enough that one person wears several of these hats, that is fine, but it needs to be explicit in the tool, because Vanta’s task assignments and reminder emails route based on these ownership fields.

Choose Your Auditor Before You Configure Vanta

Auditor selection affects configuration choices that are expensive to reverse. Different CPA firms and ISO certification bodies have different tolerances for exceptions, different expectations around evidence formatting, and different preferences on how granular your control mapping should be. Get your auditor engaged, or at minimum shortlisted, before you finalize your framework scope and observation window in Vanta. Some firms will do a pre-audit readiness call that surfaces scoping issues Vanta’s automated checks will not catch, like whether a particular subprocessor needs to be in scope.

Step 1: Configure Company Settings in Vanta

Add Company Details and Business Information

Start with the basics: legal entity name, headquarters address, description of the service you provide, and the systems that process customer data. This becomes the backbone of your system description, the narrative document that accompanies your SOC 2 report and explains what your company does and how the in-scope systems support it. Getting this wrong early means rewriting the system description later, which auditors will flag as a scope change.

Assign Admin Roles and User Permissions

Set up role-based access inside Vanta itself before inviting a wider group of employees. Admin access should go to the small group of people responsible for the overall implementation, typically someone from security or IT leadership plus whoever owns compliance operations. Contributor-level access, limited to specific controls or tasks, should go to control owners identified in the pre-implementation phase. Over-permissioned access inside your compliance tool is its own finding waiting to happen.

Set Your Audit Type and Reporting Period

Confirm inside Vanta whether you are configuring for Type I or Type II, and if Type II, enter the observation window dates you settled on in the pre-implementation stage. This setting drives which evidence collection cadence Vanta applies and when it starts flagging tests as failing versus simply not-yet-configured.

Step 2: Connect Integrations and Define Scope

Identify In-Scope Systems, Cloud Accounts, and Repositories

Before connecting anything, list every cloud account, code repository, identity provider, and SaaS tool that touches customer data or the infrastructure that processes it. Separate this list into in-scope and out-of-scope categories with a documented rationale for each exclusion. A dev sandbox with no production data flowing through it might reasonably sit outside scope. A staging environment that mirrors production data usually should not.

Connect Core Integrations (Cloud, Identity, MDM)

Connect your cloud provider, whether AWS, GCP, or Azure, your identity provider such as Okta, Google Workspace, or Azure AD, your HR system, your task tracker like Jira or Asana, and your mobile device management tool in that order. Cloud and identity integrations feed the largest share of automated tests, so getting those connected and syncing correctly early gives you the longest runway to catch and fix configuration issues before the observation window starts.

Pro Tip: Connect integrations in a dedicated Vanta

Connect integrations in a dedicated Vanta project or sandbox pass first if you have a complex multi-account cloud setup. Validate that Vanta is reading the correct accounts before committing to the observation window start date. A misconfigured integration that silently excludes a production AWS account from monitoring is far harder to catch after the fact than before.

Exclude Out-of-Scope Resources

Vanta will pull in every resource an integration can see by default. Use the scoping and exclusion settings to remove systems that fall outside your defined boundary from the pre-implementation stage. Skipping this step is one of the fastest ways to fail tests for systems that were never supposed to be in scope in the first place, which inflates your remediation backlog with work you do not actually need to do.

Validate Data Sync and Test Results

Give each integration 24 to 48 hours to fully sync, then review the initial test results. Do not assume a green checkmark means the integration is reading everything correctly. Spot-check a sample of resources against what you know exists in the underlying system. A common failure mode is an integration connecting with read permissions too narrow to see the full resource inventory, which produces a passing test on an incomplete dataset.

Step 3: Set Up Personnel and HR Sync

Import Your Employee Roster

Connect your HR system so Vanta has an authoritative source for who is employed, in what role, and since when. This roster underpins background check tracking, training completion, and access review scoping.

Map Roles, Groups, and Contractors

Distinguish full-time employees from contractors, since some frameworks apply different requirements to each. Group employees by department or access tier so that later steps, particularly access reviews and training assignment, can be scoped efficiently rather than applied as one flat list.

Configure Onboarding and Offboarding Workflows

This is one of the most heavily sampled control areas in any audit. Auditors routinely pull a sample of terminated employees and check whether access was revoked within the policy-defined window, often 24 hours. Configure Vanta’s offboarding workflow to actually trigger deprovisioning tasks, not just log that an employee left. A workflow that only notifies IT without enforcing a deadline will still show gaps when sampled.

Step 4: Deploy Endpoint Monitoring (MDM) Across Devices

Enroll Company-Owned and BYOD Devices

Every device that accesses in-scope systems needs to be enrolled in your MDM tool and connected to Vanta. This includes personal devices under a BYOD policy if those devices can reach production systems or customer data. Devices that fall outside monitoring but still have access represent an unmonitored path into your environment, and auditors will ask about exactly this gap.

Confirm Encryption, Screen Lock, and Antivirus Checks Pass

Once devices are enrolled, Vanta checks disk encryption, screen lock timeout, and antivirus status automatically. Run this before the observation window opens, not during it, since fixing a non-compliant device mid-window still leaves a gap in the evidence trail for the days it was out of compliance.

Step 5: Upload and Customize Policies

Use Vanta’s Policy Templates as a Starting Point

Vanta’s template library covers the standard set: information security policy, access control policy, incident response plan, business continuity plan, and others tied to your selected framework. Start from these rather than drafting from scratch, but treat them as a first draft, not a final document. The NIST Cybersecurity Framework is a useful cross-reference when tailoring policy scope to real operational risks.

Tailor Policies to Your Business Operations

Generic templates describe generic companies. If your incident response policy references an escalation process your team does not actually follow, that mismatch becomes a finding the moment an auditor asks you to walk through a real incident. Edit every policy so it reflects what your team actually does, not what would look good on paper.

Insider Note: Auditors read policies and then interview staff to see if practice matches the document. A polished policy that nobody on the team can describe accurately is a worse outcome than a simpler policy everyone actually follows. Keep the language close to how your team really operates.

Publish Policies and Assign Employee Acknowledgments

Once finalized, publish policies through Vanta and assign acknowledgment tasks to all relevant employees. Track completion before the observation window starts, since unacknowledged policies at the start of the window suggest the policy was not actually in effect from day one.

Step 6: Complete Security Training Setup

Enable Vanta’s Built-in Training Modules

Vanta includes built-in security awareness training covering general security hygiene, and role-specific modules for engineers handling code and infrastructure. Enable the modules relevant to your framework and assign them by role or department.

Track Completion Across All Personnel

Set a completion deadline and monitor the dashboard rather than assuming reminder emails alone will drive completion. Training completion is a near-universal sampling target in audits, and a handful of stragglers at the end of the observation window is a common, easily avoidable finding. The Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report consistently ties a significant share of incidents to the human element, which is exactly why auditors weight this so heavily.

Step 7: Configure Access Reviews

Map Critical Systems Requiring Access Review

Identify every system where access grants matter, cloud infrastructure, code repositories, customer databases, and internal admin tools, and confirm each is connected so Vanta can pull current access lists automatically.

Set Review Cadence and Reviewers

Quarterly access reviews are the common baseline for most frameworks, though some organizations run them more frequently for highly sensitive systems. Assign a specific reviewer, generally the system owner or manager, rather than routing all reviews to a single security team member who lacks context on who should actually have access to each tool.

Step 8: Run a Risk Assessment

Complete Vanta’s Risk Assessment Workflow

Work through Vanta’s guided risk assessment to build out your risk register, identifying threats to confidentiality, integrity, and availability across your systems and rating likelihood and impact for each.

Document Risk Treatments and Mitigations

For every identified risk, document whether you are mitigating, accepting, transferring, or avoiding it, and what specific control addresses it. An unresolved risk with no documented treatment plan is one of the more common gaps auditors flag, since it suggests the assessment was completed as a checkbox exercise rather than an operational one.

Step 9: Set Up Vendor Management

Import Your Vendor Inventory

List every third-party vendor that has access to your systems or processes customer data on your behalf, from cloud infrastructure providers to smaller SaaS tools used by individual teams.

Categorize Vendors by Risk Tier

Not every vendor warrants the same scrutiny. A payroll processor handling employee financial data carries different risk than a project management tool with no access to customer data. Tier vendors by the sensitivity of what they access, and apply a proportionate level of due diligence to each tier.

Upload Vendor SOC 2 Reports and DPAs

For higher-tier vendors, collect their own SOC 2 reports and data processing agreements (DPAs) and upload them into Vanta. This is part of third-party risk management, often abbreviated TPRM, and demonstrates that your vendor oversight is not just a spreadsheet nobody revisits.

Step 10: Address Vulnerabilities and Infrastructure Monitoring

Review Automated Vulnerability Findings

Once your cloud and code repository integrations are connected, Vanta surfaces vulnerability findings automatically. Review these on a set cadence rather than letting them accumulate silently in the background. Cross-referencing findings against the National Vulnerability Database helps triage severity when Vanta’s default ratings feel too generic for your environment.

Remediate or Document Exceptions

Fix what you can fix. For findings that cannot be resolved immediately, whether due to a vendor patch not being available or a business dependency on a legacy configuration, document a formal exception with a rationale and a target remediation date. An undocumented, unaddressed critical vulnerability sitting in the account when the observation window opens is one of the more damaging findings an auditor can surface.

Step 11: Map Frameworks and Controls

Select Your Framework(s) in Vanta

With the foundational work done, formally select your framework or frameworks inside Vanta’s control mapping interface. This activates the specific control set your tests, policies, and evidence will be evaluated against.

Review Auto-Mapped Controls

Vanta auto-maps your connected integrations and completed tasks to relevant controls, but the mapping is not always perfect for edge cases specific to your environment. Review the full control list rather than assuming automation caught everything correctly.

Assign Control Owners

Every control needs a named owner responsible for keeping the underlying evidence current. This should map back to the stakeholder list built during pre-implementation, not be assigned arbitrarily at this later stage.

Step 12: Upload Supporting Documents and Manual Evidence

Identify Controls Requiring Manual Evidence

Some controls cannot be automatically monitored through an integration, board meeting minutes demonstrating security oversight, for example, or a signed business associate agreement. Identify these early rather than discovering them during the audit itself.

Upload Historical Documentation

If you have documentation predating your Vanta implementation that demonstrates a control was already in place, upload it. This can extend your effective evidence trail backward and, in some cases, support starting your observation window earlier than the date you connected Vanta.

Step 13: Add Your Auditor to Vanta

Send an Auditor Invitation

Once your account is substantially configured and tests are passing, invite your chosen auditor into Vanta with the appropriate access level. This gives them direct visibility into evidence rather than requiring manual exports.

Preview What Your Auditor Will See

Before sending the invitation, review the account from an outside perspective. Check that the system description is accurate, that excluded resources have documented rationale, and that no stale test failures are sitting unaddressed.

Confirm the Audit Workflow

Align with your auditor on how they intend to work inside Vanta versus requesting documents outside it, and confirm the expected timeline for fieldwork once your observation window closes or, for Type I, once your tests are passing.

Ready for your first audit?

Get audit-ready with expert Vanta implementation support.

Final Pre-Audit Readiness Checklist

Verify All Tests Are Passing (or Documented Exceptions)

A test failure with no documented exception looks like negligence to an auditor. A test failure with a documented exception, a remediation plan, and a target date looks like an organization that understands its own risk posture. Close this gap before the audit starts, not during it.

Confirm Observation Window Start Date

Double-check that the observation window dates configured in Vanta match what you agreed with your auditor. A mismatch here creates confusion during fieldwork that is entirely avoidable with a five-minute check beforehand.

Freeze Scope Changes Before the Window Opens

Avoid adding major new systems, vendors, or infrastructure changes right before the observation window opens. Scope changes reset evidence history for the affected controls and can undermine the continuity an auditor is looking for.

Common Setup Mistakes to Avoid Before Your First Audit

The mistake that costs the most time is starting the observation window before policies are published and acknowledged. The second most common is connecting every available integration without excluding out-of-scope resources, which inflates the remediation backlog with irrelevant work. A close third is assigning control ownership to departments instead of named individuals, which leaves nobody accountable when evidence goes stale. Each of these is avoidable with the sequencing outlined above: decisions before configuration, configuration before scope, scope before the observation window.

Getting the Vanta implementation right before your first audit is less about mastering every setting in the platform and more about making the right decisions in the right order. Frameworks, timelines, and ownership come first. Integrations, policies, and evidence collection follow. The observation window opens only once the underlying controls are actually operating, not just configured. Companies that follow this sequence walk into their first audit with a clean test suite and a clear story, instead of a scramble to explain gaps that a different order of operations would have prevented.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does a Vanta implementation take before the first audit?

Most first-time implementations take six to twelve weeks to get from initial configuration to a fully passing test suite, not counting the observation window itself for a Type II audit. Organizations with an existing, mature control environment can move faster; those building controls from scratch should expect the longer end of that range.

Technically yes, but it is not advisable. Any test failing at the start of the window represents a control gap the auditor can sample against for the full duration. Most organizations wait until the test suite is fully green, or has only documented exceptions, before starting the clock.

Axipro Author

Picture of Pedro Dias

Pedro Dias

Pedro has been writing online for over 10 years. With experience in all things programming, cyber security, and compliance, he is our editor-in-chief at Axipro.

Blog Highlights

Explore More Articles

SOC 2 and ISO 27001 Engagement

After a SOC 2 and ISO 27001 engagement, there are two documents out of the whole pile that actually close deals: the SOC 2 attestation report and the ISO 27001 certificate. Everything else your engagement produces exists to create those two, support them, or keep them alive for another year. Companies routinely ask their auditor for a SOC 2 certificate, which doesn’t exist. They send a prospect their full ISMS documentation when a one-page certificate would have done. They pay for six months of readiness work and then can’t say what they’re holding at the end of it. So here’s the full list. What a SOC 2 engagement produces, what an ISO 27001 engagement produces, what a combined program produces, and who gets to see each one. Understanding SOC 2 and ISO 27001 Engagement Outputs The Core Difference: Report vs. Certificate SOC 2 is an attestation. A licensed CPA firm examines your controls against the Trust Services Criteria under standards set by the AICPA, then writes up what it found and signs an opinion. No certificate. No logo from the AICPA. No pass or fail stamp. What you get is the report, and it usually runs 60 to 120 pages. ISO 27001 is a certification. An accredited certification body audits your Information Security Management System (ISMS) against ISO/IEC 27001:2022, and if you conform, it issues a certificate of registration. The certificate itself is a page or two. All the detail lives behind it, in your ISMS documentation and the audit reports the certification body writes as it goes. SOC 2 Engagement Deliverables The SOC 2 Attestation Report The report is the engagement. The AICPA’s illustrative SOC 2 report lays out the standard structure: auditor’s report, management’s assertion, system description, the Trust Services Criteria in scope, and the controls tested with their results. A Type I covers control design at one point in time. A Type II covers whether those controls actually operated over a period, usually three to twelve months, and most enterprise buyers now won’t accept anything else. Independent Auditor’s Opinion Letter First section of the report, and the first thing anyone experienced turns to. It gives the scope, the examination period, and the auditor’s conclusion. An unqualified opinion means the description held up and the controls worked. A qualified opinion means the auditor found something material, and every serious reviewer will want to talk about it. Management Assertion Your leadership signs a written statement stating that the system description is accurate and that the controls were properly designed and are operating. It reads like a formality, and it isn’t. The auditor’s entire examination runs against what management asserts here, so overstating anything creates real exposure. System Description Usually the longest part of the report, and you write it, not the auditor. It covers the services in scope, your infrastructure, software, people, processes, how data moves, which subservice organizations you depend on, and the complementary user entity controls your customers have to run on their side for your controls to hold up. Trust Services Criteria Applied Security (the Common Criteria) is in every SOC 2. Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy are optional, and the report names exactly which ones you picked. Whatever you decide during scoping ends up printed in a document your customers read for the next several years. Description of Tests of Controls and Results (Type II) The matrix: every control, what the auditor did to test it, and what came back, including exceptions. Reviewers spend most of their time here, because the exceptions tell them things the opinion letter won’t. Bridge Letter / Gap Letter Your report covers a fixed window, so one ending December 31 leaves a hole for a customer doing diligence in June. A bridge letter from your management, not the auditor, confirms that nothing material changed in the control environment between the report’s end date and today. You’ll write these often enough to keep a template. Management Letter and Observations Plenty of auditors also send an internal-only letter covering observations, minor exceptions, and suggestions that never reached the threshold of a qualified opinion. It’s the closest thing to free consulting you’ll get before next year’s audit starts. Insider Note: Ask early whether your auditor issues a management letter, and whether exceptions land in the report body or only in that letter. Firms handle this differently, and the answer decides what your customers see versus what stays behind your firewall. It rarely comes up in the proposal, but it changes how the finished report reads to a buyer. ISO 27001 Engagement Deliverables ISO 27001 Certificate of Registration The document everyone asks for. It names the certified legal entity, states the ISMS scope, identifies the certification body, carries an accreditation mark from a body recognized under the International Accreditation Forum such as UKAS or ANAB, and shows the validity dates. It’s good for three years as long as you pass annual surveillance audits. Read the scope statement carefully, on your own certificate as much as anyone else’s. A certificate covering one office or one product line says nothing about the rest of the business. Statement of Applicability (SoA) After the certificate, this is the document buyers request most. The Statement of Applicability runs through all 93 Annex A controls in ISO/IEC 27001:2022, says which apply to you, justifies the ones you excluded, and records where each stands. Auditors use it as the map of your control environment, and larger customers increasingly want to see it or a summary of it during diligence. Risk Assessment and Risk Treatment Plan Your methodology, the register it produced, and the Risk Treatment Plan showing what you decided to do about each significant risk: mitigate it with a control, transfer it, avoid it, or accept it. ISO 27001 is built around risk, so these documents are what justify every control decision recorded in the SoA. Information Security Management System (ISMS) Documentation The policy and procedure set, plus the operational records that prove any of it happens. Information

The EU AI Act’s transparency requirements take effect on 2 August 2026, and most of the companies they cover still think the rules are not their problem. Article 50 applies to any business that publishes AI-generated content or runs an AI system that talks to people in the EU. That includes the marketing team generating campaign images and the support team running a chatbot. It also covers the AI agents you’ve wired into customer email. Penalties reach €15 million or 3% of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher, and you don’t need an office in Europe to be in scope. If your content or your chatbot reaches EU users, the obligations reach you. In a nutshell: if you publish AI-generated images or video, deploy chatbots or AI agents that interact with EU users, or publish AI-written text on matters of public interest, then yes, the EU AI Act applies, starting 2 August 2026. A quick word on the “AI Act delay” headlines. The Digital Omnibus package did push the high-risk system deadlines back, in some cases by more than a year, but it did not move the deployer obligations in Article 50. Companies that read those headlines and stood down their AI Act work made an expensive mistake, because the rules most likely to touch an ordinary business are the ones that stayed on the calendar. What Article 50 Actually Requires Article 50 of the AI Act sets out transparency obligations in four situations. In plain English: Tell people when they’re talking to AI. Systems designed to interact directly with people — chatbots, voice assistants, and AI agents — must make clear that the user is dealing with AI, unless that’s already obvious. Mark AI-generated content so machines can detect it. Providers of generative AI systems must mark outputs in a machine-readable format, typically through metadata and watermarking, so the content is detectable as artificially generated. Label deepfakes. Anyone deploying AI to generate or manipulate image, audio, or video content that resembles real people, places, objects, or events, and could falsely appear authentic, must disclose that the content is artificial. Label AI-generated text on matters of public interest. Text published to inform the public must carry a label if AI-generated or manipulated, unless a human reviewed it and a person or organization holds editorial responsibility for it. Article 50 also covers emotion recognition and biometric categorization systems, which carry their own disclosure duties. Far fewer businesses run into those, so this article sticks to the four above. The distinction running through all of this is provider vs deployer. The provider builds or supplies the AI system. The deployer uses it professionally. Most companies reading this are deployers. If You Use AI-Generated Images Realistic AI images sit closer to the deepfake rules than most marketing teams assume. The Act’s definition covers content depicting people, objects, places, and events that could falsely appear authentic to a viewer, which describes a large share of what image generators produce for campaigns, social posts, and landing pages. So what does “clearly and distinguishably labeled” mean? The threshold is best described by its failures: a tiny disclosure hidden in the website footer doesn’t qualify. Neither does a faint label on an image, a label that flashes for an instant in a video, or a disclosure buried in your terms and conditions. The label has to be visible right where someone sees the content, and it has to meet accessibility standards so people with disabilities can perceive it too. The Code of Practice proposes a standardized “AI” visual label, localized per language (“KI” in German, “IA” in French). It also draws a useful line between fully AI-generated content and AI-assisted content, with lighter requirements for the latter. A designer who used AI to extend a background is in a different position from a team publishing a fully synthetic image of a person who doesn’t exist. Important: The deepfake duty doesn’t care about intent. A flattering, harmless AI image of your CEO at an event that never happened is still a deepfake under the Act. Marketing teams generate this kind of content casually. From August, every one of those images needs a label. If You Deploy AI Agents or Chatbots The rule itself is simple: people must know they’re dealing with AI. The provider carries the design obligation, but as the deployer you’re the one putting the system in front of your customers, and you’re the one an EU regulator will contact if your branded assistant pretends to be human. The Act contains an exception for cases where it’s “obvious” the user is talking to AI, judged from the perspective of a reasonably well-informed and observant person. Don’t lean on it. What’s obvious to your product team isn’t obvious to every customer, and the human-sounding voice agents and email-writing AI agents rolling out right now are designed specifically to not feel like software. If an AI agent negotiates a renewal over email or handles a support ticket end to end, disclose it. Pro Tip: Put the Disclosure at the Start of the Interaction Put the disclosure at the start of the interaction, in the interface itself: “You’re chatting with an AI assistant.” A line in your privacy policy doesn’t meet the standard, and a disclosure that appears after the conversation ends is worthless. For voice agents, say it up front in the greeting. What Your AI Vendors Owe You The machine-readable marking obligation in Article 50(2) sits with providers — the companies supplying your generative AI tools. The final Code of Practice expects providers to apply at least two layers of marking where necessary, such as embedded metadata combined with watermarking, and to offer detection mechanisms so deployers, authorities, and researchers can verify whether a piece of content came from AI. One timing caveat: the Digital Omnibus gives generative AI systems already on the market before 2 August 2026 until 2 December 2026 to comply with the marking requirement. Every other Article 50 obligation stays on

How Axipro Guided Technovative Solutions & DigiProd Pass to ISO 27001