Home/EU AI Act Guide/Provider or Deployer
Article 3(3) & Article 50(1)

EU AI Act for hotels:
are you the provider or the deployer of your guest assistant?

Whose duty is the AI disclosure in a guest chat? The name on the chat window decides.

By Andreas Donner·September 2026·5 min read

Since 2 August 2026, a guest talking to an AI assistant has to be able to tell that it is a machine.

Article 50(1) of the EU AI Act places that duty on the provider of the system, not on whoever merely uses it. The exception covers what is already obvious to a reasonably well-informed person from the circumstances.

The test question: whose name is on the chat window?

Under Article 3(3), a provider is whoever develops an AI system, or has one developed, and puts it into service under its own name or trademark. A deployer is whoever uses a system under its own authority without providing it in that sense.

SituationLikely classificationWhat follows
A concierge assistant called "Ask Anna" on the house's own website, built or adapted by an agency and switched on under the house's nameThe house is providing the systemThe disclosure "you are talking to an AI" is the house's own duty
A standard widget running under the manufacturer's nameThe house is a deployerThe disclosure sits with the manufacturer; the house checks that it is actually visible in the chat window

Most houses have never checked which of the two applies to them. It is rarely written down, and it tends to be decided by whoever chose the assistant's name.

Four questions hotels ask

Does this apply equally to the website assistant and the one on WhatsApp?

The duty does not depend on the channel but on whether a guest speaks directly to an AI system. Website chat, messenger and phone announcements are each looked at separately.

Is a note in the imprint or privacy notice enough?

The duty aims at the guest being able to recognise it during the conversation. A note elsewhere is therefore weak protection. What matters is what the guest sees in the chat window.

Does the "obvious" exception apply to an assistant with a human first name?

A human first name, a photo or a natural conversational tone argue against it being obvious. Anyone relying on the exception should be able to justify it in writing.

Who in the house should settle this?

Whoever selected or named the assistant knows the contract path to the agency or manufacturer. The classification should be written down once, with a date.

Your assistant, one page

Tell us which assistants your guests can reach and under which names they appear. We will send back one page setting out, for each, which of the two cases it most likely is and what follows from that.

Orientation, not legal advice. Scope: EU. For a binding interpretation in an individual case, take legal advice.

AD

Andreas Donner

Founder, peakcareai.com · 25+ years in luxury hotel project development and construction worldwide.

Whoever chose your assistant's name made a legal classification without knowing it.

Tell us which assistants your guests can reach — we send back one page per assistant.