As the European Union prepares to roll out its landmark AI Act this August, a significant ripple of anxiety has emerged among the continent’s retail and wholesale giants. EuroCommerce, an influential industry body representing household names like H&M and Ikea, has recently signaled serious concerns regarding how the new regulations—specifically those concerning “deep fakes”—will be interpreted and applied. At the heart of their apprehension is a fear that the current definition of AI-manipulated content is far too broad. While the primary goal of the legislation is to curb deceptive practices, retailers worry that the current legal framework fails to distinguish between malicious digital impersonations and the standard, benign creative enhancements that have become the backbone of modern digital marketing.
The core of the issue lies in the Act’s transparency requirements, which mandate that companies explicitly label AI-generated or altered audio and visual content. EuroCommerce is not challenging the need for transparency; in fact, the group agrees that consumers deserve protection against deceptive AI. However, they argue that without clear, contextualized guidelines from the European Commission, businesses will be forced to apply “deep fake” labels to virtually all of their digital assets. If every minor edit—from color-correcting a piece of clothing to digitally staging a virtual living room—requires a formal disclosure, these warnings will lose their intended meaning, leaving customers overwhelmed by constant notices that offer no real value.
In a recent letter to the European Commission, EuroCommerce Director General Christel Delberghe made the case for a more nuanced approach. The group is urging regulators to formally differentiate between “materially misleading” AI content and “ordinary commercial content” used for aesthetic presentation. The latter, they argue, is a routine part of modern commerce, intended to showcase products in the best light rather than to deceive or impersonate real people. By failing to draw a line between a maliciously deep-faked video and a tastefully enhanced image of a sofa, the commission risks unintentionally penalizing legitimate businesses while simultaneously creating “disclosure fatigue” among the very consumers they are trying to protect.
The downstream consequences of this regulatory ambiguity are not merely administrative; they threaten to cause significant legal and operational headaches for retailers. If the threshold for what constitutes a “deep fake” remains undefined or overly aggressive, companies will face profound legal uncertainty. They will be forced to choose between the risk of non-compliance and the burden of labeling every minor graphic edit, a choice that could lead to inconsistent application across the EU market. Furthermore, indiscriminate labeling could inadvertently erode consumer trust, turning an important transparency tool into “digital noise” that shoppers eventually learn to ignore or distrust, thereby undermining the very purpose of the legislation.
EuroCommerce emphasizes that the spirit of the AI Act should focus on protecting fundamental rights and preventing impersonation, not on policing creative marketing materials. Their appeal to Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen is a request for common sense: acknowledge that the retail sector uses AI as a precision tool for style and functionality rather than deception. By setting clear, pragmatic thresholds for these disclosures, the Commission has an opportunity to ensure the regulations remain targeted and effective. Protecting the consumer should not come at the cost of crippling the daily creative workflows of the retail industry, which has long relied on visual enhancement to communicate the value and aesthetic of its products.
Ultimately, the dialogue between EuroCommerce and the European Commission reflects the broader growing pains of a digital society rushing to regulate powerful new technologies. As the August deadline approaches, the industry is calling for a collaborative path forward—one that values technological transparency without stifling the creative and commercial processes that keep European retail vibrant. If the Commission listens to these concerns and introduces the necessary distinctions, it can safeguard the integrity of the AI Act while preventing the unnecessary red tape that would otherwise stifle growth. Clear communication and thoughtful categorization will be essential to ensuring that these new laws serve both the public interest and the businesses that fuel the European economy.