Should SEO articles written with AI be labelled?
When an AI-assisted SEO article needs labelling, how the editorial-control exception works and what Google requires from generative content.
AI ACT · SEO AND TRANSPARENCY
The correct answer is neither “yes, every text AI touched” nor “no, if a human publishes it”. Article 50’s legal duty, Google policy and the editorial promise made to readers must be assessed separately.
Three different questions, three answers
The first question is legal: does the text fall under Article 50(4)? The second is technical and SEO-related: does it comply with Google’s useful-content and scaled-content-abuse policies? The third is editorial: does the reader need context on how it was created? One badge does not automatically solve all three. [EU-A50] [G-AI] [G-SPAM]
Start by establishing what the system did. Assisted research, transcription, structuring, proofreading and full generation are not the same. Commission guidance excludes certain standard editing functions from technical marking, while Google recommends explaining automation in a way meaningful to the audience rather than applying one formula mechanically. [EU-A50] [EU-A50-G] [G-AI]
When Article 50(4) concerns a text
The deployer duty concerns AI-generated or manipulated text published to inform the public about matters of public interest. The Commission explains three cumulative criteria: the text is published, informs the public and concerns a public-interest matter, which may include economic, financial, scientific or cultural developments relevant to public debate. [EU-REG] [EU-A50]
Not every SEO-optimised page meets those criteria. A commercial service description, product FAQ and analysis of consumer safety have different purposes and effects. The label “SEO article” does not determine the outcome; what the text communicates and why it is published do. [EU-A50]
The exception requires genuine editorial control
Published text does not require this label where it has undergone human review or editorial control and a person or entity holds editorial responsibility. Human review means deliberate examination of substance by people with relevant knowledge and professional judgement; editorial control requires real authority to approve, change or reject the content. [EU-REG] [EU-A50] [EU-A50-G]
Grammar correction, clicking “approve” or quickly reading a headline is not enough. For an article on the AI Act, health, finance or consumer safety, the editor should verify claims, sources, dates, context and limits. Evidence may include a checklist, versions, comments and named approval. [EU-A50] [G-AI]
Google does not ban AI-assisted content
Google says generative AI can be useful for research and structuring original content. The test is whether a page provides accuracy, quality, relevance and user value. Using automation to generate many pages without added value may violate the scaled content abuse policy, regardless of whether AI, people or a combination produced the text. [G-AI] [G-SPAM]
An “AI-generated” label does not turn weak material into useful content, and the absence of a label does not prove quality. Google also calls for accuracy in titles, meta descriptions, structured data and image alt text. Direct publishing automation must control those elements as well as the article body. [G-AI]
A decision tree for editors
For each item, ask in order: was there substantive generation or manipulation? Is the text published to inform the public? Is the subject a matter of public interest? Was there substantive human review or real editorial control? Does a person or entity hold editorial responsibility? If the first three answers are yes and the last two are no, Article 50(4) labelling becomes relevant. [EU-A50] [EU-A50-G]
Separately, ask whether readers would benefit from a voluntary method note even when the legal exception is met. For an experiment, benchmark or high-volume material, editorial transparency can build trust. The note should state the roles of AI and editor concretely rather than display a defensive slogan. [G-AI]
An operating model for an SEO agency or SaaS
In an AYSA.RO workflow, AI may support research, outlining and checks, while an editor confirms sources, adds client experience, corrects conclusions and approves the final version. For AYSA.AI, the recommended model keeps draft status, sources, changes and user approval visible and auditable before publication. [EU-A50] [G-AI]
This is a control model, not a claim that any product with an approval button automatically meets the exception. Review quality is shown by what the reviewer can change, their competence, available time and retained evidence. Good automation reduces mechanical work without hiding responsibility. [EU-A50] [EU-A50-G]