How to Use Artificial Intelligence Without Violating EU Rules on Visibility and Accuracy

Artificial intelligence is no longer a novelty in the communication strategies of European-funded projects. It’s drafting texts, suggesting headlines, shaping social media posts, summarizing results, and even translating dense project documentation into language that’s more accessible to the public. For teams working under tight budgets and deadlines, AI seems like a logical—even inevitable—tool.

But when it comes to projects funded by the European Union, using AI isn’t just a technical matter. It’s directly tied to the EU’s legally binding rules on visibility and accuracy. Failing to comply can result in financial penalties or sanctions. These rules make no distinction between whether a text was written by a communications expert, an intern, or an algorithm—the responsibility lies squarely with the beneficiary.

EU Visibility: More Than Just a Formal Requirement

EU visibility is often mistaken for a purely visual obligation—a flag, a logo, a short tagline like “Funded by the European Union.” But the philosophy behind the EU’s communication and visibility rules goes much deeper. The funding must be clearly recognizable, understandable, and accurately represented, so that citizens not only know that a given activity was EU-funded, but also why and to what effect.

This is where AI can be genuinely helpful. It simplifies language, structures narratives, and tailors content for different audiences. However, it also comes with a real risk: generative models often overgeneralize, embellish facts, or introduce implied political messages that were never part of the project. And the EU rules are clear—the information must be proportional, accurate, and aligned with the actual scope of funding.

Accuracy: The Weak Spot of AI-Generated Content

Among the EU’s key visibility and accuracy requirements is the use of correct, verified information. That may sound obvious, but it’s where AI most frequently stumbles. AI models don’t know the specific terms of your grant agreement or which wording has been approved by the managing authority. They operate on statistical probabilities—not legal certainty.

In practice, this can lead to AI:

Using incorrect names of programs
Mixing up different versions of regulations
Misrepresenting or incompletely describing EU funding
Associating the project with EU priorities that aren’t actually relevant

The National Beneficiary’s Handbook explicitly warns that such inaccuracies are not considered minor technical errors—they can trigger financial corrections, including a reduction of grant support.

Who’s Liable When AI Makes a Mistake?

From the standpoint of both EU and national law, the answer is clear: the algorithm is not responsible. The Law on the Management of EU Funds under Shared Responsibility emphasizes principles like transparency, legality, and proper visibility—without making exceptions for automated tools.

That’s why the most reliable approach is both simple and non-negotiable: AI can assist the process, but a human must remain the final checkpoint—reviewing, editing, and taking full responsibility for the content. Every AI-generated text must be cross-checked against the approved project description, communication strategy, and contractual obligations.

AI and the Visual Identity of the EU

An especially delicate area is the use of AI for visual content. AI-generated images, banners, or infographics might look polished, but they often fail to comply with the EU’s strict rules on logo usage—violating color schemes, proportions, or placement.

The EU’s visibility guidelines are unequivocal: The EU’s visual identity is not open to creative interpretation.

AI can support brainstorming and concept development, but final visuals must use the official files and templates provided by the EU, not AI-generated approximations.

Social Media: Speed vs. Precision

Social media is where the temptation to put AI on autopilot is strongest. The demand there is for short, punchy, emotionally engaging content. Yet, documents from the European Research Executive Agency (REA) stress that even on these platforms, communication must remain clear, accurate, and consistent with other public-facing materials.

Over-simplification—a common trait of AI outputs—can easily distort or obscure information about EU funding, which constitutes a direct breach of visibility requirements.

Conclusion: AI as an Assistant, Not an Authority

Using AI in communications for EU projects is not inherently problematic. In fact, when used responsibly, AI can greatly enhance public understanding of complex initiatives. The problem arises when AI is treated as an authority rather than a tool.

The EU’s visibility and accuracy rules exist to ensure transparency and build public trust. When AI is used under strict human oversight, and within the framework of approved communication strategies, it can absolutely align with these rules. But when left unchecked—speaking on behalf of the project—the risk is no longer just technical. It becomes legal and financial.

In the end, the best guiding principle remains the classic one: technology may accelerate the process, but accountability is still a human responsibility.