Transparency signals worth having anyway
None of this is legally required. It is what distinguishes an organisation that thought about AI transparency from one that reacted to a deadline, and it is increasingly what procurement teams look for.
What the law requires
There is no Article behind this check. It exists because the same handful of signals keep appearing on sites run by teams who take the topic seriously.
The commercial argument is stronger than the legal one. Enterprise procurement, partner security reviews and press enquiries all ask a version of "what is your AI posture", and having one URL to answer with shortens every one of those conversations.
What our scanner looks for
- Whether a dedicated AI-policy or responsible-AI page exists.
- Site-wide C2PA provenance headers.
- An llms.txt file, the emerging convention for stating how AI systems may use your content.
How to fix it
- 1Publish an AI-use page covering the systems you run, what they process, and how to reach a human.
- 2Add llms.txt at your domain root stating your position on AI crawling and training use.
- 3Serve C2PA provenance headers site-wide if you publish generated media at any volume.
- 4Say what you do not do. "We do not use customer data to train models" is often the sentence a buyer was looking for.
Deadlines and penalties
Not enforceable — this check never produces a failure. It is scored as information only.
Free, no account needed. We'll show you every page where this applies, with the evidence.
Common questions
Is llms.txt an official standard?
No. It is an emerging convention with growing adoption and no legal force. It costs a few minutes and states an intent you may later want to point at.
Related
This page describes technical indicators and the obligations they relate to. It is not legal advice. A website scan detects indicators, not legal compliance — which is why our reports say “no issues detected” and never “compliant”.