<p>Transparency has become a core value in AI ethics and governance, influencing both principles of trustworthy AI and legislation such as the EU AI Act. Nevertheless, the <i>risks</i> of transparency remain under-theorized. Drawing on discussions of audit culture and recent AI safety literature, we characterize such risks through the concept of a “transparency pitfall.” This occurs when auditing and disclosure procedures impair, rather than promote, the values typically associated with transparency, including trust, accountability, and accurate risk perception. In particular, we identify the regulatory transparency pitfall (RTP) as an important risk, by which even conscientious regulators could inadvertently facilitate ethics washing and safety washing. In response, we ask: through which mechanisms and features of the AI governance context could the RTP undermine effective AI regulation? And which sociological and institutional dynamics provide a plausible theoretical grounding for the RTP? We focus in particular on the socio-technical complexity of AI risks, and on the tendency for auditing regimes to end up prioritizing formal compliance over substantive effectiveness. Rather than rejecting auditing and impact assessment regimes in AI, however, we recommend a series of strategies aimed at counteracting the transparency pitfall. These involve acknowledging severe uncertainty and value trade-offs, encouraging well-informed contestation in regulatory contexts, and supporting both interdisciplinary and social diversity in decision-making.</p>