Is this company using AI on you?

Article 86 of the EU AI Act gives individuals the right to receive a meaningful explanation from the deployer of a high-risk AI system whenever the system produces a decision, recommendation, or output that significantly affects them. This applies to high-risk AI systems listed in Annex III, including those used in employment decisions, creditworthiness assessments, education, and access to essential private and public services. The explanation must describe the main reasons for the decision in a way that the affected person can understand and challenge it.

Article 50 of the EU AI Act creates transparency obligations requiring providers and deployers of AI systems to inform individuals when they are interacting with an AI. This covers chatbots and conversational systems where AI is not obvious (the right to know it's AI, not a human), AI systems that generate or manipulate images, audio, or video (deepfakes), emotion recognition systems used on individuals, and AI systems used in biometric categorisation. The right to know is designed to prevent deception and ensure individuals can make informed decisions about whether to continue interacting with the system.

Article 26(11) of the EU AI Act requires deployers of high-risk AI systems to ensure that individuals who have been subject to a decision produced by such systems can lodge a complaint with the deployer. The deployer must provide accessible, clearly explained complaint mechanisms and process complaints without undue delay. Individuals can also report suspected violations of the AI Act to their national market surveillance authority. In the EU, national authorities designated under Article 70 handle complaints about AI Act violations by providers and deployers operating in their Member State.

Article 85 of the EU AI Act provides that individuals who have suffered harm due to a high-risk AI system are entitled to seek an effective judicial remedy. This complements existing EU product liability rules (Product Liability Directive) and national tort law. The AI Liability Directive proposal (still pending) would establish rebuttable presumptions of causation to make it easier to prove AI system defects caused the harm. Article 85 ensures that affected individuals can bring claims before courts in the Member State where they are domiciled or where the provider or deployer is established.