The European Union passed the AI Act to control how artificial intelligence is used within its borders. This EU AI Act marks the first serious attempt to regulate AI technologies at such a large scale. The goal is to ensure AI does not harm human rights, safety, or democratic values. One of its most critical elements is the list of prohibited AI practices. These banned uses of AI present clear risks to individuals and society. They either manipulate behavior, exploit vulnerabilities, or result in unjust outcomes.
The Act became active on 1 August 2024. By August 2, 2024, every company must comply with all provisions. If they don’t, they face major penalties. The list of banned practices appears in Article 5 of the AI Act. These include deceptive behavior-altering AI, exploiting children or vulnerable groups, scoring people based on social behavior, profiling in law enforcement, certain facial recognition uses, emotion detection in sensitive areas, and biometric-based judgment of personal beliefs. If your AI system does any of these, you must stop or risk fines. Understanding this law isn’t just for compliance—it’s essential for keeping public trust in AI.
Manipulative and Deceptive AI Techniques
The EU bans AI that manipulates people by using tricks they can’t detect. These include subliminal techniques that influence users’ decisions without their awareness. Such systems deceive people into making harmful choices they might not make if fully informed. They distort free will. Examples include AI that nudges consumers into unfair purchases or systems that steer users’ political opinions without clear disclosure. If someone doesn’t know they’re being influenced, the risk increases.
This manipulation strips away personal freedom. The EU Act makes it illegal to sell or use these AI tools in the EU. These tools are banned regardless of where they were developed. The law applies if a system uses hidden nudges that significantly alter someone’s choices. Even if a company didn’t intend harm, the result still matters. Enforcement doesn’t rely on intent. Developers must check how their systems work and how users react. If there’s a chance users are unaware of how they’re being nudged, the system likely breaks the law.
Transparency must be part of the design. Explain the system clearly to the user. Developers need records showing how their AI interacts with users. Without this, compliance becomes impossible. These manipulative systems raise ethical problems too. If users are misled into doing something against their best interests, then AI crosses a line. Companies must train their teams to recognize manipulation risks. They must also test systems with diverse groups to catch unintended effects. It’s not enough to claim good intentions. What matters is how users are affected. The law focuses on outcomes, not just designs. Stop selling AI that uses covert influence tactics. Audit your systems. If they manipulate users through hidden signals, remove them from the EU market. Transparency protects both users and your business.
Exploitation of Vulnerable Groups
The EU Act bans AI that takes advantage of people based on age, disability, or economic need. This includes systems that target children, the elderly, or those in financial distress. These groups have limited capacity to understand or resist harmful AI actions. AI tools that exploit these weaknesses now face a total ban in the EU.
For example, systems that advertise harmful products to kids using games break the law. Tools that push unnecessary services to older adults also qualify. If a company creates AI that singles out low-income users for high-interest loans, it violates this rule. These are not gray areas—they’re banned. Any system that affects decision-making by targeting users based on known weaknesses falls under this prohibition. Developers must ask: who uses our product? If it’s aimed at vulnerable people, higher scrutiny is required. The law does not ban AI for these groups. It bans AI that exploits their situation.
Offering helpful tools is allowed. But systems that guide these groups into bad decisions will not be tolerated. Companies must include ethics checks in their product pipeline. They must review whether their tools disadvantage certain users. Internal audits should flag risks to these groups before launch. Documentation of these checks is essential. If your team builds AI for schools, nursing homes, or loan services, conduct impact tests on users. Legal teams should work with developers to assess harm.
This is a business necessity, not an option. Companies that ignore these duties risk fines and loss of access to the EU market. AI can help vulnerable people. But if your product causes more harm than help, the law will hold you accountable. Design AI with empathy and fairness. Always test with real users from affected groups. If exploitation happens, the excuse “we didn’t know” won’t work anymore.
Social Scoring Systems
Social scoring refers to ranking people based on their behavior, values, or predicted traits. The EU has banned AI systems that do this. These tools may seem helpful but often lead to unfair outcomes. An example includes systems that use online behavior to assign risk scores. These can affect job chances, credit approval, or housing applications. The AI Act stops this. The goal is to protect fairness.
Social scoring systems often punish people for things that don’t relate to their current context. A person’s social media posts or past mistakes shouldn’t control their future options. The law bans systems that judge character or loyalty. It also bans AI that assigns grades to people for public behavior. These grades might deny services or rewards. The law allows no loopholes for these systems. Any AI that classifies people using personal behavior data must stop operating in the EU. The rule applies even if the company does not intend to cause harm. The results alone can trigger penalties. Companies must analyze their systems to see if social scoring is present. That means reviewing all data inputs and outputs.
Developers should strip out features that rank people by non-essential behavior. Bias audits must run on these tools. Developers should involve fairness experts early. If the AI assigns value to a person, that system might break the law. Firms using AI in hiring, lending, or insurance must tread carefully. These are high-risk areas, and scoring systems based on unrelated data are legally risky. Rebuild unfair models, focus on context, and add human review. Get regulator input for sensitive tools. If your product includes social scoring, remove or redesign it.
Predictive Policing Based on Profiling
The EU Act bans AI that predicts crimes using only personal profiles. This includes AI tools that analyze personality traits to flag people as future threats. These systems use patterns from past data and apply them to individuals. But that approach often creates bias. It doesn’t consider current context. It guesses risk based on identity, not actions. This violates people’s rights. Authorities can’t rely on these AI tools without facts. The law doesn’t ban all crime-predicting AI. It bans profiling-based systems without verified information.
For instance, it’s illegal to use AI to flag someone as dangerous because they live in a certain area or have a certain background. The law makes room for AI that helps police when there’s real evidence. But AI that runs on guesswork or trends crosses the line. Law enforcement must ensure AI decisions come with human judgment. Systems must show a clear link to verified incidents. Risk models that ignore context or use personality data are now banned. Agencies and vendors must retrain teams.
Review every use of AI in surveillance and policing. If a system relies on identity or behavioral predictions, remove it. Add legal experts to evaluation teams. Public trust in safety systems depends on fair use. If the community feels profiled, trust erodes. Build tools that look at events, not people. Predict locations, not identities. Link alerts to actual threats. Create appeal processes for those affected. Companies must stop marketing profiling-based policing tools. These products now carry high legal risks. Developers must ensure AI never labels someone as a suspect without facts. Design systems that help, not harm. Make police work smarter but also fairer. This is not just law—it’s justice.
Unauthorized Facial Recognition and Biometric Data Collection
The EU AI Act forbids AI systems that collect facial images without user consent. This includes scraping public photos online or from surveillance footage. These methods invade privacy and create risks. People often don’t know their faces are being used to build databases. This lack of consent makes it unlawful. The law bans systems that grow biometric databases without clear purpose or legal backing. This targets tools that expand their reach silently. AI companies must get permission before collecting biometric data. Consent must be clear, informed, and freely given. If it’s missing, the data becomes illegal to use.
The law also limits how law enforcement uses remote biometric tools. Police can’t scan public spaces with facial recognition tools unless under extreme conditions. These include finding missing persons, stopping terror threats, or identifying suspects of major crimes. Even in these cases, officers need court approval or legal authorization. This reduces the chance of misuse. It also protects bystanders from being scanned without reason. Biometric tracking affects everyone in view, not just suspects. The law considers this overreach unacceptable. For companies that build these tools, this means a major shift. Their products now need built-in limits. They must stop selling tools that scan crowds without checks. Transparency reports should show how and where the tools get used.
Give users opt-out options where possible. Facial recognition needs strict access, logging, and review. If you’re using scraped biometric data, stop, it is likely illegal under EU law. Delete old datasets and audit your systems. Work with legal teams to ensure compliance. Build tools that empower users, not control them. Otherwise, they won’t be allowed in the EU.
Emotion Recognition in Sensitive Contexts
Emotion recognition systems try to detect how someone feels using AI. These tools scan facial expressions, voice tone, or body language. But in the EU, this technology now faces limits. The EU AI Act bans emotion detection in schools and workplaces. These environments involve power imbalances. Using emotion AI here creates pressure. Students and workers may feel watched or judged unfairly. That’s why the law intervenes. It aims to protect mental privacy. AI shouldn’t evaluate mood or focus unless there’s a strong safety reason. Exceptions apply to mental health and emergency support. But general use is now illegal.
Let’s say a teacher uses AI to check if a student looks bored. Or a boss checks if employees look tired. These practices break the law. They rely on tools that guess internal states. These guesses often lack accuracy. Wrong guesses can harm careers or learning outcomes. The law says this cost is too high. AI must not act as a hidden supervisor. Developers must stop making these tools for schools or offices. Companies must check existing systems to confirm they don’t break the rules. If emotion detection is active, turn it off. Remove these functions from sales materials and product sheets.
Transparency isn’t enough, some AI tools are outright banned by law. Consent doesn’t override these rules. AI should support, not intimidate. Mood-detecting features tied to grades or job reviews are no longer acceptable. Replace them with self-reporting or human checks. Medical or therapy use may be exempt, but oversight is still needed. If AI judges emotions, it must prove accuracy. If it can’t, don’t use it. Emotional data isn’t public property. AI should only assess feelings when lives depend on it.
Biometric Categorization for Sensitive Attributes
Biometric categorization uses physical traits to predict sensitive personal information. This includes guessing someone’s race, religion, political beliefs, or sexual orientation. The AI Act now bans this practice. These predictions often rely on flawed logic. They use skin tone, voice, or body shape to assume identity traits. These traits are deeply personal. Guessing them with AI risks discrimination. Even if these systems are “accurate,” their use violates privacy. The law doesn’t allow guesses about beliefs based on biology. It stops the use of these tools in marketing, security, or analytics. No context justifies profiling people this way.
Only police can use such systems under strict rules. They must prove the data was collected legally. They must also show how the tool helps solve serious crimes. Even then, legal permission is needed. For commercial use, no exception applies. Companies must check their tools. If an AI system predicts race, politics, or religion, stop using it. This includes features that flag “likely” group membership. These guesses often fuel bias. They can also hurt hiring decisions or product access. AI can’t treat people as data clusters. Companies must ask: do we infer identity from appearance? If yes, remove or replace that feature.
Create systems that respect consent and actual self-identity. If a user wants to share their traits, fine. But don’t let AI guess without asking. Ban biometric assumptions in your workflow. Train your staff to spot and block them. Regulators will check your system design. You must show no profiling happens inside. Build ethical checks into every step. Predicting sensitive traits is now not just wrong—it’s illegal.
EU AI Act: A Hard Line on Harmful AI Practices
The EU AI Act takes a hard line on harmful uses of artificial intelligence. It bans systems that manipulate, exploit, or unfairly profile people. Each rule protects human dignity and safety. From facial recognition to predictive policing, the law sets clear limits. If you work with AI in the EU or plan to enter its market, these bans affect you. Review every product and service. Check how it uses personal data. Ask hard questions about its real-world impact. If your tool causes harm or unfairness, it likely violates the law. Fix it or face consequences.
Companies must act now. The EU will not accept excuses. The deadline for full compliance arrives in August 2026. Waiting puts your business at risk. Regulators can fine you or block your services. Don’t gamble with legal exposure. Build systems that respect the user. Rethink AI that predicts emotions or profiles people unfairly. Transparency, fairness, and ethics must guide your work. That’s not optional. It’s now the law.
Stevens Law Group helps companies adjust to the AI Act. They offer expert advice and compliance strategies tailored to your needs. Contact Stevens Law today to review your AI tools and protect your business from legal risks. Trust their legal team to guide you through every step.
References:
The EU Artificial Intelligence Act – The EU Artificial Intelligence Act
European Parliament – EU AI Act: first regulation on artificial intelligence
IBM – What is the Artificial Intelligence Act of the European Union (EU AI Act)?
Leave a Reply