[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":80},["ShallowReactive",2],{"uc-eu-ai-act-automotive":3},{"regulation":4,"term":11,"includeUnpublished":15,"indexable":16,"useCases":17,"asOf":79},{"id":5,"label":6,"issuer":7,"region":8,"url":9,"description":10},"eu-ai-act","EU AI Act","European Union","europe","https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Freg\u002F2024\u002F1689\u002Foj","Regulation (EU) 2024\u002F1689: risk based rules for AI systems, with obligations for high risk systems listed in Annex III and transparency duties under Article 50.",{"id":12,"label":13,"description":14},"automotive","Automotive","Car makers, dealers and mobility providers: sales assistance, in car assistants, service booking and warranty operations.",false,true,[18,24,29,34,40,45,49,53,57,62,66,70,74],{"slug":19,"title":20,"tier":21,"basis":22,"organizations":23},"in-car-ai-voice-assistant","Generative AI voice assistant in the car","limited","Article 50(1): people must be informed that they are interacting with an AI system unless that is obvious from the context. Article 50(2): synthetic audio output must be marked as artificially generated. A cabin assistant for comfort, media, navigation and knowledge questions is not an Annex III use. It would move towards the high risk regime if it became a safety component of the vehicle: vehicle type approval legislation is listed in Annex I Section B, and under Article 2(2) the high risk requirements reach those products only through the amendments the AI Act makes to that legislation. Keep driving and safety functions out of its reach.",9,{"slug":25,"title":26,"tier":21,"basis":27,"organizations":28},"dealer-aftersales-retention-agent","AI agent for dealer service retention and aftersales outreach","Article 50(1): customers must be told they are dealing with an AI system, unless that is obvious from the context, when it holds a conversation and books on the dealer's behalf. This is not an Annex III use: it does not decide credit, employment or access to an essential service, so it stays at the transparency tier as long as it keeps to outreach and booking.",5,{"slug":30,"title":31,"tier":21,"basis":32,"organizations":33},"inbound-lead-qualification-agent","AI agent for inbound lead qualification and meeting booking","A customer facing sales agent must make clear that people are talking to an AI system, unless that is obvious (Article 50(1)). Qualifying and routing prospects is not an Annex III use. It becomes high risk where the same system takes on an Annex III task, for example evaluating the creditworthiness of natural persons (Annex III point 5(b)) or assessing risk and pricing for life or health insurance (point 5(c)); those decisions then need the high risk controls.",3,{"slug":35,"title":36,"tier":37,"basis":38,"organizations":39},"production-scheduling-and-sequencing","AI copilots for production scheduling and sequencing","context-dependent","Sequencing machines and orders is usually minimal risk. The design decides the tier if the same system also allocates tasks to individual workers based on their individual behavior or personal traits or characteristics, or monitors and evaluates their performance and behavior in a work relationship; that use falls under Annex III point 4(b) of the EU AI Act. Keep order and machine sequencing separate from any such worker task allocation or performance evaluation to stay outside that category.",2,{"slug":41,"title":42,"tier":43,"basis":44,"organizations":39},"legacy-code-modernization","AI for legacy code modernization","minimal","Tools that analyze, document and translate code are not prohibited practices under Article 5 and are not listed in Annex III, so no high risk obligations apply to the tooling. Engineers and analysts know they are working with an AI tool, including when they query the documentation through a chat assistant, so the Article 50 disclosure duty has no practical effect for the deploying organization. What remains is AI literacy for the staff who use it (Article 4). If the system being modernized is itself an AI system in an Annex III area (for example creditworthiness assessment, point 5(b)), its new version still has to meet the high risk requirements.",{"slug":46,"title":47,"tier":37,"basis":48,"organizations":39},"production-line-quality-inspection","AI quality inspection on the production line","Inspecting products is not an Annex III use, so a system that only judges parts, welds or assemblies is usually minimal risk. Two designs change that. Under Article 6(1) it is high risk when both conditions hold: it is a safety component of a product (or itself a product) covered by the Union harmonization legislation in Annex I, and that law requires a third party conformity assessment of the product. For a production line the relevant product laws are the Machinery Regulation (EU) 2023\u002F1230 and, for cars, the vehicle type approval regulations. Since the Digital Omnibus on AI, Regulation (EU) 2026\u002F1744, moved the Machinery Regulation into Annex I Section B, where the vehicle type approval regulations already sat. Article 6(1) still classifies such a safety component as high risk, but under Article 2(2) only Article 6(1), Article 60a and Articles 102 to 112 of the AI Act apply directly. The requirements reach the system through the sectoral law instead: delegated acts amending Annex III of the Machinery Regulation, and type approval for vehicles. The AI Act rules for Article 6(1) high risk systems apply from 2 August 2028. An inspection system on the assembly line is usually not a safety component of the product it inspects. If it monitors and evaluates the performance and behavior of individual workers, for example by scoring who made an assembly error, it falls under Annex III point 4(b) and is high risk. Keep the output about the unit, not the person.",{"slug":50,"title":51,"tier":43,"basis":52,"organizations":39},"supply-chain-disruption-monitoring","AI supply chain risk and disruption monitoring","The system scores transport lanes, shipments and suppliers, not natural persons, so it does not fall under an Annex III high risk category. It does not interact with the public and does not publish AI generated content, so it does not trigger the Article 50 transparency duty either. It stays minimal risk as long as its output only informs a human procurement or logistics decision.",{"slug":54,"title":55,"tier":37,"basis":56,"organizations":39},"auto-loan-underwriting-and-verification","AI underwriting and verification for auto loans","Verifying documents and third party data for a person or system to use is a narrow procedural task under Article 6(3) when the credit decision itself is made separately. That derogation does not save the system if it profiles natural persons: Article 6(3)'s last subparagraph makes an Annex III system high risk regardless of the procedural task exception when it does. Calculating an applicant's income and checking it against what people in that job are normally paid, which is how Informed.IQ describes its Ally Financial deployment, evaluates a person's economic situation and is profiling under GDPR Article 4(4), so that step will usually be high risk unless it is strictly limited to checking document authenticity rather than calculating or assessing income. Annex III point 5(b) separately excludes AI used to detect financial fraud from the high risk credit scoring category, which covers this use case's fraud screening step on its own. The tier also changes if the verification result automatically decides or materially narrows a consumer's access to auto financing, since retail auto loan applicants are natural persons: that use falls under Annex III point 5(b) as evaluating creditworthiness directly.",{"slug":58,"title":59,"tier":21,"basis":60,"organizations":61},"plant-operator-and-maintenance-copilot","AI copilot for plant operators and maintenance technicians","Article 50(1): staff must know they are interacting with an AI system, unless that is obvious from the context. Answering maintenance questions is not an Annex III use. It would become high risk under Annex III point 4(b) if the usage data were used to monitor and evaluate the performance of individual workers, so keep usage analytics aggregated.",1,{"slug":63,"title":64,"tier":37,"basis":65,"organizations":61},"intelligent-document-processing","AI document intelligence for unstructured forms and documents","Classifying documents and extracting data for a person or process to use is usually minimal risk. Even inside an Annex III area, a system that only performs a narrow procedural task, such as splitting and classifying documents, can fall outside the high risk category under Article 6(3); the provider must document that assessment and register the system (Article 6(4) and Article 49(2)). The picture changes when extraction materially influences decisions in Annex III areas, such as eligibility for public assistance benefits (point 5(a)), creditworthiness (point 5(b)) or asylum, visa and residence permit applications (point 7), where the whole system must be assessed as potentially high risk. The Article 6(3) exception never applies when the system performs profiling of natural persons.",{"slug":67,"title":68,"tier":43,"basis":69,"organizations":61},"support-knowledge-article-generation","AI for support knowledge article generation and maintenance","Drafting internal or public help content that a person reviews and publishes is not a prohibited practice under Article 5 and is not listed in Annex III, so it is minimal risk. The articles are not a direct AI interaction, and the Article 50(4) disclosure for AI generated text published to inform the public does not apply where a person reviews the text and holds editorial responsibility. The Article 50 transparency duties do apply to chatbots that later answer customers from the articles.",{"slug":71,"title":72,"tier":43,"basis":73,"organizations":61},"supplier-discovery-and-scouting","AI supplier discovery and scouting for procurement","Searching for and profiling companies as potential suppliers is not listed in Annex III and does not decide on individuals, so only AI literacy duties apply. Supplier contacts are personal data, which brings GDPR duties on how they are collected and kept. Using the tool to profile individual people, for example sole traders or workers, would need a separate assessment.",{"slug":75,"title":76,"tier":21,"basis":77,"organizations":78},"collections-and-hardship-agent","AI agent for early collections and hardship support","A customer facing collections agent must disclose that it is AI (Article 50). It is not listed in Annex III as long as it applies preapproved arrangement rules and does not itself evaluate creditworthiness; an affordability model that decides who gets which arrangement for individuals should be assessed separately against Annex III point 5(b).",0,"2026-10-13",1792420066802]