Recital 137 AI Act clarifies that c ompliance with the transparency obligations under Article 50 AI Act for a particular AI system cannot be interpreted as indicating that the use of that AI system or its output is lawful under the AI Act. In particular, AI systems subject to the obligations in Article 50 AI Act may fall under Article 5 AI Act and thus be prohibited (e.g., such as the use of emotion recognition systems in the area of workplace or education institutions ) (12). Furthermore, AI systems falling within the scope of Article 50 AI Act may also be classified as high-risk (13) and be subject to the relevant requirements and obligations for such systems. Compliance with Article 50 AI Act therefore does not replace, limit or affect obligations arising under other provisions of the AI Act (14). At the same time, AI systems can also fall within the scope of Article 50 AI Act without being classified as high-risk pursuant to Article 6 AI Act. Literacy requirements under Article 4 AI Act also apply to both providers and deployers of AI systems within the scope of Article 50 AI Act.
- For further information on Article5 AIAct, seeCommission Guidelines on prohibited artificial intelligence practices established by Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AIAct), C(2025) 5052final.
- See Article6 AIAct.
- In particular, Article26(11) AIAct imposes a transparency obligation on deployers of high-risk AI systems that make decisions or assist in making decisions related to inform natural persons that they are subject to the use of the high-risk AI system. These transparency obligations are complementary to those in Article50 AIAct, sincethey concern different information that must be provided to the natural persons, but they can be combined in single notifications.