Article 5: Prohibited AI practices
Praxikon tracks Article 5 (Prohibited AI practices) under the EU AI Act, citing the source for every statement.
Article 5 prohibits manipulative AI techniques, exploitation of vulnerabilities, social scoring by governments, real-time biometric identification in public spaces (with exceptions), and emotion recognition in the workplace and education.
Official text
Source: EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. Text reproduced verbatim.
Download AI Act (PDF) →Official guidance on this article
5- Guidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems under Article 50 of the AI ActDelineates where transparency obligations end and prohibited practices under Article 5 begin, for example in misleading or manipulative applications and in emotion recognition at the workplace or in education.PublishedGuidelinesEuropean Commission20 Jul 2026
- Commission Guidelines on prohibited artificial intelligence practices established by Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act)For each prohibition ground in Article 5, specifies which elements must cumulatively be demonstrated and what exceptions apply, so that organisations can determine whether their application falls under a prohibition.PublishedGuidelinesEuropean Commission (DG CONNECT / AI Office)4 Feb 2025
- AI Regulation timeline (Algoritmekader)Places the phasing out of prohibited AI on 2 February 2025 as the first hard deadline for every organisation.PublishedNational guidanceMinistry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (Algorithm Framework)17 Jul 2025
- Supervision of AI takes shape: key role for the AP and the RDIAnnounces that the AP becomes the designated supervisory authority for prohibited AI practices such as manipulative AI, which have been prohibited since 2 February 2025.PublishedNational guidanceDutch Data Protection Authority (AP), Algorithm Coordination Directorate20 Apr 2026
- Response of the President of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division to the draft AI Regulation Implementation ActSignals a question of competence when it is unclear whether a system is prohibited or high-risk, because the draft legislation designates different supervisory authorities for these matters.PublishedOpinionCouncil of State, Administrative Jurisdiction Division8 Jul 2026
What does this mean for you?
Provider+
Deployer+
SME / Startup+
Public Sector+
Related recitals
AI-enabled manipulative techniques can be used to persuade persons to engage in unwanted behaviours, or to deceive them by nudging them into decisions in a way that subverts and impairs their autonomy…
Biometric categorisation systems that are based on natural persons’ biometric data, such as an individual person’s face or fingerprint, to deduce or infer an individuals’ political opinions, trade uni…
AI systems providing social scoring of natural persons by public or private actors may lead to discriminatory outcomes and the exclusion of certain groups. They may violate the right to dignity and no…
The use of AI systems for ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement is particularly intrusive to the rights and fr…
Related tools
Related enforcement
Related blog posts
Cross-references
Annexes
Frequently asked questions
Which AI practices are prohibited under the AI Act?+
What are the penalties for prohibited AI practices?+
Since when do the prohibited AI practices apply?+
Which AI applications have been prohibited since February 2025?+
Can I still use emotion recognition in my company?+
Is social scoring by companies also prohibited or only by governments?+
How do I know if my AI system falls under prohibited practices?+
What is the difference between prohibited AI and high-risk AI?+
What Article 5 requires in practice
Connections
What connects to Article 5 AI Act
Themes where this returns
The counterpart in the other law
GDPR interpretation that also applies here6 of 10
- Schrems v Meta: no unlimited retention and aggregation of data for targeted advertising
2024-10-04 · final, Hof van Justitie van de EU (Vierde kamer), Maximilian Schrems tegen Meta Platforms Ireland Limited · via Biometrics and emotion recognition
- IAB Europe: the TC String is personal data and the industry body is a joint controller
2024-03-07 · final, Hof van Justitie van de EU (Vierde kamer), IAB Europe tegen Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit (België) · via Biometrics and emotion recognition
- Council of State: 600,000 euro fine for wifi tracking in Enschede stays annulled
2026-07-29 · final, Raad van State, Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak · via Biometrics and emotion recognition
- Guidelines 02/2026 on Anonymisation
2026-07-07 · under consultation, European Data Protection Board (EDPB) · via Biometrics and emotion recognition
- EDPS v SRB: pseudonymised data are not always personal data for everyone, but the information duty applies from collection
2025-09-04 · final, Hof van Justitie van de EU (Eerste kamer), Europese Toezichthouder voor gegevensbescherming (EDPS) tegen Gemeenschappelijke Afwikkelingsraad (SRB) · via Biometrics and emotion recognition
- Gelderland District Court: bankruptcy trustee is controller, DPA fine for unsecured hard drive cut to 58,125 euros
2025-08-07 · status not established, Rechtbank Gelderland · via Biometrics and emotion recognition