The EU Commission Guidelines on Prohibited AI Practices

March 12, 2025

On February 4, 2025, the European Commission released draft guidelines clarifying prohibited AI practices under the EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act. These guidelines aim to ensure the consistent and effective application of the AI Act across the European Union. While non-binding, they offer valuable insights into the Commission's interpretation of prohibited practices.



Key Prohibited AI Practices and Employer Risks


The AI Act identifies certain AI practices as posing unacceptable risks to fundamental rights and European values. Notable prohibitions include:


1. Manipulative Techniques


Prohibition: AI systems that deploy subliminal or purposefully manipulative techniques, distorting an individual's behaviour without their awareness, leading to decisions they would not have otherwise made, and causing or likely causing significant harm.


Example:            Some AI-powered recruitment platforms claim to predict a candidate’s job suitability based on their facial expressions or voice tone during video interviews. If these systems use subliminal nudges to influence the recruiter’s perception or decision-making, they could fall foul of the AI Act.


2. Exploitation of Vulnerabilities


Prohibition: AI systems that exploit vulnerabilities of individuals or specific groups due to age, disability, or social or economic situations, materially distorting their behaviour in a manner that causes or is likely to cause significant harm.


Example:            An AI-driven job-matching tool that intentionally steers lower-income applicants towards low-paying roles, based on assumptions about their socioeconomic status, would be considered exploitative under the Act. Similarly, AI screening tools that disadvantage candidates with disabilities by misinterpreting speech patterns or movement in video interviews could violate the law.


3. Social Scoring


Prohibition: AI systems that evaluate or classify individuals based on their social behaviour or predicted personal characteristics, leading to detrimental or unfavourable treatment unrelated to the original context of data collection, or treatment that is unjustified or disproportionate.


Example:            If an employer uses an AI system to analyse employees’ social media activity and assigns them a risk score influencing promotions or disciplinary action, this would be a clear case of unlawful social scoring. Similarly, AI-powered tools that assess employee performance based on personal lifestyle choices, such as credit scores or location tracking outside work hours, could breach the AI Act.


4. Emotion Recognition in the Workplace


Prohibition: AI systems designed to infer emotions of individuals in workplace settings, except where intended for medical or safety purposes.


Example: Some companies deploy AI tools to monitor employees' facial expressions during meetings or track their tone of voice in customer service calls to assess engagement or stress levels. Such systems, if not strictly used for medical or safety reasons, would be prohibited under the AI Act.


Implications for Employers


Employers utilising AI systems must assess their practices to ensure compliance with the AI Act. Key considerations include:


  • Review AI Systems: Evaluate current AI tools, especially those used in recruitment, employee monitoring, and decision-making processes, to ensure they do not employ prohibited practices.
  • Policy Updates: Revise internal policies to reflect the prohibitions outlined in the AI Act, ensuring that AI deployments align with ethical standards and legal requirements.
  • Training and Awareness: Educate HR professionals and relevant staff about the AI Act's provisions, emphasising the importance of ethical AI use and the potential risks associated with non-compliance.
  • Vendor Management: Ensure that third-party AI service providers comply with the AI Act, incorporating compliance requirements into contracts and conducting regular audits.


Enforcement and Penalties


The AI Act establishes a comprehensive framework for AI governance. Non-compliance can result in significant penalties, including fines up to €35 million or 7% of annual global turnover for serious breaches.


Conclusion


The European Commission's guidelines on prohibited AI practices under the AI Act underscore the EU's commitment to ethical AI deployment. Employers must proactively assess and adjust their AI systems and policies to align with these guidelines, ensuring the protection of individual rights and maintaining public trust in AI technologies. By taking these steps now, businesses can avoid potential legal risks and foster a fair and compliant AI-driven workplace.

The 2026 Minimum Wage Increase — What It Means for Small Businesses and How to Get Ready
By Tara Daly October 22, 2025
The increase to €14.15 per hour will have a noticeable effect on small and medium sized businesses.
WRC Award €22k for Dismissal Regarding Sexually Explicit Texts
By Tara Daly October 14, 2025
A recent Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruling has once again reinforced one of the most important principles in employment law.
Thousands of ChatGPT Conversations Available Online
By Tara Daly October 14, 2025
With over 100,000 chats searchable online exposing private info, here's why employers need clear AI policies, training, and safeguards to protect sensitive data.
Budget 2026: What It Means for Employers and SMEs
By Tara Daly October 14, 2025
While there are some positive measures many SMEs will feel extra pressure from wage and pension changes taking effect in 2026.
Auto-Enrolment Update: November 2025 Payroll Deadline
By Tara Daly October 1, 2025
Ireland’s new Auto-Enrolment pension scheme, My Future Fund, is edging closer and the timeline has just shifted again. Employers now need to act sooner than expected
By Tara Daly September 3, 2025
What Employers Need to Know
By Tara Daly September 3, 2025
In this blog, we explore a recent WRC ruling where a school was ordered to pay €85,000 in compensation after a teacher was discriminated against during an interview. The case highlights how even seemingly harmless remarks can have serious legal consequences for employers. What Actually Happened? Employee, Emily Williams, who had been working at the school under fixed-term contract and had two years’ experience there, was on maternity leave when a permanent teaching post arose. She was neither notified nor considered, even though she was eligible. Instead, the school awarded the role to a less-experienced colleague not on leave. During a subsequent interview for a fixed-term position, the principal congratulated Williams on the birth of her baby and added: “You really should enjoy every moment at home with the baby.” Williams felt the comment was unprofessional and likely influenced the outcome against her as she had learned she was unsuccessful the very next day. Why the WRC Ruled It Was Discrimination The WRC adjudicator found that: The principal’s comment, made before scoring was complete, was inappropriate and highlighted Williams’ family status. The school could not justify why a less-experienced teacher was chosen. Their claim that it was based on prior interview scores was unsupported, with no clear process to back it up. One interviewer even adjusted a score for Williams downward without explanation, further undermining the credibility of the decision. Given these failures, the WRC concluded that Williams had established a clear case of discrimination on grounds of family status. She was awarded €85,000 in compensation, with the adjudicator stressing the importance of deterrence in cases like this. Why This Ruling Matters for Employers This case underscores three vital lessons for HR and hiring managers. First, keep personal matters out of formal interviews. Even a well-meaning comment can suggest bias or influence the panel. The interview must remain strictly professional. Second, ensure documentation and process are watertight. Reliable scoring systems, consistent policies, and clear records are essential. Without them, hiring decisions become legally and reputationally vulnerable. Finally, fairness must be more than form, it must be function. Interviews should be blind to protected statuses such as family or maternity, and all decisions must be transparent and defensible. How MSS The HR People Can Help MSS is here to help Irish businesses avoid situations like this: Designing discrimination-safe interview processes, from structuring interview panels to defining scoring metrics Training hiring panels on unconscious bias and employment equality legislation Developing clear recruitment communication policies that avoid risks around maternity or other protected characteristics Providing support and representation if a dispute arises before the WRC  Let’s ensure recruitment is fair, transparent, and free of unintended prejudice. Reach out to MSS The HR People, and we’ll help you build safe, compliant hiring practices. MSS The HR People info@mssthehrpeople.ie Ph: 01 8870690
By Tara Daly September 3, 2025
WRC Finds Dismissal Unfair When Employer Fails to Engage
By Tara Daly September 2, 2025
Every business needs solid HR support, that support doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing affair, a flexible, scalable HR service can assist in your companies growth.
Three Tips to Improve Your Recruitment Process
By Tara Daly August 12, 2025
Lets explore how Irish employers can streamline hiring processes through technology, compliant CV screening, targeted advertising, and a strong employer brand.