Week 17 self-check | AI GRCA Practice Lab

WEEK 17 · AI law & privacy · EU AI Act Foundations and Global AI Law Landscape

A non-EU company's AI product is never sold in the EU, but its output is used by an EU-based customer who receives services generated by it. Could EU AI Act obligations still be relevant?

This scenario is explicitly exempted by the ActNo, obligations can never extend this wayPotentially yes — market connection can arise through the use of the system's output within the EU, not only through direct sales thereOnly physical hardware sales create market connection

WEEK 17 · AI law & privacy · EU AI Act Foundations and Global AI Law Landscape

Why does US AI governance activity, per this course, include both federal and state-level components?

AI governance in the US has developed through a mix of federal initiatives and a growing patchwork of individual state lawsOnly federal law is relevant; states have no role in AI regulationUS states are legally barred from regulating AIThe US has no AI-specific governance activity at any level

WEEK 17 · AI law & privacy · EU AI Act Foundations and Global AI Law Landscape

What is an 'authorised representative' under the EU AI Act?

A government regulator roleAn affected person's legal counselAn EU-established entity appointed by a non-EU provider to carry out specified compliance tasksA synonym for a deployer

WEEK 17 · AI law & privacy · EU AI Act Foundations and Global AI Law Landscape

A retailer in the supply chain makes a high-risk AI system available on the EU market without being the original provider or importer. Which role does this describe?

Affected personProduct manufacturerDeployerDistributor

WEEK 17 · AI law & privacy · EU AI Act Foundations and Global AI Law Landscape

Which best reflects why 'scope' matters as a foundational EU AI Act concept before classification questions?

Classification should always happen before considering scopeScope and classification are the same questionScope is irrelevant until obligations are being fulfilledWhether the Act applies at all (e.g. via market connection) must be established before spending effort on detailed risk classification

WEEK 17 · AI law & privacy · EU AI Act Foundations and Global AI Law Landscape

What is a shared theme across South Korea, US state-level and Canadian AI governance approaches, per this course?

No common ground exists at allConvergence around risk-based thinking, transparency and accountabilityAll have adopted the EU AI Act verbatimNone regulate AI in any form

WEEK 17 · AI law & privacy · EU AI Act Foundations and Global AI Law Landscape

Which best describes Canada's general direction in AI governance, as covered by this course's global landscape material?

Its own developing direction for AI governance, distinct from but thematically related to other jurisdictions covered in this courseAn exact adoption of the EU's risk-tier categoriesA framework limited exclusively to financial services AINo engagement with AI governance at all

WEEK 17 · AI law & privacy · EU AI Act Foundations and Global AI Law Landscape

What should drive EU AI Act risk classification first?

Intended purpose, actor role and use contextThe developer's headquarters location aloneWhether the UI looks conversationalModel size in parameters

WEEK 17 · AI law & privacy · EU AI Act Foundations and Global AI Law Landscape

Why does the Act treat certain manipulative AI techniques as prohibited rather than merely high-risk?

Manipulation is considered low-risk and barely regulatedTechniques designed to materially distort a person's behaviour in a way that causes significant harm are judged to pose an unacceptable risk, warranting an outright banAll persuasive AI techniques are automatically prohibited, including ordinary marketingProhibited practices are determined solely by company size