Understand your AI Act obligations.
Prove compliance.
Keep it aligned as AI evolves.

A practical compliance platform for companies deploying AI in the EU and the consultants who support them. Built around real deployments, not abstract models.

Join 300+ professionals already exploring AI Act compliance with Aigolex

The real AI Act problem

Companies don't know if they are AI providers, deployers, or both.

Obligations depend on how AI is used, not on the model itself.

Documentation becomes outdated as soon as systems or vendors change.

Audits, enterprise customers, and boards expect immediate answers.

AI Act compliance is not a one-time exercise.
It's an operational problem.

Compliance attaches to deployments, not to AI models

That's why the platform mirrors the structure of the AI Act itself

Company

the legal entity ultimately responsible for compliance

Workspaces

distinct operational perimeters where AI is developed, tested, or used

AI assets

the underlying AI systems or models, independent from any single feature

Deployments

how those AI assets are actually used in practice, by whom, and for what purpose

Under the AI Act, obligations, risk classification, and roles attach to deployments not to AI models in isolation. This ensures compliance decisions reflect real-world AI use, not theoretical system descriptions.

Scope

Define where AI exists, how it's used, and who is responsible.

•Maps AI usage across companies and workspaces
•Identifies AI assets and their concrete deployments
•Determines your role under the AI Act (provider, deployer, or both)

Misclassifying your role means misapplying every obligation that follows.

Obligations

Know exactly what the AI Act requires, per deployment.

•Assigns regulatory requirements at the deployment level
•Based on role, risk classification, and usage context
•Generates clear, trackable checklists
•Separates applicable obligations from irrelevant ones

The AI Act is obligation-driven. Guessing is not a strategy.

Evidence

Always-ready documentation to prove compliance.

•Centralizes compliance documentation per workspace and deployment
•Includes system descriptions and risk assessments
•Tracks human oversight measures and monitoring controls

Static documents fail the moment reality changes.

Continuity

Stay compliant as AI systems, vendors, and uses change.

•Monitors changes to AI assets, deployments, and operational perimeters
•Flags when obligations or risk levels must be updated
•Alerts when documentation needs to be refreshed

Most compliance failures happen after the first assessment.

AI Act compliance readiness assessment

Identify your AI Act obligations, classify risk exposure, and uncover compliance gaps — with a guided interactive assessment.

Built for teams that can't ignore regulation

EU-based or EU-operating

Active AI deployments

Exposure to audits

Legal & compliance leaders

Risk & trust teams

Engineering leaders accountable for AI systems

Built by people who've done this before

Experience in legaltech and regulated environments

Built with legal and technical teams

Not Big-4 complexity

Prepare now. Don't scramble later.

AI Act

What specific AI practices are strictly prohibited under the Act?

Aigolex Team7 November 2025

Article 5 of the EU AI Act outlines specific AI practices that pose unacceptable risks and are strictly prohibited. These include:

Manipulative or deceptive techniques

AI systems that deploy subliminal techniques beyond a person's consciousness or use purposeful manipulation to materially distort behavior. This is prohibited if it impairs a person's ability to make an informed decision and causes, or is likely to cause, significant harm.

Exploitation of vulnerabilities

AI systems that exploit a person's or a group's vulnerabilities due to their age, disability, or specific social or economic situation to distort their behavior in a way that causes significant harm.

Social scoring

The evaluation or classification of natural persons based on their social behavior or predicted personality characteristics over time, if the resulting "social score" leads to detrimental or unfavorable treatment that is unjustified, disproportionate, or occurs in unrelated social contexts.

Predictive policing based solely on profiling

Using AI systems to assess or predict the risk of an individual committing a criminal offense based solely on profiling or assessing their personality traits and characteristics. However, AI can still be used to support human assessments that are based on objective and verifiable facts directly linked to criminal activity.

Untargeted scraping for facial recognition

Creating or expanding facial recognition databases through the untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet or closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage.

Emotion recognition in specific contexts

Using AI systems to infer the emotions of natural persons in workplaces or educational institutions, except when the AI system is intended for medical or safety reasons.

Biometric categorization based on sensitive traits

Systems that individually categorize natural persons based on their biometric data to deduce or infer their race, political opinions, trade union membership, religious or philosophical beliefs, sex life, or sexual orientation. This does not prohibit the lawful labeling or filtering of acquired biometric datasets in the area of law enforcement.

Real-time remote biometric identification in public spaces for law enforcement

The use of these systems is prohibited unless it is strictly necessary for specific, exhaustively listed exceptions. These narrow exceptions include:

•The targeted search for specific victims (such as missing persons or trafficking victims)
•Preventing a specific and imminent threat to life or a terrorist attack
•Identifying a suspect for certain serious criminal offenses

Understand your AI Act obligations.Prove compliance.Keep it aligned as AI evolves.