EU AI Act

EU AI Act Advanced

Name: eurocompliant.com AI Compliance Copilot
Price: 299 EUR
Author: eurocompliant.com

Complex AI Act scenarios: prohibited practice edge cases, conformity assessment routes, GPAI systemic-risk thresholds, and enforcement.

16 questions · 80% to pass · free

eurocompliant.com is not an accredited certification body. This is a self-paced educational assessment; the certificate confirms completion only, not a professional, statutory, or accredited qualification.

Your details

Name *

Email *

We'll email your certificate here if you pass. We may occasionally follow up about eurocompliant.com - you can unsubscribe any time.

Question 1 of 16

Which of the following are listed among the prohibited AI practices under Article 5?

Select all that apply.

Social scoring by public authorities leading to unjustified detrimental treatmentBasic email spam filteringSubliminal, manipulative or deceptive techniques materially distorting behaviour causing significant harmReal-time remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces for law enforcement, subject to narrow exceptions

Question 2 of 16

An AI system is a safety component of a product already subject to third-party conformity assessment under EU harmonisation legislation (e.g. machinery). Under Article 6(1), what follows?

It is automatically classified as prohibitedThe AI Act never applies to embedded safety componentsOnly the product legislation applies; the AI Act is irrelevantThe AI system is classified as high-risk if the product is required to undergo third-party conformity assessment under that legislation

Question 3 of 16

Article 113 sets a staggered application timeline. Which obligations generally applied first, ahead of the general application date?

None — everything applied on a single dateHigh-risk obligations under Annex IIIGPAI systemic risk obligationsProhibited practices under Article 5 and AI literacy obligations

Question 4 of 16

Under Article 53, what must providers of GPAI models generally make available to downstream providers integrating the model?

A signed non-disclosure agreement with every possible integratorFull access to the raw training dataset in every case, with no exceptionsTechnical documentation and information enabling downstream providers to understand capabilities/limitations and comply with their own obligationsNothing at all

Question 5 of 16

Which factors can indicate a GPAI model should be presumed to have 'high-impact capabilities' triggering systemic-risk classification under Article 51?

Select all that apply.

The model's user interface colour schemeDesignation by the Commission based on criteria such as reach and impactCumulative training compute above a threshold set out in the Act (measured in floating point operations)The model's marketing budget

Question 6 of 16

A deployer is a public authority using a high-risk AI system to evaluate eligibility for essential public assistance benefits. Beyond Article 26 deployer duties, what additional obligation is likely triggered?

None — public authorities are exempt from all obligationsA separate criminal law referralAutomatic prohibition of the systemA fundamental rights impact assessment under Article 27

Question 7 of 16

What role does an 'authorised representative' play for a non-EU provider placing a high-risk AI system on the EU market?

No such role exists under the AI ActAn EU-based reseller with no compliance functionA criminal defence lawyerA mandated representative established in the EU who performs specified tasks on the provider's behalf, similar in concept to a GDPR Article 27 representative

Question 8 of 16

Which body is generally responsible for coordinating AI Act enforcement and issuing guidance at EU level, alongside national market surveillance authorities?

The World Trade OrganizationThe European Data Protection Board (EDPB) exclusivelyThe AI Office and the European Artificial Intelligence BoardIndividual private notified bodies acting independently with no coordination

Question 9 of 16

Post-market monitoring obligations under the AI Act require providers of high-risk AI systems to actively collect and review experience from the use of systems they place on the market, even after deployment.

TrueFalse

Question 10 of 16

A start-up develops a general-purpose AI model and argues its use case is purely experimental research, never placed on the market. What is the practical significance under the Act?

Research use automatically qualifies as a prohibited practiceResearch always qualifies as high-risk regardless of contextThe Act includes provisions oriented at fostering innovation (e.g. AI regulatory sandboxes) and generally excludes AI systems developed and used exclusively for scientific research and development from certain obligationsThe Act applies identically regardless of any research exemption

Question 11 of 16

Article 99 sets tiered maximum fines. Which tier applies to non-compliance with obligations other than those relating to prohibited practices (e.g. certain high-risk system requirements)?

EUR 15 million or 3% of global annual turnover, whichever is higherNo fine applies to any obligation other than Article 5A flat EUR 100,000EUR 35 million or 7% of global annual turnover

Question 12 of 16

Which of the following are recognised routes to demonstrating conformity for a high-risk AI system under the Act?

Select all that apply.

Following harmonised standards that create a presumption of conformityConformity assessment involving a notified body where requiredInternal control-based conformity assessment where permittedSimply self-declaring conformity with no documented basis whatsoever

Question 13 of 16

How does the AI Act's approach to 'high-risk' classification interact with existing sector-specific EU product safety legislation (Annex I)?

Annex I legislation is repealed the moment the AI Act enters into forceThe AI Act layers additional AI-specific requirements onto products already regulated under Annex I legislation where the AI system is a safety component requiring third-party assessmentThere is no interaction; the two frameworks are fully independentThe AI Act entirely replaces all existing product safety legislation

Question 14 of 16

What is the significance of 'serious incident' reporting obligations for high-risk AI system providers under the Act?

Only incidents involving financial loss must be reportedProviders must report serious incidents (e.g. those leading to death or serious harm) to relevant market surveillance authorities within specified timeframesThere is no such obligationIncidents are only reported internally with no external notification ever required

Question 15 of 16

A GPAI model provider that has already fulfilled equivalent obligations under another recognised framework can, under the Act's approach to avoiding duplication, potentially rely on that compliance to help demonstrate compliance with GPAI transparency obligations, subject to conditions.

TrueFalse

Question 16 of 16

Which of the following best describes 'regulatory sandboxes' as referenced in the AI Act?

Controlled environments established by competent authorities that facilitate the development, testing and validation of innovative AI systems under regulatory supervisionA ban on all AI testingA mandatory tax on AI research budgetsA physical sandbox provided to children as an AI literacy tool

0 of 16 answered