Prohibited and unacceptable-use screening gate
Stops the organisation from building, buying or operating an AI use that the law bans or that its own policy rules out, by checking every proposed and existing use against a maintained list.
- Duties satisfied
- 6
- done properly, does the work
- Duties supported
- 1
- contributes; the duty needs more
- Jurisdictions
- 2
- Evidence items
- 2
How is it implemented?
The governance lead maintains a screening list that combines the practices prohibited in each jurisdiction the organisation operates in with the uses its own policy excludes. Intake, design review and vendor onboarding each include the screen, and every existing system in the register is screened once and re-screened when its purpose, users or jurisdictions change. Borderline cases go to legal and the governance forum, and the outcome, reasoning and any conditions are recorded against the register entry. The list is reviewed whenever the law or official guidance changes.
Which legal duties does it serve?
Satisfies means the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for. Supports means it contributes but the duty needs more. The official text decides; open it before relying on either.
European Union 2 duties
-
satisfies Legal requirement confidence highDo not deploy or provide AI for prohibited practices
EU AI Act · Article 5 · applies from 2 Feb 2025
Screens every new and existing system against the banned practices with a recorded outcome.
-
supports Legal requirementDeployers of emotion recognition or biometric categorisation must inform exposed persons
EU AI Act · Article 50(3) · applies from 2 Aug 2026
Confirms the use is not banned by Article 5.
Texas (United States) 5 duties
-
satisfies Legal requirement confidence highDevelopers and deployers must not use AI to incite self-harm, harm to others or crime
Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA) · Business and Commerce Code Section 551.052 · applies from 1 Jan 2026
Screens intent and design against the banned purposes.
-
satisfies Legal requirement confidence highGovernmental entities must not use AI for social scoring
Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA) · Business and Commerce Code Section 551.053 · applies from 1 Jan 2026
Screens public-sector scoring tools against the ban.
-
satisfies Legal requirement confidence highGovernmental entities must not use AI for biometric identification from public data without consent where it infringes rights
Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA) · Business and Commerce Code Section 551.054 · applies from 1 Jan 2026
Screens biometric projects against the ban.
-
satisfies Legal requirement confidence highDevelopers and deployers must not use AI with the intent to unlawfully discriminate against a protected class
Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA) · Business and Commerce Code Section 551.056 · applies from 1 Jan 2026
Screens purpose against the discrimination ban.
-
satisfies Legal requirement confidence highDevelopers and distributors must not build AI intended to produce child sexual abuse material or unlawful sexual deepfakes
Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA) · Business and Commerce Code Section 551.057 · applies from 1 Jan 2026
Screens product intent against the ban.
What evidence shows it is operating?
| Evidence | Type | What it shows |
|---|---|---|
| Prohibited-use screening record | Approval or sign-off record | Dated checklist outcome per system with reviewer and rationale. |
| Screening list and escalation procedure | Procedure or standard operating process |
Owner: AI governance lead. Frequency: once per ai system.
Which risks does it address?
Subdomains of the MIT AI Risk Repository, with the incidents the AI Incident Database has recorded under each. Counts are live; they say how often a risk has materialised, not how well this control prevents it.
- 4.1 Disinformation, surveillance, and influence at scale Malicious actors138 incidents · 84 risk entries
- 5.2 Loss of human agency and autonomy Human-Computer Interaction4 incidents · 47 risk entries
- 1.1 Unfair discrimination and misrepresentation Discrimination & Toxicity118 incidents · 83 risk entries
- 6.5 Governance failure Socioeconomic & Environmental3 incidents · 61 risk entries
Which standards clauses does it correspond to?
Clause numbers only. A reference means the standard asks for overlapping work, so evidence may be reusable; it never means the standard discharges a legal duty.
| Framework | Reference | Note | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| ISO/IEC 42001 | Clause 6.1.4; Annex A.5.2, A.9.3 | medium | |
| NIST AI RMF | GOVERN 1.1; MAP 1.1 | medium |
Cite this record
AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Prohibited and unacceptable-use screening gate”. https://aipolicytracker.org/controls/prohibited-use-screening-gate (accessed 24 September 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.
Informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult qualified counsel before acting.
Frequently asked questions
- Which legal duties does "Prohibited and unacceptable-use screening gate" satisfy?
- It is recorded as satisfying 6 and supporting 1 duties across European Union and Texas (United States). A mapping means the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for; the official text decides whether it is enough.
- What evidence shows this control is operating?
- Prohibited-use screening record and Screening list and escalation procedure. Owner: AI governance lead. Frequency: once per ai system.