Use AI in ways that are fair and do not discriminate unlawfully
Download: JSON · MarkdownUnder UK AI regulation framework, Principle 3, Part 3
What this label means
- Verified
- — a named reviewer opened the official source and confirmed the record; the date and the reviewer are shown.
- Pending review
- — linked to the official source and in the queue for a reviewer to confirm.
- Source-linked
- — linked to the official source, not yet confirmed by a reviewer.
On this page 9 sections
In brief
Use AI in ways that are fair and do not discriminate unlawfully is a voluntary measure under the UK AI regulation framework in the United Kingdom (Principle 3, Part 3). AI systems should not undermine legal rights, discriminate unfairly or create unfair market outcomes. The record carries 1 evidence example and mappings to 1 framework.
- Instrument
- UK AI regulation framework
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Nature
- Voluntary guidance
- Source reference
- Principle 3, Part 3
- Who it binds
- Provider / developer, Deployer / user organisation
- Evidence examples
- 1
- Framework mappings
- NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0
- Controls that meet it
- 3
- Official source
- Open official text
- Verification
- Source-linked
What does it require?
AI systems should not undermine legal rights, discriminate unfairly or create unfair market outcomes. The Equality Act 2010 and UK GDPR fairness principle make key parts of this binding.
Practical action
Test for disparate outcomes across protected characteristics before and after deployment.
Who does it apply to?
All AI uses affecting people; binding under equality and data-protection law.
Which controls meet this duty?
Satisfies: the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for. Supports: it contributes but the duty needs more. Each control page lists every other duty it serves, so work done once can be counted once.
-
satisfiesTechnical measureQuality or testing lead · at launch and on material changeAccuracy, robustness, fairness and security testing
Serves 15 recorded duties · evidence: Pre-release test report, Test plan and acceptance criteria, Release test sign-off
Disparate-outcome testing across protected characteristics before and after deployment.
-
supportsProcessData governance lead · once per ai systemData governance and dataset documentation
Serves 8 recorded duties · evidence: Dataset documentation sheet, Data quality and bias check report, Dataset approval for use
Bias checks on training data.
-
supportsProcessAI system owner · once per ai systemAI impact and fundamental-rights impact assessment
Serves 11 recorded duties · evidence: AI impact assessment, Impact assessment approval, Impact assessment procedure and template
Identifies groups at risk of unfair treatment.
Templates that cover this duty
Generated from the records. Free · no account · links emailed to your work address. This duty is cited in each file with its source reference and a link back here.
- AI System Inventory
Register · XLSX and DOCX · v6
- AI Acceptable Use Policy
Policy · DOCX · v1
- AI Governance Policy and RACI
Policy · DOCX and XLSX · v5
- NIST AI RMF ↔ EU AI Act ↔ ISO/IEC 42001 Crosswalk
Crosswalk · XLSX · v3
What evidence would a reviewer expect?
| Evidence | Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Bias and fairness testing report | report |
Framework mappings
Original editorial crosswalks. They cite clause numbers only and reproduce no standard text; confidence reflects how direct the mapping is.
See every United Kingdom duty mapped this way →
| Framework | Reference | Note | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| NIST AI RMF 1.0 | MEASURE 2.11 | Fairness and bias evaluation. | medium |
Frequently asked questions
Is this a legal requirement?
No. It is voluntary guidance under UK AI regulation framework; following it is expected or recommended rather than required by law.
Who must comply with this obligation?
All AI uses affecting people; binding under equality and data-protection law.
What evidence shows compliance?
A reviewer would expect: Bias and fairness testing report.
Which frameworks map to this obligation?
It is mapped to NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0 MEASURE 2.11. These are editorial crosswalks with a stated confidence, not official mappings.
Which controls satisfy this obligation?
Accuracy, robustness, fairness and security testing; Data governance and dataset documentation; AI impact and fundamental-rights impact assessment.
What should an organisation do in practice?
Test for disparate outcomes across protected characteristics before and after deployment.
Cite this record
AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Use AI in ways that are fair and do not discriminate unlawfully (UK AI regulation framework)” [AIPT-OBL-0074, verified 26 September 2026 by Bhaskar Bhatt]. https://aipolicytracker.org/id/AIPT-OBL-0074 (accessed 27 October 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.
Permanent id AIPT-OBL-0074: it never changes or gets reused, and its address keeps working if this page moves.
Cite the official text alongside it: A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation, UK Government, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-regulation-a-pro-innovation-approach.
BibTeX
@misc{aipolicytracker2026_useaiinwaysthatarefairan,
author = {{AIPolicyTracker}},
title = {{Use AI in ways that are fair and do not discriminate unlawfully (UK AI regulation framework)}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/uk-principles-fairness}},
url = {https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/uk-principles-fairness},
urldate = {2026-10-27},
note = {Data licensed CC BY 4.0. Accessed 27 October 2026}
}
Change history
No change to this record's tracked fields has been recorded since 15 October 2026, when field-level history began.
Similar obligations in other instruments
- Use high-risk AI as instructed, monitor it and inform affected people — EU AI Act, European Union
- Providers must meet the full set of provider duties for high-risk AI — EU AI Act, European Union
- Providers must supply conformity evidence and log access to authorities on request — EU AI Act, European Union
- Non-EU providers must appoint an EU authorised representative for high-risk AI — EU AI Act, European Union
- Deployers, distributors and importers must assume provider duties when they rebrand or substantially modify high-risk AI — EU AI Act, European Union
- Law-enforcement deployers must obtain authorisation for post-remote biometric identification and report annually — EU AI Act, European Union
- Providers of GPAI models must notify the Commission within two weeks of meeting the systemic-risk threshold — EU AI Act, European Union
- Non-EU providers of GPAI models must appoint an EU authorised representative — EU AI Act, European Union
Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.