Module 17 self-check | AI GRCA Practitioner Programme

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?

Potentially 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 connectionThis scenario is explicitly exempted by the ActNo, obligations can never extend this way

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

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

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

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

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

Scope 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 classificationClassification should always happen before considering scopeScope and classification are the same question

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

Convergence around risk-based thinking, transparency and accountabilityAll have adopted the EU AI Act verbatimNone regulate AI in any formNo common ground exists at all

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

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

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

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

All persuasive AI techniques are automatically prohibited, including ordinary marketingProhibited practices are determined solely by company sizeManipulation 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 ban

EU AI Act Foundations and Global AI Law Landscape