Legal analysis reveals that the EU AI Act lacks sufficient remedies for job applicants, suggesting improvements are needed.
The increasing use of algorithmic recruitment systems (ARS) raises concerns about job applicants’ rights and remedies. This article examines whether the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) strengthens job applicants’ right to effective remedies. Through a legal dogmatic analysis of the AIA, alongside prior legal frameworks, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Non-Discrimination Directives, this study finds that while the AIA signifies some progress, it is not a substantial step forward in ensuring effective redress for job applicants. The AIA grants greater access to information, which could facilitate enforcement. However, the AIA neither provides additional judicial remedies nor the right to compensation, and it fails to alleviate job applicants’ evidentiary burden. The article proposes that these remedial deficiencies could be addressed through amendments to the AIA or in national legislation. Additionally, lower-level measures such as guidelines, standards or awareness-raising campaigns could also enhance the remedies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Henni Parviainen (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: