Computer says no? Your rights against automated decisions (Art. 22)

Art. 22 bans decisions “based solely on automated processing” that have legal or similarly significant effects on you — loan refusals, algorithmic hiring rejections, benefit cut-offs, account terminations that end your livelihood. The exceptions: such decisions are allowed only when necessary for a contract, authorised by law, or based on your explicit consent — and even then you keep three guarantees: human intervention on request, the right to express your view, and the right to contest the decision (Art. 22(3)). “Solely” is read strictly: a human who blindly clicks approve on the machine’s output doesn’t count — the CJEU’s SCHUFA ruling (C-634/21) held that even a credit score can itself be an Art. 22 decision when banks rely on it decisively. Transparency: Articles 13–15 give you the right to know automated decision-making exists, plus “meaningful information about the logic involved” — not the source code, but the decisive factors. Ask for exactly that phrase. Practical script: “This decision appears to be solely automated. Under Art. 22 GDPR I request human review, wish to state my case, and contest the outcome. Under Art. 15(1)(h) I request meaningful information about the logic involved.” The AI Act adds a second layer for high-risk systems — hiring, credit, essential services — with its own transparency and human-oversight duties phasing in; track dates on What’s changing.