Skip to content
AI Policy Generator

Other automated decisions with significant effects (housing, pricing, access to services)

Automated or AI-driven decisions that affect people outside employment and credit: housing rentals, personalized pricing, access to services, account blocking or legal services. They trigger rights regarding automated decisions under data protection laws and, in the US, consequential decision laws.

Examples

By country

We only list countries where an obligation in force or adopted mentions this use case.

How rules treat it, by jurisdiction

JurisdictionLevelDateNote
ColoradoConsequential decisionJanuary 1, 2027SB 26-189: education, employment, financial services, essential government services, health care, housing, insurance and legal services (the last one to be confirmed).
CaliforniaConsequential decisionJanuary 1, 2027CCPA ADMT: significant decisions on financial services, housing, education, employment and health care.
United States (federal)Sector rules—FCRA and the Fair Housing Act for tenant screening; landlords are responsible for their vendors.
European UnionData protection—GDPR Art. 22; it is Annex III high-risk only for listed essential services (credit, insurance, public benefits, emergencies).
SpainData protection—GDPR Art. 22 and CJEU case law on the right to an explanation of the logic (C-203/22).
PeruData protectionMarch 31, 2025DS 016-2024-JUS Art. 87: right not to be subject to solely automated decisions with significant effects.
EcuadorData protection—Data Protection Law Art. 20: right not to be subject to automated decisions with legal effects.
ChileData protectionDecember 1, 2026Law 21,719, Art. 8 bis.
ArgentinaData protection—Law 25,326 and AAIP Res. 4/2019.
BrazilData protection—LGPD Art. 20.
ColombiaData protection—Law 1581/2012 and SIC Circular 002/2024 (guidance).

Common base documents

Depending on your situation

If there is a discrimination risk
If the system comes from a vendor
If an appeal path is offered

Find out what applies to you (free)