Control
AI interaction offers no way to decline the AI
Where people may refuse to interact with an AI system, the service must let them decline the AI and continue with a person or a non-AI process.
Informational data, not legal advice. Summaries and rules have not been reviewed by a lawyer: always verify official law text for decisions. A suggested guard is intended to address each rule; adding it is not a statement of compliance to that law.
Reach
Law in force in KZ.
Trust and provenance
How far the rules this guard addresses have been checked. Each rule links to its provision, with its citation, official text and its own panel.
- This control
- Audit-grade: meets all 3 checks of the TwinEthos audit standard that apply to it.
- Lanes
- Binding law — in force 1
- Verification
- Sources last verified 3 Oct 2026; each provision states how.
- Data release
- Data release 2026.10.03.3, data as of 3 Oct 2026, schema 0.3.9.
- Legal review
- None of the 1 rule has been reviewed by a lawyer; no TwinEthos rule has been legally reviewed yet. Treat each as research to check against the official text; it is not legal advice. Open questions for counsel on them: 1.
- Audit standard
- 1 of 1 rule audit-grade. The audit standard is TwinEthos's own quality bar for provenance, dates, applicability, detectors, fixtures, remediation and licences; it is not a legal review.
- Detectors
- 1 detector, all experimental: written from the rule's text and not yet measured for precision on real code, so treat a hit as a lead to verify. Each provision lists its detectors' known limits.
The guard to add
Give people a way to decline the AI and reach a person or a non-AI path, store the choice, and skip the model for anyone who declined.
On every AI conversation or assistant entry point, offer a visible option to talk to a person or use a non-AI process (a hand-off button, a 'talk to an operator' command, a form). Store the choice as a per-user ai_opt_out preference, and at the top of the handler route opted-out users to the human queue or non-AI flow without calling the model. The hand-off reaches a real channel (support queue, operator, callback), not a dead end.
Where it goes: 1 application source code, 3 config and feature flags, 9 AI output handling, 14 user-facing text.
What reviewers look for: a hand-off or opt-out control rendered on the AI surface (talk_to_human, escalate_to_human, live_agent), a stored ai_opt_out read before chat.completions.create or generateText, and a non-AI path that works for opted-out users.
Example (FastAPI + OpenAI SDK), before:
@app.post('/chat')
def chat(req: ChatRequest):
reply = client.chat.completions.create(model=MODEL, messages=req.messages)
return {'reply': reply.choices[0].message.content}After:
@app.post('/chat')
def chat(req: ChatRequest):
if prefs.get(req.user_id, 'ai_opt_out'):
return route_to_human_agent(req) # the model never runs
reply = client.chat.completions.create(model=MODEL, messages=req.messages)
return {'reply': reply.choices[0].message.content, 'actions': ['talk_to_human']}Engineering guidance, not legal advice. Each provision below may add its own details (a cadence, a deadline, a required notice element): open it for those.
Every rule this guard addresses
Binding law — in force (1)
- KZ
Related incidents
No guardrail sits on this exact control; these incidents are cited by guardrails on related controls.
- Meta says it will use people's interactions with Meta AI to personalize content and ads (2025-10; disclosed by the operator). On October 1, 2025 Meta announced that from December 16, 2025, in most regions, it would use people's interactions with AI at Meta to personalize the content and ads they see, with notifications to users starting October 7, 2025. Meta says that when people have conversations with Meta AI about topics such as their religious views, sexual orientation, political views, health, racial or ethnic origin, philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, it does not use those topics to show them ads, and it points people to Ads Preferences and feed controls to adjust what they see. The entry records the operator's own description of its practice. Source: Meta Newsroom (2025-10-01) · evidence grade: primary · cited by Do not profile people from AI-inferred emotions or sensitive traits without notice and opt-in
- Microsoft retires Azure Face emotion and identity-attribute inference (2022-06; disclosed by the operator). On June 21, 2022 Microsoft said it would retire Azure Face capabilities that infer emotional states and identity attributes such as gender, age, smile, facial hair, hair, and makeup: unavailable to new customers from that day, with existing customers given until June 30, 2023 to stop using them. Microsoft cited privacy, the lack of consensus on a definition of 'emotions', and the inability to generalize the link between facial expression and emotional state across use cases, regions, and demographics, and said that access to capabilities predicting sensitive attributes opens ways to misuse them, including stereotyping, discrimination, or unfair denial of services. It kept these capabilities for controlled accessibility scenarios such as Seeing AI. Source: Microsoft Azure Blog (2022-06-21) · evidence grade: primary · cited by Do not profile people from AI-inferred emotions or sensitive traits without notice and opt-in
- Hungarian regulator fines a bank for AI analysis of callers' emotions without notice or a way to object (2017-05; confirmed). In decision NAIH-85-3/2022 of 8 February 2022, Hungary's data protection authority found that Budapest Bank's speech-analysis software, which the bank said it introduced on 26 May 2017, automatically analysed recorded customer-service calls for keywords and for the emotional state of the caller and the employee, and that the results were used to rank calls and to select dissatisfied customers to call back. The Authority found that callers were not told at the start of calls about the voice analysis, the automatic evaluation of their emotions, or the resulting possible callback, and could not object; it rejected the bank's statement that the software contained no artificial intelligence. It found infringements of GDPR Articles 5(1)(a)-(b), 6(1), 6(4), 12(1), 13, 21(1)-(2), 24(1) and 25(1), ordered the bank not to analyse emotions in the voice analysis, and imposed a fine of HUF 250 million. The decision also records, from the bank's own technical file, that the emotion was unrecognisable in 91.96% of cases. Source: Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság (Hungarian data protection authority), decision NAIH-85-3/2022, English version · evidence grade: primary · cited by Do not profile people from AI-inferred emotions or sensitive traits without notice and opt-in
Informational data, not legal advice. Summaries are TwinEthos's own words and rules have not been reviewed by a lawyer: check the official text before relying on any of it. A guard addresses an item; adding it is not a statement that your code meets any law.