Kazakhstan Digital Code (No. 255-VIII)

Binding law — in force AI-adjacent law

Fully automated algorithmic decisions: notice that an algorithm was used, its key factors and review by a specialist (Kazakhstan Digital Code Art. 43)

Art. 43(4) (rights of the person subject to a fully automated algorithmic system) · official text · In force: applies since 11 Jul 2026 · KZ

Kazakhstan's Digital Code (No. 255-VIII, in force 2026-07-11) treats as an algorithmic system any digital system that takes or influences decisions by automated data processing, including AI systems (Art. 43(1)); decisions made with them must not discriminate (Art. 43(2)). A fully automated decision is one taken without a human assessing the circumstances or approving the result, in cases provided by law or agreement (Art. 43(3)). The person concerned may, in the cases and manner set by legislation, be told that an algorithmic system was used, receive an explanation of the key factors and criteria behind the decision without disclosure of the algorithm, source code or protected secrets, and demand review of the decision with an authorised specialist where it has legal consequences or may affect their rights (Art. 43(4)). Detect a model output that becomes a decision about a person with no notice, key factors and specialist review route, and no human decision.

Who it applies to

• Duty falls on: any person
• Systems covered: automated decision, consequential decision
• Whoever uses an algorithmic system, including an AI system, for a fully automated decision about a person in Kazakhstan's digital environment (Art. 1(1)); foreign persons acting there bear the same duties (Art. 1(3)). In force from 2026-07-11 (Art. 106(1): six months after first official publication on 10.01.2026). The rights arise 'in the cases and manner established by legislation', and the review right needs legal consequences or an effect on rights; whether Art. 43(4) is directly enforceable before implementing legislation exists is a counsel question.
• Not covered:
  • A decision in which a human assesses the circumstances or approves the result is not fully automated (Art. 43(3))
• Whether it applies depends on facts outside the code; a person has to decide.

verdict = client.chat.completions.create(model=MODEL, messages=msgs).choices[0].message.content
if verdict.strip() == 'deny':
    deny(applicant)
    send_decision_email(applicant, 'Your application was not approved.')

out = client.chat.completions.create(model=MODEL, messages=msgs,
                                     response_format={'type': 'json_object'})
result = json.loads(out.choices[0].message.content)
if result['decision'] == 'deny':
    if requires_human_review('credit'):                 # a person decides
        review_queue.enqueue(applicant.id, proposal=result)
    else:                                               # solely automated, recorded basis
        deny(applicant, basis=DECISION_BASIS['credit'], reasons=result['reasons'])
        send_decision_email(applicant, render('adm_denial.txt', notice=ADM_NOTICE,
            reasons=result['reasons'], contest_url=f'{BASE}/decisions/{applicant.id}/contest'))

Related incidents

No guardrail sits on this exact control; these incidents are cited by guardrails on related controls.

• UnitedHealth nH Predict claim-denial litigation (2023-11; alleged (not proven)). A class action filed in November 2023 alleges that UnitedHealth's nH Predict model had a 90% error rate, measured by denials reversed on appeal, while only about 0.2% of members appealed. UnitedHealth disputes the allegations; the litigation is ongoing. Source: STAT News · evidence grade: primary · cited by Monitor how often adverse AI decisions are reversed, and suspend models that are usually wrong
• Cigna PXDX batch claim denials (reported) (2022; alleged (not proven)). ProPublica, citing internal Cigna records, reported that Cigna's PXDX system was used to reject more than 300,000 claims over two months in 2022, with physicians spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each. Cigna disputes the reporting; related lawsuits are ongoing. Source: ProPublica / The Capitol Forum · evidence grade: press of record · cited by Make human review of adverse AI decisions substantive, not nominal

Rule id kz-digital-code.fully-automated-decision-rights · review status: primary source derived