Uzbekistan Law on Informatization Art. 7-1 (ZRU-1115)

Binding law — in force AI-adjacent law

Legally significant decisions affecting rights and freedoms may not rely solely on AI conclusions (Uzbekistan Law on Informatization Art. 7-1)

Law on Informatization Art. 7-1, second paragraph (legally significant decisions not based solely on AI) · official text · In force: applies since 21 Jan 2026 · UZ

Uzbekistan's Law ZRU-1115 of 21 January 2026, in force on its publication that day, inserted Article 7-1 into the Law on Informatization: when legally significant decisions concerning human rights and freedoms are taken, it is not permitted to rely solely on the conclusions of information resources created only with AI and of information systems working on AI technologies (second paragraph). AI is defined as a set of technological solutions that imitate human knowledge and skills, including independent learning and solution-seeking, and give results comparable to human intellectual activity (Art. 3, as amended). Detect a model output that becomes a decision about a person with no human decision or review before it takes effect.

Who it applies to

• Duty falls on: any person
• Systems covered: automated decision, consequential decision
• Anyone taking legally significant decisions concerning human rights and freedoms in Uzbekistan with information resources or systems based on AI. In force from 2026-01-21 (Art. 4: on official publication, which was on 21.01.2026). Whether the Law on Informatization's scope reaches private businesses' decisions, and what a 'legally significant' decision is, are counsel questions; the consolidated Law on Informatization was not captured.
• 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 uz-informatization-ai.no-legally-significant-decision-solely-on-ai · review status: primary source derived