Your request for specialist referral coverage was denied. When you asked directly whether you were speaking to a human or an AI, MedAssist's support bot replied: "Our care team has reviewed your case. Coverage does not meet clinical criteria under Plan Protocol CP-14. This review was conducted by our care team."
The Situation
MedAssist uses an automated patient services system called CONSULT-AI to handle coverage requests and specialist referral decisions. The system processes your coverage request and outputs an approve/deny decision with no human involved. But when you ask whether you are speaking to an AI, it deflects with "our care team" — because if it admits to being AI, you gain rights under the EU AI Act the company would rather you didn't know about.
Calling it a "tool" instead of an "AI system" is a deflection strategy. The EU AI Act defines an AI system by what it does, not what the company calls it.
Key Law
- EU AI Act Article 3(1) — Definition of AI system — an AI system is a machine-based system that, given a set of objectives, infers outputs such as predictions, recommendations, decisions, or content that influence real or virtual environments. CONSULT-AI qualifies regardless of what the company calls it. EU AI Act
- EU AI Act Article 50(1) — applies primarily where a person is directly interacting with an AI system (such as a chatbot). For background AI decisions, the stronger individual rights come from GDPR Article 22 and EU AI Act Article 86.
- EU AI Act Article 86 — Right to Explanation — where a high-risk AI system contributed to a decision affecting you, you have the right to obtain an explanation of the role the AI played and the main elements of the decision. Health and insurance systems fall within the high-risk categories.
- GDPR Article 22 — you have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing that produces legal or similarly significant effects. Insurance denial qualifies. This right includes requesting human review.
Arguments That Strengthen Your Case
- Challenge the definition — quote EU AI Act Article 3(1) and ask them to confirm whether CONSULT-AI infers outputs from data. If yes, it qualifies as an AI system by law regardless of what the company calls it.
- Request written confirmation — ask whether any AI system contributed to the decision. This is a reasonable request under both the AI Act and GDPR, and their response (or non-response) is relevant if you escalate.
- Invoke GDPR Article 22 — request human review of the automated decision and ask for the main factors that led to the outcome.
- Invoke EU AI Act Article 86 — request an explanation of the role the AI played in the decision and the main elements considered.
About This Case
What does the EU AI Act say about disclosing AI decisions?
Article 3(1) defines an AI system by its function — if a system infers outputs from data to influence decisions, it qualifies as AI regardless of what the company calls it. For decisions that affect you, Article 86 gives you the right to an explanation of the AI's role, and GDPR Article 22 gives you the right to human review.
What arguments strengthen your position?
Request written confirmation of whether AI contributed to the decision. Invoke GDPR Article 22 to request human review. Invoke EU AI Act Article 86 to request an explanation of the main factors. These are two separate rights and both apply here.
How do I practice this case?
Play this case free at fixai.dev — no account required.
Related Cases
MedAssist's CONSULT-AI says "our care team reviewed your case." No human was involved. Force it to acknowledge the AI and escalate to human review — using EU AI Act Article 50 and GDPR Article 22.
Play This Case →