This paper aims to showcase how the new Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AI Act) of the European Union interplays with the existing legal framework for the protection of consumers. It deals with the evolving challenges posed by AI technologies, as seen from a consumer rights perspective, the right to privacy, ethical concerns, and a comparative approach between different jurisdictions. The paper begins by analysing the AI Act, and its risk-based classification system, which imposes stricter obligations on high-risk AI while setting transparency requirements for limited-risk and general-purpose AI applications. It continues by examining the interplay of these provisions with existing regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), how these complement each other and identify potential gaps or omissions. Next, the focus shifts to emotional AI, a field of technology which raises complex ethical and legal concerns and highlights the problems of the new AI Act. While the provisions of the AI Act could provide some protection against violations of rights arising from emotional AI usage, it is still ambiguous whether adequate consumer protection against potential exploitation through emotion-recognition technologies exists. The paper also highlights the importance of the regulatory sandbox mechanism, which the AI Act introduces, that seeks to balance consumer protection with innovation. Through this regulatory sandbox, AI developers can test technologies in a controlled environment without fear of being fined. Nevertheless, this solution could disproportionally impact small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which may struggle with the financial and technical burden of compliance. The paper proposes possible solutions to mitigate such concerns, such as adaptive compliance thresholds and incentives for ethical AI development, to ensure that regulation does not stifle innovation. Finally, the paper proceeds with a comparative analysis of global AI governance strategies, highlighting key differences between the EU’s comprehensive regulatory approach and the more fragmented frameworks in the US, which focuses on sector-specific regulations and state-led initiatives, and China, which has only adopted a targeted, technology-specific approach, focusing on AI governance in areas such as deepfakes and social scoring. By contrast, Japan and Singapore focus more on a collaborative approach between all sectors and a more human-centric approach. By drawing lessons from these different models, this paper evaluates potential improvements to the AI Act, advocating for more dynamic regulatory mechanisms that can adapt to emerging AI risks. With the AI Act being an essential piece of legislation to ensure trustworthy AI, it is, without a doubt, that AI, consumer rights, and privacy require continuous regulatory evolution, and the contribution of this paper is to provide recommendations for strengthening the AI Act to better safeguard consumers in the rapidly evolving digital landscape.