'Big AI' is subverting regulations just like tobacco and oil firms

AI + ML

Researchers warn that regulatory capture means industry concerns trump those of citizens

The AI industry is copying techniques used by tobacco firms,
big pharma and oil companies to influence governmental policy and regulation of itself, according to an academic study.

Researchers at the University of Edinburgh, Trinity College
Dublin, Delft University of Technology, and Carnegie Mellon University claim they identified patterns of “corporate capture” by which regulations and public
bodies come to act in the interest of industry rather than the citizens they are
meant to protect.

Their paper, “Big AI’s Regulatory Capture: Mapping Industry
Interference and Government Complicity,” details various mechanisms of capture
and how these work.

The most frequent include what the researchers identify as Discourse
& Epistemic influence (D&EI), Elusion of law, or Direct influence on
policy.

For evidence, the researchers analyzed 100 news stories covering
four global AI events between 2023 and 2025; the EU AI Act negotiations, and the
global AI summits held in the UK, South Korea, and France. They report finding numerous
cases fitting capture patterns. 

One of the most prevalent here was “narrative capture,” which is when an industry or company attempts to steer discussion in a
direction that benefits them, and influences the position or decisions of public
officials and official regulations.

As an example, it cites how the European Commission has
uncritically followed the industry’s call to “simplify” the AI Act (alongside
other digital regulation) even before it has been fully implemented. 

Earlier
this month, The Register reported how enforcement
of the rules was delayed, while the rules themselves were cut back after months of angry complaints from AI companies.

Narratives deployed emphasized how “regulation stifles innovation” and centered on “red tape,” where regulation
is portrayed as unnecessary or excessive, setting the stage for later calls
explicitly advocating for “deregulation.”

The researchers found that “elusion of law” (using legal loopholes) is the most recurring
after narrative-framing activity. This may comprise violations, such as disregarding existing laws, or contentious interpretations of laws governing areas including antitrust, privacy, copyright and labor laws.

Reg readers will be familiar with AI developers’ efforts to exempt
themselves from copyright laws, for example, by arguing that requiring permission or payment for training data would stifle progress or even destroy the industry entirely.

This position has been championed by the Tony
Blair Institute and by the UK’s former deputy PM and erstwhile Meta apologist
Sir
Nick Clegg, who now works for neocloud biz Nscale.

The study also identified lobbying and “Revolving Door” as common tools for shaping policy, the latter referring to public officials moving into private sector roles or industry figures securing influential government posts. 

The UK government’s flagship AI
Opportunities Action Plan – for example – was authored by entrepreneur Matt Clifford, who
it turns out happens to have financial
interests in nearly 500 tech firms, including a number involved with AI.

The paper concludes that while it is only right that government
regulators attend to the concerns of industry, regulation should always
prioritize protecting and promoting the core public values for which
governments bear responsibility.

It warns that the AI industry’s power, wealth and influence have “far-reaching implications” in terms of impact on the rule of law, the labor
market, the environment, knowledge production, and, ultimately, on the functioning
of democracy itself.

The level of power held by the AI industry is “so corrosive” that policymakers ought to treat it as an emergency, the paper says. Government
complicity is detrimental to ensuring the rule of law and to restoring trust in
public interest technologies, it points out.  ®