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

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. (R)