The AI sector is reportedly adopting strategies reminiscent of those used by tobacco and oil industries to sway governmental policy and regulation. This assertion comes from a study conducted by researchers from the University of Edinburgh, Trinity College Dublin, Delft University of Technology, and Carnegie Mellon University.
Identifying Corporate Capture
The researchers’ paper, titled “Big AI’s Regulatory Capture: Mapping Industry Interference and Government Complicity,” outlines various mechanisms through which corporate interests can dominate regulatory frameworks. They highlight patterns of what they term “corporate capture,” where regulations and public bodies prioritize industry concerns over the welfare of citizens.
Mechanisms of Influence
Among the tactics identified are Discourse & Epistemic Influence (D&EI), Elusion of Law, and Direct Influence on Policy. The researchers analyzed 100 news stories related to four significant global AI events from 2023 to 2025, including the EU AI Act negotiations and global AI summits in the UK, South Korea, and France. They found numerous instances of regulatory capture, particularly through a process they call “narrative capture.” This occurs when industries shape discussions to favor their interests, thereby influencing public officials and regulatory decisions.
Examples of Regulatory Erosion
The study cites the European Commission’s uncritical acceptance of industry calls to simplify the AI Act, even before its full implementation. This aligns with a broader narrative that portrays regulation as an impediment to innovation, framing it as excessive or unnecessary. Such narratives set the stage for calls advocating for deregulation.
Legal Loopholes and Lobbying
Another prevalent tactic is the “elusion of law,” where companies exploit legal loopholes to circumvent existing regulations. This includes contentious interpretations of laws related to antitrust, privacy, and copyright. The study points out the AI sector’s attempts to exempt itself from copyright laws by arguing that requiring permissions for training data would hinder industry growth.
Additionally, lobbying and the “Revolving Door” phenomenon—where public officials transition to private sector roles—are common strategies for shaping policy. For instance, the UK government’s AI Opportunities Action Plan was authored by Matt Clifford, an entrepreneur with financial ties to numerous tech firms, including those in AI.
The researchers conclude that while it is essential for regulators to consider industry concerns, the primary focus must remain on protecting public values. They caution that the AI industry’s significant power and influence pose serious implications for democracy, the rule of law, and public trust in technology.
This article was produced by NeonPulse.today using human and AI-assisted editorial processes, based on publicly available information. Content may be edited for clarity and style.
