By Alice Rickert, Research Associate and Lecturer at the University of St. Gallen Pierrette Howayeck, Postdoctoral Researcher at ESSCA School of Management Inva Koçiaj Çela, PhD Candidate and Lecturer at University of Tirana
This blog is produced as a part of the Reshaping Work Fellowship Programme. The opinions and views expressed in this publication are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of Reshaping Work or organisations that have supported the programme.
As artificial intelligence increasingly shapes employment, decision-making, and social interaction, corporate lobbying has emerged as a critical force in AI governance [1]. Big Tech firms actively lobby at the European Union (EU) and international levels to promote “innovation-friendly” regulation, often seeking to dilute transparency, accountability, and anti discrimination safeguards.
The broader tech sector now spends €151 million annually in Brussels, a staggering 55% increase since 2021 [2]. Meta alone invests €10 million annually on EU lobbying, making it the single largest corporate lobbyist in the European Union. Such lobbying efforts directly shape key regulatory frameworks. This raises an important question:
How do the lobbying strategies of Meta and similar actors influence the regulatory design of key AI frameworks, including the EU AI Act, the Platform Work Directive, and the Digital Services Act?
Appropriate AI governance is not only a technological or ethical concern; it is inherently political. We observe three lobbying trends shaping the current debate:
- Strategic Advocacy. First, some companies lobby for stricter rules primarily to disadvantage competitors. OpenAI, for example, advocated tighter model training regulations in 2023 after heavily relying on the very practices they later sought to restrict [3, 4].
- Narratives of Innovation Constraints. U.S.-based technology firms frequently frame privacy laws as barriers to innovation while investing millions in lobbying efforts. In 2025, several major initiatives sought to delay the implementation of the EU AI Act. Both the Computer and Communications Industry Association and the EU AI Champions Initiative called for a two-year “stop-the-clock” pause, citing excessive complexity and regulatory uncertainty[5, 6]. Prior to the EU AI Act’s publication, corporate actors warned that their products would become unavailable if data-use restrictions were enforced. After the EU AI Act’s implementation, Europe remains one of the few regions where users can opt out of comprehensive personal data usage and products are still available. Importantly, these opt-out functions have not been extended to users elsewhere, illustrating the necessity for governance that requires corporations to adhere to minimum ethical standards.
- Profit vs. Ethics — or not a contrast at all? Despite public commitments to “responsible AI,” major firms have dismantled their AI ethics teams [7], while spending millions on lobbying. For example, Meta spent approximately $19.3 million in 2023 on federal lobbying in the United States and has continued to invest heavily in lobbying activities between 2023 and 2025, maintaining one of the largest lobbying budgets among major technology companies[8, 9]. At the same time, publicly funded initiatives like Apertus in Switzerland demonstrate that ethically aligned AI development is not only feasible, but also a viable option[10].
Together, these developments underscore that the debate over AI governance is not merely about technical feasibility. It is about whose interests shape regulation, whose risks are prioritized, and whether innovation is pursued at the expense of human safety or guided by responsible leadership.
Practical Guidance
The path toward responsible AI requires acknowledging an uncomfortable truth: convenience and profit have often taken precedence over responsible usage and privacy. Changing this trajectory demands that each organization to double-check its practices. In light of Big Tech’s influence on EU regulations and the resulting dilution of standards, organizations as consumers cannot rely on these tools uncritically. They must carefully assess and verify the practices of the tool providers before adoption. A starting point consists of reflecting on vetting of AI tools, responsible data practices, and double-checking the data sovereignty:
A Call for Proactive Engagement
The influence of corporate lobbying on AI regulation requires informed, proactive engagement. By understanding the interplay between corporate interests and responsible considerations, practitioners can help shape an AI ecosystem that serves society, not just corporate profits [11]. Key actions include regularly assessing and adjusting AI practices within your organization, advocating for balanced regulations that prioritize transparency and accountability, investing in ethical AI development for its long-term benefits, and engaging in policy discussions that advance ethical AI standards.