Innovation & competitiveness

“California has proven that we can establish regulations to protect our communities while also ensuring that the growing AI industry continues to thrive. This legislation strikes that balance.”

“The Chairman’s regulatory sandbox proposal offers a broad scope that could enable a wide range of business practices, research, and AI technologies—not just a select few—to benefit from the program.”

“By federalizing a new likeness right and coupling it to notice-and-staydown requirements, aggressive statutory damages, and easy unmasking, it creates millions in new annual costs for digital services, both small and large, which favors incumbents and creates barriers to entry.”

“We will join several other companies, including U.S. model providers, in signing the European Union’s General Purpose AI Code of Practice. We do so with the hope that this Code, as applied, will promote European citizens’ and businesses’ access to secure, first-rate AI tools as they become available.”

Signing announced with stated reservations on copyright departures, approvals, and trade-secret exposure.

“While the code’s safety and security measures have been streamlined for greater clarity, they remain overly prescriptive and disproportionate – for example, with respect to external evaluations. Furthermore, key measures in the final code still go beyond the AI Act’s agreed scope and objectives, subjecting potential signatories to burdensome requirements.”

“This level of forced transparency goes beyond reasonable accountability and may discourage responsible companies from operating in California. It also creates opportunities for misuse by malicious actors who could exploit disclosed model weaknesses or mitigation gaps.”

“To address the uncertainty this situation is creating, we urge the Commission to propose a two-year “clock-stop” on the AI Act before key obligations enter into force, in order to allow both for reasonable implementation by companies, and for further simplification of the new rules.”

Open letter signed by 40+ European CEOs incl. Airbus, ASML, Mistral AI, Lufthansa, BNP Paribas, Philips, Mercedes-Benz.

“The RAISE Act would create a legal minefield for New Yorkers trying to innovate by imposing vague, unworkable standards that punish developers instead of bad actors. This bill would stifle AI tech development, harm economic competitiveness and undermine free expression. NetChoice urges Governor Hochul to veto this misguided legislation and support a clear, national approach to AI governance”

“More than 1,000 AI-related bills have already been introduced at the state and local level this year. Without a federal moratorium there will be a growing patchwork of state and local laws that will significantly limit AI development and deployment.”

Coalition letter of 250+ business associations to Senate leaders Thune and Schumer.

“I think that would be disastrous. I to give a more specific answer to your previous question, which I think touches on why it would be so bad, there are three key inputs to these AI systems.”

Speaker: Sam Altman, CEO, OpenAI. Third-party verbatim transcript; transcript's 'I to give' artifact preserved.

“this legislation that provides balanced and effective protections for all individuals against exploitative uses of their voice and likeness while supporting free speech, reducing litigation and achieving the promise of AI technology”

“We believe a broad text and data mining exception, as described in Option 2, is the most effective way to achieve the Government’s objectives to unlock and leverage the benefits of AI in the UK.”

Submitted via IPO survey 25 Feb 2025; summary published 2 Apr 2025 at the Commons SITC's request.

“Finally, it would contributing to a growing state-by-state patchwork of AI laws that would stall innovation while the Trump administration is still working on fleshing out an America First approach to federal AI policy.”

Document is testimony in opposition to TX HB 149 as introduced; stance coded relative to the ask (narrowing comprehensive state AI acts), which the testimony supports. Source's 'it would contributing' typo preserved.

“We encourage the Trump Administration, and BIS in particular, to withdraw the Interim Final Rule (IFR) on a Framework for AI Diffusion and open a new, deliberative rulemaking process with stakeholders to protect national security without undermining U.S. companies’ of all sizes ability to compete globally.”

“In addition, we urge the administration to clarify that existing copyright law protects the ability of developers to train models. Getting this right is critical to ensuring American competitiveness in AI.”

“This framework would extend the tradition of government receiving learnings and access, where appropriate, in exchange for providing the private sector relief from the 781 and counting proposed AI-related bills already introduced this year in US states. This patchwork of regulations risks bogging down innovation and, in the case of AI, undermining America’s leadership position.”

“Make it simpler. Stop relegating American friends and allies into a second tier that undermines their confidence in ongoing access to American products. Eliminate the quantitative caps that would interfere with a well-functioning economic market. And keep what matters most, such as the qualitative security standards and AI use restrictions that protect national security.”

“techUK believes that Option 2 – the broad TDM exception – would provide the strongest competitive advantage for the UK's AI sector and create significant opportunities for economic growth and will be the preferred option of many.”

“We are clear in our view that the training of AI models is a non-expressive use of open web content, which boosts economic growth, fosters scientific advancement, and enables the creation of valuable new works.”

“In its last days in office, the Biden Administration seeks to undermine America’s leadership with a 200+ page regulatory morass, drafted in secret and without proper legislative review. This sweeping overreach would impose bureaucratic control over how America’s leading semiconductors, computers, systems and even software are designed and marketed globally.”

“Open source software provides much of the foundation of the internet, is extensively used by government agencies, and is widely considered to be more secure from malicious actors than proprietary software. Consequently, there is no inherent reason to prohibit the creation, dissemination, and use of Open Models.”

“It is vital that we reduce this burden as much as possible, and let SMEs apply GPAI, foundation models and other new emerging AI technologies in their innovations. This is why we support recent moves by Member States to limit the scope for foundation models to transparency standards.”

Joint statement with 30+ national digital industry associations, at AI Act trilogue stage (Nov 2023).

“techUK welcomes the much-anticipated publication of the UK’s AI White Paper and supports its plans for a context-specific, principle-based approach to governing AI that promotes innovation. The government must now prioritise building the necessary regulatory capacity, expertise, and coordination.”

Endorses the non-statutory, regulator-led approach; coded oppose relative to the binding-legislation ask.