🗞️ Issue 80 // ⏱️ Read Time: 7 min

Hello 👋

The battle lines are drawn in Brussels. As the EU pushes forward with implementing the AI Act, Meta's recent refusal to sign the EU's Code of Practice for AI has sparked a debate that goes far beyond legal compliance: It's a fundamental clash over who gets to shape the future of AI governance.

The Regulatory Landscape: Setting the Stage

The European Union's AI Act, now in force, represents the attempt to prevent what regulators call a "race to the bottom" in artificial intelligence development. The legislation aims to ensure AI systems are developed and deployed safely, transparently, and in ways that protect fundamental rights.

However, the path to implementation hasn't been smooth. Major European technology companies, including ASML, SAP, and Mistral AI, along with over 110 other organizations, have formally asked the European Union to delay implementation. In a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, these business leaders argue that the forthcoming regulations could jeopardize the EU's position in global AI innovation and call for a more "innovation-friendly regulatory approach."

Despite this industry pushback, the European Commission announced that implementation will continue as planned and launched the EU's Code of Practice as a bridge between regulatory requirements and practical compliance.

Understanding the AI Code of Practice

The EU's AI Code of Practice serves as a voluntary framework designed to help companies implement the AI Act's requirements:

• It requires companies to provide comprehensive documentation about their AI tools, including how models are trained, what data is used, and how risks are managed. 

• Crucially, it bans training AI on pirated content and requires compliance with content owners' requests to exclude their works from datasets.

• The code aims to create industry standards that promote transparency, accountability, and responsible innovation while building public trust in AI systems. 

• For society, it promises greater transparency and protection from potentially harmful AI systems.

Meta's Public Position: The Official Reasons

Meta's refusal to sign the GPAI came through Joel Kaplan, the company's Chief Global Affairs Officer, in a LinkedIn post that sent ripples through the tech industry. 

Kaplan outlines three primary objections. Let’s take a closer look at what it actually means.

Legal Uncertainty: Meta argues the code introduces numerous legal uncertainties, claiming requirements are vaguely defined and could expose them to unexpected legal risks.

Regulatory Overreach: The company claims the code includes "measures which go far beyond the scope of the AI Act," suggesting regulators are using the voluntary framework to impose requirements not explicitly mandated in the original legislation.

Innovation Concerns: Meta echoes the broader industry concern that "this over-reach will throttle the development and deployment of frontier AI models in Europe."

The False Dichotomy: Why the “Regulation Kills Innovation" Argument Doesn't Hold Up

Meta's resistance relies heavily on a familiar industry talking point: that regulation inherently stifles innovation. This narrative, while seductive in its simplicity, represents a false dichotomy that obscures a far more nuanced reality.

The Standard Industry Playbook

The "regulation hates innovation" argument follows a predictable pattern:

1. Companies claim compliance costs divert resources from R&D,

2. Regulatory uncertainty makes long-term planning impossible, and

3. Restrictive rules limit technological exploration.

This framing positions companies as champions of progress fighting bureaucratic obstacles while casting regulators as risk-averse bureaucrats who don't understand technology.

The Research Tells a Different Story

However, decades of research reveal that well-designed regulation can actually foster innovation by setting clear goals that act as "demand signals," building public trust essential for adoption, preventing races to the bottom, and spurring compliance-driven innovation. For example, The Montreal Protocol banning ozone-depleting substances spurred innovation in refrigeration and aerosol technologies, creating entirely new chemical industries

Why Companies Keep Using This Argument

Companies continue deploying this argument because regulation creates immediate, visible compliance costs while innovation benefits emerge over longer time horizons. Additionally, early compliance can disadvantage first-movers compared to competitors who delay, creating incentives to resist collectively rather than compete on responsibility.

Understanding the Strategic Calculations

Meta's resistance reveals calculations extending far beyond immediate compliance requirements. The company's business model depends on maximizing scale and speed to market with minimal oversight. The code's documentation and transparency requirements create friction that could slow development and potentially reveal competitive advantages.

Meta appears to be testing EU enforcement limits while negotiating from a position of strength. By aligning with other dissenting voices, Meta is betting Brussels might soften requirements to avoid losing major tech players.

However, this approach creates fundamental misalignment with market dynamics. Meta's resistance comes when the company already faces significant trust deficits from scandals like Cambridge Analytica. The EU framework offers a pathway to rebuild public confidence through documented responsible practices, yet Meta is rejecting this opportunity. This creates strategic openings for competitors willing to embrace transparency as a competitive differentiator, which is particularly important as users increasingly demand responsible AI development and enterprise customers require compliance capabilities.

What This Means for the Future

Meta's strategic resistance represents more than a single company's regulatory gambit, it's a test case for how global AI governance will evolve. The outcome will influence whether voluntary compliance mechanisms can work alongside mandatory regulations.

If other major tech companies follow Meta's lead, it could undermine the EU's attempt to establish Europe as a global standard-setter for responsible AI. Conversely, if market pressures eventually force Meta to participate, it could cement the Brussels Effect in AI governance, where EU regulations become de facto global standards.

Until next time.
On behalf of Team Lumiera

Emma - Business Strategist
Allegra - Data Specialist

Lumiera has gathered the brightest people from the technology and policy sectors to give you top-quality advice so you can navigate the new AI Era.

Follow the carefully curated Lumiera podcast playlist to stay informed and challenged on all things AI.