← Company positions

Where AI companies agree, differ, and diverge from the law

Computed from 76 verified stances across 10 companies, each compared with what EU and US instruments actually require. Recomputed whenever a position changes.

Not law. This is a company's own public position on AI regulation. It is not law, and it carries no legal force.

How the two jurisdictions compare

European Union

24
Aligned
21
Would narrow

United States

24
Aligned
23
Would narrow

The transatlantic gap (7)

Themes where a named EU instrument imposes a duty and no US instrument on our reference list does. For a regulator these are the clearest openings. Themes where a company asks for more than either jurisdiction requires are excluded — those are not gaps in the law.

  • Harmful manipulation named as a critical risk domainAmazon

    The AI Act treats manipulation as a first-class concern: Article 5 prohibits subliminal, purposefully deceptive or manipulative techniques that materially distort behaviour and cause significant harm, and the systemic-risk regime reaches large-scale effects on public opinion and democratic processes. Amazon's domain sits squarely inside a risk category the EU already recognises, and is the domain where its framework is closest to European priorities.

  • An industry-funded frontier regulator (FARO)Google

    The AI Act vests enforcement over general-purpose models in a public authority — the Commission acting through the AI Office, with power to demand documentation and run its own evaluations (Art 92) — not in an industry-funded self-regulatory body, and it mandates no annual third-party audit.

  • Training data, copyright and creator value exchangeGoogle

    Article 53(1)(c)-(d) makes it binding rather than voluntary: every general-purpose model provider must run a copyright policy that identifies and honours rights reservations under Article 4(3) of Directive 2019/790 and must publish a sufficiently detailed summary of its training content.

  • Codes of practice as the route to complianceMicrosoft

    Articles 55(2) and 56 make adherence to an approved code of practice the designated way for a systemic-risk provider to demonstrate compliance until a harmonised standard is published; a provider adhering to neither must demonstrate alternative adequate means of compliance to the Commission.

  • New obligations should not apply before the guidance to comply existsMistral AI

    The Act sets its application dates in the legislation itself and they run regardless of whether harmonised standards have been published; obligations do not wait on guidance. Making availability a precondition would change when the Act bites, not merely how it is complied with.

  • A levy on model providers in exchange for a training-data liability shieldMistral AI

    The Act requires general-purpose model providers to put in place a policy respecting EU copyright law, including the reservation of rights under the text-and-data-mining exception, and to publish a summary of training content. A blanket liability shield for training on web-accessible material would displace that rights reservation with a compensation scheme — a different legal settlement, not a stricter or looser version of the same one.

  • Harmful manipulation as a frontier riskxAI

    Article 5(1)(a) prohibits outright the placing on the market or use of an AI system deploying subliminal or purposefully manipulative techniques that materially distort behaviour and cause significant harm, so manipulation is not an optional risk domain in the EU.

Read the two kinds separately. Only 4 of the 10 documents are policy agendas — asks addressed to regulators. The rest are self-binding frameworks, describing what a company holds itself to. A framework that goes further than the law is not a company arguing the law should change.

Goes further than the law (28)

  • binds itselfAmazon — A deployment gate tied to a capability threshold
  • binds itselfAmazon — Model-weight and infrastructure security as frontier safety
  • binds itselfAnthropic — Who counts as a covered frontier developer
  • binds itselfAnthropic — Publishing a safety framework and evaluation results
  • binds itselfAnthropic — Mandatory independent third-party evaluation
  • binds itselfAnthropic — Security standards protecting model weights
  • asks of othersGoogle — Mandated chatbot safeguards for minors
  • asks of othersIBM — Who classifies risk, and against what test
  • asks of othersIBM — Accountability rests with the entity that builds, owns or controls the system
  • asks of othersIBM — Disclosure — don't hide your AI, but not at the cost of source code or trade secrets
  • asks of othersIBM — Explain your AI — audit trails and accessible documentation for high-impact determinations
  • asks of othersIBM — Bias testing before and after deployment, measured against existing anti-discrimination law
  • binds itselfMeta — Per-release safety transparency — preparedness reports and a model spec
  • binds itselfMeta — Open-weight release treated as a governed deployment mode
  • binds itselfMicrosoft — Security of model weights and infrastructure
  • binds itselfMicrosoft — Public transparency about capabilities and risk classification
  • asks of othersMistral AI — A single portal for AI compliance reporting
  • asks of othersMistral AI — Regulatory sandboxes opened to general-purpose AI developers
  • asks of othersMistral AI — Verified environmental life-cycle disclosure as a condition of public contracts
  • binds itselfNVIDIA — Model documentation pushed along the AI supply chain
  • binds itselfNVIDIA — Provenance of synthetic content by watermarking at generation
  • binds itselfNVIDIA — Physical AI safety as a full-stack, open-sourced regime
  • binds itselfNVIDIA — The only external anchor is a voluntary commitment, and nothing is asked of government
  • asks of othersOpenAI — Mandatory independent third-party assessment of frontier models
  • asks of othersOpenAI — Monitoring for misaligned model behaviour and notice when a model breaches another party's systems
  • asks of othersOpenAI — Recursive self-improvement and shared bars for slowing or stopping development
  • binds itselfxAI — Evaluation before deployment as a release gate
  • binds itselfxAI — Protecting reasoning traces from distillation

Would narrow or oppose it (33)

  • binds itselfAmazon — Thresholds defined as marginal uplift, not absolute capability(EU Asks for less, US Asks for less)
  • binds itselfAmazon — Serious-incident detection and reporting to authorities(EU Asks for less, US Asks for less)
  • binds itselfAmazon — Accountability runs to internal executives, not an external adjudicator(EU Asks for less, US Asks for less)
  • binds itselfAnthropic — Who counts as a covered frontier developer(EU Asks for less, US Asks for more)
  • binds itselfAnthropic — Government authority to block or restrict a deployment(EU Aligned, US Contradicts)
  • binds itselfAnthropic — Federal preemption of state AI law(EU No equivalent law, US Contradicts)
  • asks of othersGoogle — Federal leadership over a state patchwork(EU Aligned, US Contradicts)
  • asks of othersGoogle — An industry-funded frontier regulator (FARO)(EU Contradicts, US No equivalent law)
  • asks of othersGoogle — No new horizontal regime for widely-deployed AI(EU Contradicts, US Contradicts)
  • asks of othersGoogle — Training data, copyright and creator value exchange(EU Asks for less, US No equivalent law)
  • asks of othersIBM — Regulate the use and its risk, not the technology itself(EU Aligned, US Contradicts)
  • asks of othersIBM — Who classifies risk, and against what test(EU Asks for more, US Asks for less)
  • asks of othersIBM — A named accountable officer and an ethics board inside every company(EU Aligned, US Asks for less)
  • asks of othersIBM — Bias testing before and after deployment, measured against existing anti-discrimination law(EU Asks for more, US Contradicts)
  • binds itselfMeta — What counts as a frontier model — the scope trigger(EU Asks for less, US Aligned)
  • binds itselfMeta — Serious-incident reporting to authorities(EU Asks for less, US Asks for less)
  • binds itselfMeta — Named executive accountability and whistleblower protection(EU No equivalent law, US Asks for less)
  • binds itselfMeta — A voluntary instrument with no legislative ask(EU Asks for less, US Aligned)
  • binds itselfMicrosoft — Pre-deployment evaluation and independent assessment(EU Aligned, US Asks for less)
  • binds itselfMicrosoft — Incident reporting to authorities(EU Asks for less, US Asks for less)
  • binds itselfMicrosoft — Loss of control and harmful manipulation(EU Asks for less, US Asks for less)
  • asks of othersMistral AI — Reducing overlap and compliance burden across the digital rulebook(EU Asks for less, US Aligned)
  • asks of othersMistral AI — New obligations should not apply before the guidance to comply exists(EU Contradicts, US No equivalent law)
  • asks of othersMistral AI — A levy on model providers in exchange for a training-data liability shield(EU Contradicts, US No equivalent law)
  • binds itselfNVIDIA — Frontier and systemic risk: present as research, absent as commitment(EU Asks for less, US Asks for less)
  • binds itselfNVIDIA — Safety and adversarial security fused into one obligation, discharged inside the product(EU Aligned, US Asks for less)
  • binds itselfNVIDIA — Bias framed as equal opportunity to benefit rather than as a duty to prevent harm(EU Asks for less, US Asks for less)
  • binds itselfNVIDIA — The only external anchor is a voluntary commitment, and nothing is asked of government(EU Asks for less, US Asks for more)
  • asks of othersOpenAI — Mandatory capability-based national regulation instead of voluntary commitments(EU Aligned, US Contradicts)
  • asks of othersOpenAI — Scope confined to a handful of well-resourced frontier laboratories(EU Asks for less, US Asks for less)
  • asks of othersOpenAI — State legislation as an interim national baseline ('reverse federalism')(EU No equivalent law, US Contradicts)
  • binds itselfxAI — Stated thresholds for frontier capability(EU Asks for less, US Asks for less)
  • binds itselfxAI — Harmful manipulation as a frontier risk(EU Asks for less, US No equivalent law)

Which instruments the industry argues about

How often each instrument is the reference point for a company stance.