Patterns in Big Tech’s m.o. emerge: Strategic Use of Third-Party Proxies, Undisclosed Affiliation & Lobbying, Blurred Lines between Advocacy & Expertise, Reliance on Complex & Shady Lobbying Tactics

Question 1 of 6 for ChatGPT-4o: Please read the article "EU events on curbing big tech ‘distorted’ by attenders with industry links" and tell me what it says

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
he article, "EU events on curbing big tech ‘distorted’ by attenders with industry links," reveals concerns from transparency advocates over hidden industry affiliations among attendees at European Commission workshops on big tech regulation. According to research by three NGOs, over 20% of attendees at these workshops failed to disclose connections to the companies under discussion, which include tech giants like Google, Amazon, Apple, and Meta. These workshops are designed to evaluate compliance with the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), which imposes strict rules on "gatekeepers" to promote fair competition.

The researchers found that some attendees, particularly from law firms, lobbying companies, and trade associations, withheld their affiliations. This included well-known firms such as FleishmanHillard and trade associations like the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA). Additionally, some think tanks, like the International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE), were noted for participating without revealing funding from companies like Amazon and Meta.

The report highlighted the resource imbalance, noting that big tech companies employ extensive legal and lobbying resources to influence policy. This contrasts sharply with the limited capacity of the European Commission’s DMA enforcement team, which has far fewer resources. Campaigners argue that without stronger enforcement and transparency measures, the DMA's impact could be undermined, preventing the EU from effectively curbing big tech’s market power.

Question 2 of 6 for ChatGPT-4o: List the most surprising, controversial and valuable statements made

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
Here are some key statements from the article categorized as surprising, controversial, and valuable:

Surprising Statements

1. Undisclosed Industry Ties: Over 20% of attendees at EU workshops meant to curb big tech influence failed to disclose their connections to the companies in question, despite the sessions being intended to objectively assess compliance.

2. Significant Legal Presence: More than 1,000 of the registrations for these workshops were from lawyers, with major firms like Freshfields and Skadden sending multiple representatives who often did not disclose affiliations to relevant tech companies.

Controversial Statements

1. Hidden Industry Influence on Policy: Campaigners argue that the presence of attendees with hidden affiliations “distorts” public debate on tech regulation, leading to potential bias in discussions aimed at creating fair competition policies.

2. Undisclosed Funding Sources: The International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE) attended as a seemingly neutral party but reportedly receives funding from Amazon and Meta. This revelation sparked criticism, especially as the ICLE declined to disclose its donors openly, only updating its registration after media inquiries.

3. Resource Imbalance as a Structural Issue: Tommaso Valletti, a former EU chief economist, described the resource gap between the EU and tech companies as a “David versus Goliath” scenario, where big tech companies use asymmetrical resources to dominate discussions and potentially sway regulatory outcomes.

Valuable Statements

1. Transparency Mechanisms Needed: The report calls for stricter disclosure and conflict-of-interest safeguards to ensure that policy workshops are not influenced by hidden interests, emphasizing transparency as essential for fair policy creation.

2. The Scale of Lobbying Resources: The article quantifies the issue, noting that big tech companies have dedicated hundreds of employees and external legal support, significantly outmatching the European Commission’s 80-person DMA enforcement team.

3. Expertise vs. Advocacy: Valletti also highlighted a broader regulatory concern, noting that hidden industry ties have blurred lines between expertise and advocacy in policy circles, which must be addressed to enable balanced and fact-based regulation.

These findings underscore the importance of transparency in policy-making and reflect deeper structural challenges in balancing corporate power within regulatory frameworks.


Question 3 of 6 for ChatGPT-4o: Now read the report "Uncovering Big Tech's hidden network - Undisclosed affiliations distort Digital Market Act’s public workshops" and list all surprising, controversial and valuable statements made

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
Here are the surprising, controversial, and valuable statements from the report “Uncovering Big Tech's hidden network - Undisclosed affiliations distort Digital Market Act’s public workshops.”

Surprising Statements

1. High Rate of Undisclosed Affiliations: Over 1,000 representatives from law firms and lobby consultancies registered for the Digital Markets Act (DMA) workshops, with at least 21% having direct or indirect ties to Big Tech companies, often without disclosure.

2. Tech Companies Using Third-Party Networks: Alphabet (Google’s parent) had a total of 113 representatives, including lobbyists, consultants, and trade association members, attending its compliance workshop, representing a vast network for indirect influence.

3. The Scope of Undisclosed Lobbying: Lobby firms like Fleishman-Hillard, which represent major companies like Amazon and Meta, and the App Association (ACT), significantly funded by Apple, failed to disclose their affiliations during workshops.

Controversial Statements

1. Use of “Front Groups” in Policy Debates: Entities like the App Association (ACT), reportedly funded predominantly by Apple, represented developer interests in Apple's favor without disclosing this link, raising issues of hidden lobbying and biased representation.

2. Lobbying Consultancies Serving Multiple Tech Giants: Major lobbying firms hired by multiple tech giants were among workshop attendees without affiliation disclosure. For instance, Flint Europe, working for Amazon, Alphabet, and Meta, among others, did not disclose its ties during attendance.

3. Think Tanks Acting with Hidden Tech Funding: Think tanks like the International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE) were reportedly funded by Big Tech, including Amazon and Meta, while voicing skepticism toward the DMA. ICLE’s financial links remained undisclosed, raising concerns over hidden conflicts of interest.

Valuable Statements

1. Call for Enhanced Transparency and Disclosure: The report suggests that the EU should require participants to disclose any funding or advisory links to Big Tech, specifically through targeted registration questions on affiliations and transparency IDs.

2. Imbalance in Regulatory Resources: The EU’s DMA team is outmatched, with around 80 staff against hundreds of lawyers and lobbyists deployed by each tech giant. The report advocates for a budget increase to help the EU handle the scale of Big Tech’s influence.

3. Recommendation for Conflict-of-Interest Rules: The report emphasizes the need for stronger conflict-of-interest standards for workshop attendees to prevent Big Tech from skewing public debates, suggesting that in-person attendance be limited for entities known as “front groups.”

The report calls for structural changes in the EU's regulatory approach, warning of potential distortion in policy outcomes due to Big Tech’s indirect influence and undisclosed affiliations.


Question 4 of 6 for ChatGPT-4o: What is the overall impression you get from Big Tech's modus operandi on the basis of these two reports?

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
The overall impression from these reports suggests that Big Tech companies employ a highly sophisticated and covert approach to influence EU regulatory processes. Key tactics include deploying a vast network of indirect representatives—such as lobbyists, law firms, consultancies, trade associations, and think tanks—to sway discussions subtly in their favor. This approach minimizes direct confrontation, opting instead for a strategy of shaping policy discussions from within by embedding individuals with undisclosed affiliations in EU workshops designed to test compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

Several patterns in Big Tech’s modus operandi emerge:

1. Strategic Use of Third-Party Proxies: Big Tech companies often operate through third-party entities or “front groups” that appear to represent independent or neutral voices. This indirect influence allows them to present aligned messages while concealing corporate ties, which obscures their agendas and shapes policy outcomes subtly.

2. Undisclosed Affiliation and Lobbying: Many representatives attending policy workshops did not disclose affiliations to tech companies. By keeping these connections hidden, they participate as ostensibly neutral or impartial stakeholders, thus affecting regulatory conversations with perceived credibility rather than overt lobbying.

3. Resource Imbalance and Influence Asymmetry: These companies possess vast resources, enabling them to outmatch the EU’s regulatory workforce both in scale and expertise. They deploy hundreds of specialized lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants, overwhelming the relatively modestly staffed DMA enforcement unit. This resource imbalance allows Big Tech to dominate regulatory spaces, giving them an outsized voice and influence over critical policy issues.

4. Blurred Lines between Advocacy and Expertise: By mobilizing think tanks and trade associations to present arguments that align with their interests, Big Tech has effectively blurred the distinction between advocacy and genuine expertise. This tactic can make industry-driven perspectives seem like well-founded policy insights, thereby diluting counterarguments from civil society and smaller businesses.

5. Reliance on Complex and Shady Lobbying Tactics: Big Tech appears to employ tactics reminiscent of the “Big Tobacco Playbook,” using indirect advocacy, friendly trade associations, and think tanks to cast doubt on regulatory efficacy or even the intent of legislation like the DMA. These practices allow Big Tech to maintain a strong influence without explicit opposition, diffusing regulatory pressure.

Overall, Big Tech’s approach comes across as calculated and multifaceted, combining sophisticated lobbying tactics with hidden affiliations to shape EU regulatory outcomes subtly and consistently. The reports highlight an urgent need for increased transparency, stricter disclosure requirements, and more robust enforcement resources to counterbalance this influence and restore fairness to the policy-making process.

Question 5 of 6 for ChatGPT-4o: What measures should be taken to address this situation do you think?

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
To address the issue of hidden industry influence in EU regulatory events on big tech, a multifaceted approach could help ensure transparency, fairness, and balanced policy outcomes. Here are some recommended measures:

1. Strengthening Disclosure Requirements

• Mandatory Disclosure: Make it mandatory for all participants in EU workshops, especially those discussing big tech regulation, to fully disclose any direct or indirect affiliations, funding, or advisory roles with the companies being discussed.

• Background Verification: Implement a process where participant disclosures are cross-verified with public databases like the EU transparency register and company websites to ensure accuracy and honesty in affiliation reporting.

2. Improving Transparency and Accountability

• Transparent Registration: Publish a list of workshop attendees and their affiliations before and after events, allowing public and organizational scrutiny of participant backgrounds.

• Enhanced Transparency Register: Regularly update and enforce the EU transparency register with comprehensive information about the funding sources of think tanks, lobbyists, and consultancy firms involved in regulatory discussions.

3. Limiting Industry Representation at Key Workshops

• Capped Representation: Introduce limits on the number of representatives any single industry player can send to regulatory workshops to prevent disproportionate influence.

• Balance Stakeholder Representation: Require that workshops and public forums on regulatory issues include a balanced representation of industry, academic, civil society, and consumer advocacy groups to provide diverse perspectives.

4. Establishing an Independent Oversight Body

• Workshop Oversight Committee: Create an independent oversight body to monitor EU workshops and public forums on big tech regulation, ensuring discussions remain unbiased and are not swayed by vested interests.

• Conflict-of-Interest Audits: The oversight body could conduct regular audits to identify potential conflicts of interest among attendees, providing reports and recommendations to mitigate any biases.

5. Enhancing EU Regulatory Resources and Expertise

• Expanding Regulatory Teams: Increase staffing for the European Commission’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) and other regulatory teams to reduce the resource gap between regulators and big tech lobbyists.

• Dedicated Legal and Technical Experts: Hire experts from diverse backgrounds who can counterbalance big tech’s influence and bring in expertise independent of industry bias.

6. Fostering a Culture of Accountability

• Whistleblower Protections: Encourage and protect whistleblowers within the EU policy community to report any undisclosed ties or undue influences in regulatory discussions.

• Public Reporting on Non-Compliance: Introduce consequences for organizations that fail to disclose affiliations, such as public reporting, fines, or suspension from future regulatory discussions.

7. Enhanced Funding and Support for Civil Society

• Supporting NGOs and Watchdog Groups: Provide grants or subsidies to civil society organizations, academic institutions, and consumer rights groups to increase their participation and ensure that consumer interests are represented in regulatory discussions on par with industry voices.

By implementing these measures, the EU could significantly improve the transparency, inclusivity, and balance of its regulatory processes. This would help foster more robust and impartial regulation, promoting fair competition and mitigating the disproportionate influence of big tech on policy.

Question 6 of 6: In relation to the remedies you suggested, explain how AI can be of help in realizing and automating those solutions

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
AI can be a powerful tool in realizing and automating the solutions suggested to address Big Tech’s influence in regulatory processes. Here’s how AI could assist in implementing and scaling these remedies effectively:

1. Strengthening Disclosure Verification with AI-Powered Cross-Referencing

• Automated Background Checks: AI algorithms can be designed to cross-check workshop participant data with public databases, such as the EU transparency register, company websites, and other open datasets, to verify disclosures and flag undeclared affiliations or conflicts of interest. Natural language processing (NLP) can scan public records and match disclosed affiliations with known associations, ensuring that declarations are accurate and complete.

• Entity Resolution Models: These models can automatically reconcile different name formats and affiliations across datasets, making it easier to identify relationships that individuals or entities may attempt to obscure through indirect representations or minor variations in name.

2. Improving Transparency with Automated Reporting and Visualization Tools

• Dynamic Transparency Dashboards: AI can automate the creation of transparency dashboards that compile and display participant affiliations, funding sources, and potential conflicts of interest in real-time. Machine learning (ML) algorithms can sort participants into categories (e.g., law firms, trade associations, think tanks) and visualize their ties to specific companies, enhancing public access to this information.

• Text and Data Mining for Undisclosed Relationships: NLP tools can mine large volumes of publicly available text, such as press releases, academic papers, or company profiles, to discover indirect relationships between entities that might otherwise go undisclosed.

3. Limiting Industry Representation and Ensuring Balanced Participation

• AI-Powered Participation Quotas: AI can help enforce quotas or attendance limits by automatically identifying and categorizing participants with disclosed affiliations to Big Tech. This automated oversight would ensure no single industry group or organization is disproportionately represented, thereby achieving a more balanced attendance.

• Smart Scheduling for Diversity: Reinforcement learning algorithms could optimize workshop scheduling to ensure diversity by suggesting balanced panels based on participants’ backgrounds and affiliations, preventing overrepresentation by any one company or sector.

4. Independent Oversight Through AI-Powered Conflict Detection

• Conflict-of-Interest Detection Models: AI can be used to monitor potential conflicts of interest in real time by analyzing workshop interactions, questions, and feedback. NLP and sentiment analysis can assess whether input from participants aligns closely with Big Tech positions, providing insights into potentially biased discussions.

• Audit Trail Automation: Machine learning can help maintain an audit trail of interactions and affiliations over time, automatically updating records and alerting regulators if patterns of influence emerge. This could be invaluable for an independent oversight body tasked with enforcing transparency and fairness.

5. Resource Allocation Assistance for Regulators Using AI

• Predictive Analytics for Resource Needs: AI could forecast resource requirements based on the number and type of cases involving Big Tech, helping regulators better allocate staff and budget for specific enforcement tasks, ensuring they are not outmatched by Big Tech’s resources.

• Legal Document Automation: AI can streamline regulatory work by assisting in the drafting and analysis of legal documents, using NLP to generate summaries, detect compliance issues, and suggest action items based on DMA requirements. This support would allow regulators to focus on more strategic work rather than time-intensive documentation.

6. Encouraging a Culture of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection

• AI-Driven Anonymity Platforms: Secure, AI-based platforms can be built to facilitate anonymous disclosures, allowing participants or observers to report undisclosed affiliations safely. AI could analyze the content of these reports, flagging significant trends or high-risk issues while protecting the reporter’s identity.

• Bias Detection in Workshop Transcripts: Speech recognition and NLP tools can analyze workshop transcripts, identifying bias or alignment with Big Tech viewpoints, and report discrepancies in views or conflicts of interest that may require further scrutiny.

7. AI in Outreach and Inclusivity

• Stakeholder Mapping and Outreach: AI algorithms can identify stakeholders underrepresented in regulatory workshops by mapping out the ecosystem of impacted users, civil society groups, and small businesses. Automated outreach tools could then engage these stakeholders, ensuring broader input and a counterbalance to industry representation.

• Feedback Sentiment Analysis: AI can analyze feedback from impacted communities to prioritize their concerns, making it easier for regulators to incorporate diverse perspectives and give weight to underrepresented voices.

By automating these processes, AI can significantly enhance transparency, balance, and accountability in regulatory processes, while also alleviating the workload on regulators. However, effective AI implementation will require careful oversight and strong ethical guidelines to prevent misuse, ensuring AI-driven solutions remain fair, unbiased, and transparent themselves.