a day ago
Conflicted consultants influencing EU's AI Code
Consultancies hired by the European Commission to support drafting a voluntary set of rules on general-purpose AI (GPAI) have conflicts of interest, according to a complaint to be filed with the European Ombudsman by non-profit campaign groups Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and LobbyControl on Wednesday.
The Code of Practice on GPAI aims to help providers of AI models, such as ChatGPT and Gemini, comply with the EU's AI Act.
The Commission in September appointed thirteen experts to draft the Code, using plenary sessions and workshops to gather feedback.
In addition, the Commission's AI Office also looked for an external pool of expertise to support the drafting process, and awarded the contract to French consultancy Wavestone, the Italian consultancy Intellera, and the Brussels-based think tank Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS).
CEO and LobbyControl claim that both Wavestone and Intellera, part of the Accenture Group, have a direct commercial interest in the development of digital policies and specifically in rules on GPAI.
Wavestone said in 2023 that it would work with Microsoft to deploy generative AI, specifically Copilot, in French companies. In 2024, when the drafting process for the Code began, it received a "Microsoft Partner of the Year" award for its work.
Intellera's partner company Accenture yields substantial revenue through selling generative AI services to companies.
In its tender specifications, the Commission said that "involved entities must not be subject to conflicting interests which may negatively affect the contract performance.'
'The EU's rules on conflicting interests are clear. If a consultancy has a vested commercial interest, the Commission should reject the contract,' according to the complaint.
In a case from 2020, the EU Ombudsman warned about the awarding of policy-related contracts to companies and consultancies with a vested interest in the market they are advising on.
Structural advantages
The two NGOs published a report last month claiming that Big Tech companies 'enjoyed structural advantages' in the drafting process of the Code, and 'weakened the rules around advanced AI.'
Their research suggested that tech companies had more access to the drafting process than others, a claim which the Commission later denied.
The final version of the Code was set to come out early May but has been delayed. Previous drafts have been criticised by rightsholders and publishers claiming that there is a conflict with copyright laws, and by tech companies for being too restrictive.
The EU executive said the code will appear before 2 August, when the rules on GPAI tools enter into force. The AI Act will be fully in force in 2027.
