Google backed AI regulation — but only in a form that suits it

Google, which previously declared broad support for AI regulation, has clarified its position: the company wants government intervention — but strictly on its own terms.

From Support to Conditions

For several years in a row, Google leaders publicly called for government oversight of AI development. Pichai, Altman from OpenAI, Zuckerberg from Meta — all at different times said the industry needs regulation. This looked like a display of corporate responsibility.

However, this behavior has a rational explanation. Strict rules and compliance requirements benefit large players who have legal teams, established processes, and resources for audits. For startups and small teams, the same requirements become an unbearable burden. Regulation becomes a competitive barrier that prevents new players from growing.

Now abstract support for regulation no longer satisfies Google. The company has moved to concrete proposals — and they first and foremost correspond to its own business model and current market position.

What Google Proposes

Among the company's key positions:

• Priority for federal law over state regulations — a unified national standard reduces operational complexity for a corporation operating in all 50 states
• Regulate applications, not base models — Google develops fundamental AI models of the Gemini family, so direct regulation at the model developer level is not in its interests
• Voluntary standards instead of strict mandatory rules — self-regulation in which large players write the rules for themselves
• Transparency without disclosing training data — eliminates the need to report on sources used in model training

Each of these points reduces the regulatory burden on Google's key business areas, shifting responsibility to end application developers or smaller market players.

This Is Google's Familiar Tactic

— not the first to employ such a strategy. Every major technology company discovers the benefits of "proper" regulation at the right moment. Microsoft actively supported AI regulation precisely when Copilot strengthened its position in the corporate segment. Meta consistently advocates for model openness — because it has already released Llama as open source and no longer loses competitive advantage on this.

"Companies support regulation when and in the form it helps them

consolidate their leadership," — an observation that repeats with every major technological shift.

Right now, Google has an additional incentive to take a favorable regulatory position: Gemini lags behind ChatGPT in reach among mass audiences. Regulation that would slow OpenAI and Anthropic's growth pace would give Google time to catch up. Sometimes it's easier to support rules that burden competitors than to create a product that users will like.

What This Means

The discussion about AI regulation is a continuation of market competition by other means. When Google says "we support reasonable regulation," behind this stands a specific set of rules written for its business model. It's worth monitoring carefully which version of "reasonable" wins in Washington in the coming years, just as carefully as monitoring new model releases.

*Meta is recognized as an extremist organization and is banned in the Russian Federation.