Meta AI Lobbying: Regulation and Influence
Meta is intensifying its efforts to influence the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States. The company has launched a nationwide Super-PAC to steer state AI laws. This initiative follows an already announced California-focused Super-PAC. Meta's activities are a response to the growing number of AI legislation initiatives at the state level and the lack of uniform national regulations.
Quelle: Custom depiction
Meta's AI Lobbying Push
On September 23, 2025, Axios and TechCrunch reported exclusively that Meta is launching a nationwide Super-PAC named “American Technology Excellence Project” to push back on stricter or inconsistent AI rules in the states. The budget for this initiative is expected to be in the tens of millions of dollars. Previously, Reuters had already reported on a separate California-focused Super-PAC by Meta intended to support AI-friendly candidates.
Meta aims to mitigate the risk of a “patchwork” of requirements. Different obligations for AI models, liability, and transparency across 50 states would raise costs and legal uncertainty, especially for national products like Llama, AI assistants in Facebook/Instagram, or new features, as TechCrunch highlights. With Congress moving slowly, the states become the pace-setters, making technology policy a key topic in elections to sharpen profiles (NCSL).
International pressure is also mounting. The EU has established a unified legal framework with the AI Act. US corporations are attempting to avoid national rules that could hinder innovation or leave ambiguous liability risks.
Quelle: computerhoy.com
Meta and AI: A strategic connection that also shapes the political landscape.
Engadget emphasizes the confrontational stance against onerous state-level AI rules as motivation for the Super-PAC (Engadget).
US AI Regulatory Landscape
AI regulation in the United States has so far mostly been a state-level affair. National rules progress only sporadically. Trackers such as NCSL and IAPP maintain maps and overviews of the numerous legislative initiatives.
TechCrunch notes more than 1,000 AI-related bill initiatives across all 50 states in the 2025 session (TechCrunch). At the federal level, preemption attempts that would bar states from enacting AI rules are stalling or failing to pass. Corresponding moves from the House have met broad opposition and did not become law (AP News; Reuters).
In California, the much-discussed SB 1047 was vetoed by the governor in 2024 (LegiScan). In 2025, the state is working on new packages (Global Policy Watch).
In contrast, Europe pursues a unified path: The EU AI Act provides a staged implementation plan, including prohibitions since February 2, 2025 and obligations for general-purpose AI since August 2, 2025 (EUR-Lex).
Quelle: YouTube
The public record of a Senate hearing on AI and copyright shows how heavily debates today focus on concrete misuse cases and liability.
Super-PACs Explained
A Super-PAC is an "independent expenditure-only committee." It may accept unlimited money from individuals, corporations, and unions. However, it cannot coordinate with candidates and cannot make direct donations to campaigns (FEC; FEC).
“Lobbying” refers to targeted political influence on legislation and regulation. This is legal and regulated, with disclosure requirements and lines of separation from prohibited coordination (FEC).
Quelle: readsludge.com
Super-PACs like AIPAC show how organizations influence the political landscape in the United States.
It is documented that Meta is launching a nationwide Super-PAC with a planned budget in the tens of millions to push back against onerous state-level AI rules (Axios; TechCrunch). The announcement of a California-focused Super-PAC targeting state elections is also documented (Reuters).
Exact donor lists, race-by-race donation details, and the specific messaging strategy of the new Super-PAC remain unclear. This data will only become visible with FEC filings (FEC).
It is false or misleading to claim that Super-PACs donate directly to candidates. This is prohibited; they may only advertise independently and not coordinate (FEC; FEC). Likewise, it is false or misleading to say that state AI regulation is already banned nationwide. Such nationwide preemption is not law; corresponding proposals are controversial and have not been enacted to date (AP News; Reuters).
Impact & Implications
Companies offering products in the United States should expect divergent obligations: transparency, “impact assessments”, labeling, prohibitions of certain practices – depending on the state (NCSL; IAPP). For Europe, there is a staged obligations roadmap under the AI Act; companies should align their roadmaps and supply chains accordingly.
It is advisable to systematically verify sources: statutory texts (LegiScan, EUR-Lex), credible secondary analyses, and official trackers (NCSL) – and separate PR from binding rules.
Quelle: YouTube
The recording of a Senate hearing on chatbots helps place legal fault lines (liability, consumer protection) in context.
Stakeholder Reactions
Civil rights and data protection advocates are pushing for stricter AI rules. At the federal level, organizations such as EPIC support the Algorithmic Accountability Act 2025, which requires transparency for automated decisions.
Law firms and associations continually publish maps showing how fragmented the field is becoming – a sign of why companies build political structures (IAPP; Clifford Chance).