Most significant regulatory rules, including AI-specific ones, go through a public comment period before finalization - a formal opportunity for affected parties to flag practical concerns and influence the rule's final form. A striking number of companies that will eventually be subject to a given AI rule never participate in this process at all, despite it being open to them.
Why participation rates are low
Comment periods require legal and policy resources to engage with meaningfully, resources that smaller companies in particular often don't allocate toward what feels like a speculative, uncertain process rather than an immediate business priority. Larger companies and trade associations participate at much higher rates, shaping outcomes disproportionately as a result.
What this means for the rules that eventually emerge
A regulatory process shaped primarily by the companies with the resources to participate in public comment tends to produce rules better suited to those companies' specific circumstances and less attentive to the practical challenges smaller, less-resourced companies will face complying with the same rule once finalized.
Why this matters for smaller AI companies specifically
A smaller AI company that skips the comment period process has effectively ceded influence over a rule it will still have to comply with, to competitors with more resources to shape that rule in their own favor during the window when doing so was actually possible.
What more complete regulatory coverage would highlight
Noting which companies and trade groups actually participated in a given comment period, and what specific changes they successfully advocated for, gives readers a clearer picture of whose interests actually shaped a finalized rule - information that's part of the public record but rarely gets reported.