OpenAI’s Brussels gambit: innovation vs. overregulation Opinion by The Washington Post

The Washington Post recently raised eyebrows with its sharp take on OpenAI’s push for European regulatory intervention, framing it as a cautionary tale about the perils of letting corporate giants use government rules to tilt the playing field. The piece argues that OpenAI’s complaints to EU antitrust officials—targeting dominant U.S. tech firms like Apple, Google, and Microsoft—illustrate a broader tension between innovation and regulation. While the company warns that entrenched competitors could stifle its products, the Post notes that history suggests OpenAI’s real advantage is its innovative edge, not regulatory protection.

The article underscores a paradox: OpenAI, a poster child for AI innovation, is simultaneously the most valuable private tech company in the world, yet it sought regulatory assistance to shield itself from other U.S. tech titans. This raises questions about strategy and principle. The Post suggests that rather than appealing to Brussels bureaucrats, OpenAI would be better served doubling down on its relentless innovation—the very engine that enabled ChatGPT to achieve market leadership despite formidable competitors. In essence, the lesson is clear: relying on regulation as a competitive lever is a short-term gambit that can backfire in the long run.

To reinforce this argument, the piece draws on European economic realities, citing a 2024 report by former Italian Prime Minister and economist Mario Draghi. Draghi’s assessment paints Europe as a region plagued by static industries, overregulation, and risk-averse markets, with few homegrown companies achieving global scale. The report highlights that no EU-based company has surpassed a €100 billion market cap in the last fifty years from scratch, while six U.S. companies have surpassed $1 trillion in the same period. The Washington Post uses these statistics to illustrate a structural weakness: European regulatory overreach often hampers growth rather than fostering competition.

Moreover, the article critiques the EU’s “precautionary principle” approach, which tends to prioritize risk avoidance over market dynamism. While OpenAI itself has warned about potential societal impacts of AI regulation, the Post notes that the same regulatory tools can be co-opted by corporations seeking to limit rivals—a strategy subtly evidenced by OpenAI’s simultaneous private lobbying in Brussels and public partnership with Microsoft, one of the very competitors it targeted. The timing is telling: shortly after meeting EU regulators, OpenAI’s valuation jumped to $500 billion, cementing its position as the world’s most valuable private company.

Ultimately, the Post’s opinion piece frames OpenAI’s European outreach as both a strategic move and a cautionary tale. On one hand, it reveals how regulation can be weaponized by private firms. On the other, it reminds innovators that the most sustainable advantage comes from product excellence, not political manoeuvring. In the words of the Post, the smarter long-term play for OpenAI—and indeed for any tech company—is relentless innovation, rather than pleading for regulatory protection in distant capitals.

By Vugar Khalilov