OpenLobby.EU
Explore

The Future Society

TFS

The Future Society is a non-profit 501(c)(3) whose mission is to align AI through better governance.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Despina Spanou (Deputy Director-General Communications Networks, Content and Technology)

10 Dec 2025 · Cybersecurity and AI

Meeting with Ioan-Dragos Tudorache (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné)

9 Dec 2025 · The meeting with The Future Society focused on discussions surrounding AI governance, the EU's role in AI regulation, and strategies for achieving AI sovereignty amid global geopolitical challenges

Meeting with Xavier Coget (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen)

15 Jul 2025 · EU-US digital relationship recalibration

Meeting with Sergey Lagodinsky (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Feb 2025 · Exchange of views

Meeting with Lucilla Sioli (Director Communications Networks, Content and Technology)

16 Jan 2025 · Exchange of views on EU AI policy, particularly the Codes of Practice

Meeting with Kilian Gross (Head of Unit Communications Networks, Content and Technology)

13 Jan 2025 · Presentation of Research by The Future Society

Response to Establishment of the scientific panel of independent experts under the AI Act – implementing regulation

14 Nov 2024

Article 3(1) - We suggest that further guidance be provided on the selection criteria for scientific panel appointments to supplement Article 3(3) (which reflects the text of Article 68(2) of the EU AI Act). Whilst we foresee that, in due course, a particular call may wish to reflect a certain field of expertise depending on the competencies of existing members of the Panel, the current draft of the implementing act does not facilitate the objective assessment of the appropriateness or otherwise of any individuals candidacy or appointment. Article 3(4) - The ability for one Member State to appoint up to three experts risks a weighting in favour of larger states that could facilitate the emergence of national preferences or biases in the work of the Scientific Panel. Therefore we suggest that a Member State should be permitted one or two nationals on the Panel. Additionally, the implementing act should provide for a quota for non-Member State specific (including non-European) appointments of appropriate experts, to ensure breadth and depth of expertise and knowledge. Article 4(3) - This article should make express provision for replacement in the case of resignation of an expert (contemplated in Article 4(2)). Article 7(2) and Article 18(3) - To facilitate a fulsome debate of the relevant topic, issue or measure, we recommend appointing two rapporteurs (as well as one or more contributors). Article 16(2) should be amended accordingly to allow requested information to be shared with both rapporteurs. If only one rapporteur has access to all information for relevant decision-making, the process is vulnerable to the unique perspectives of that one rapporteur rendering it less objective or reliable. Article 7(5) - In relation to thematic hearings with stakeholders, we recommend that consideration be given to: (a) the procedural rules for such thematic hearings generally in Article 8; and (b) the publication (with proportionate redactions as necessary) of the evidence gathered by the thematic hearings. Article 8(2)(a) - In accordance with Article 11(2), we suggest that the rules of procedures envisaged by Article 8(2)(a) should also express the timelines for carrying out tasks. Article 12 - We recommend that consideration be given to expanding the scope of the transparency envisaged in Article 12 to include a default rule that: (a) minutes of the Panel; (b) requests made to the Panel; (c) opinions of the Panel; (d) recommendations of the Panel; and (e) qualified alerts issued by the Panel are made available to the public (with only proportionate redactions applied as strictly necessary), unless extenuating circumstances militate against publication. Article 13 - We suggest that Article 13 makes express provision for the declaration of confidentiality to be made at the outset of the experts appointment to the Panel. We also suggest a confidentiality declaration template be provided as an annexure to the implementing act for use by Panel appointees. Article 17(1) - We recommend that a qualified alert be issued in response to a simple (not qualified) majority of Panel members. We emphasise that a qualified alert does not automatically give rise to remedial measures being taken against a GPAI model provider under the EU AI Act (see Article 18 of the draft implementing act). Nevertheless, given that, per Article 90 of the EU AI Act, a qualified alert will relate to a concrete identifiable risk at Union level or satisfaction of the conditions in Art 51 of the EU AI Act, a lower voting threshold for the Panel to submit a qualified alert to the AI Office for further consideration or investigations is appropriate. Article 18(1) - We recommend the decision taken by the AI Office about whether to pursue the measures envisaged in Articles 91 to 93 of the EU AI Act or not should be a fully reasoned decision and should be made available to the Panel as a whole (with only proportionate redactions applied as strictly necessary.)
Read full response

Meeting with Werner Stengg (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

27 Jun 2024 · AI Act governance and implementation

Meeting with Werner Stengg (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

11 Mar 2024 · implementation of AI Act and the institutional set-up of the AI Office

Meeting with Werner Stengg (Cabinet of Vice-President Věra Jourová)

30 Nov 2023 · Artificial Intelligence act

Meeting with Maurits-Jan Prinz (Cabinet of Commissioner Thierry Breton)

23 Nov 2023 · AI Act

Meeting with Dragoş Tudorache (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and World Economic Forum

9 Oct 2023 · Artificial Intelligence

Meeting with Werner Stengg (Cabinet of Vice-President Věra Jourová)

6 Oct 2023 · Artificial Intelligence Act

Meeting with Dragoş Tudorache (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Considerati Holding B.V.

9 Jun 2023 · Artificial Intelligence

Meeting with Brando Benifei (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

9 Jun 2023 · Discussion on the AI Act (held by the Assistant responsible)

Meeting with Dimitri Lorenzani (Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič)

24 Aug 2022 · Discussion on strategic foresight

Meeting with Kateřina Konečná (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

11 May 2022 · Artificial Intelligence Act

Meeting with Sergey Lagodinsky (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

29 Apr 2022 · Artificial Intelligence Act

Response to Requirements for Artificial Intelligence

6 Aug 2021

The Future Society (TFS) is a global nonprofit advancing the responsible adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the benefit of humanity. With a network of policy researchers and practitioners in the EU, the US and all over the world, we build understanding of AI and its impact, we build bridges between relevant constituents, and we build innovative solutions to help communities and people all over the world enjoy the benefits of AI and avoid its risks. We are glad and grateful that many of our past recommendations have been integrated in the AI Act or in the associated debate. We feel the European Commission is setting itself up for success by considering adaptive, forward-looking instruments like the European AI Board and flexible tools like the sandboxes. Building on the evolution of the debate surrounding the AI Act in the past year, we therefore make additional recommendations to further improve on these and other aspects. Our recommendations fall under 3 categories: A. Investing in smart governance capabilities for AI and the Digital Single Market B. Ensure governance is adaptive and responsive to macro-trends C. Avoid a “lemons market” by fostering trustworthy market dynamics All our recommendations are explained in the document attached below.
Read full response

Response to Liability rules for Artificial Intelligence – The Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive (AILD)

28 Jul 2021

The Future Society (TFS) is a global nonprofit advancing the responsible adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the benefit of humanity. With a network of policy researchers and practitioners in the EU, the US and all over the world, we build understanding of AI and its impact, we build bridges between relevant constituents, and we build innovative solutions to help communities and people all over the world enjoy the benefits of AI and avoid its risks. In light of the three-pronged objective of the EU liability framework (legal certainty, prevention of damages and efficient compensation to the injured parties), TFS believes the following policy options are most suitable: 1.b - expansion to include digital products and inclusion of non-material damages 2.1.b - burden of proof reversal 2.1.c - removal of the development risk defence 2.1.d - easing conditions for making claims 2.2.d - harmonisation of claims involving operator’s fault & its burden of proof reversal These options are the best opportunities to significantly grow the market for AI systems, by achieving both Excellence in Trust and Trust in Excellence. Indeed, on one hand, they would incentivize AI systems providers to invest in, innovate for and excel at Trustworthy AI technologies and processes throughout the Single Market. On the other hand, they would give consumers significantly more confidence in the AI systems deployed in the EU. We explain our reasoning in the document attached.
Read full response