Technology Providers
Technology companies make consequential choices about how powerful AI systems are developed, tested and deployed. We work to ensure those choices are accompanied by safeguards proportionate to the risks and by meaningful transparency and accountability.
The decisions that shape powerful AI
AI providers decide how advanced systems are designed and evaluated, what safeguards govern the release of cutting-edge models, and who can access their capabilities. These decisions can unlock substantial benefits, but they can also affect whether increasingly powerful systems enable severe biological, chemical, cyber or security harms.
Companies therefore have an important role in anticipating and mitigating the risks associated with their systems. This responsibility becomes more significant as capabilities increase and the potential consequences extend beyond individual users, customers or markets.
From voluntary commitments to clear responsibilities
Responsible practices and voluntary commitments have an important role to play, but they cannot be the only basis for managing catastrophic risks.
Companies operating in Europe are subject to a developing framework of legal responsibilities concerning risk management, transparency, product safety, due diligence and duties of care.
The EU AI Act introduces specific obligations for providers of general-purpose AI models with systemic risk. These include requirements concerning model evaluation, systemic-risk assessment and mitigation, documentation, incident reporting and cybersecurity protection. JUST examines how these obligations should be understood and implemented in practice.
Closing the accountability gap
Legal requirements protect people only when they are implemented effectively. Novel obligations, limited institutional capacity and political or commercial pressures can create gaps between what the law requires and what companies do in practice.
JUST combines legal research, expert input and evidence-building to clarify company responsibilities and advance effective implementation. We aim to engage companies and public authorities constructively and, where appropriate, may pursue transparency measures, regulatory complaints or other accountability processes, independently or with partners. Formal proceedings are considered only where justified by the evidence, legal merits and expected public benefit.
Our objective is practical: stronger risk assessment and mitigation, meaningful transparency and safeguards proportionate to the capabilities and potential consequences of powerful AI systems.
Use existing law to address catastrophic technological risk.
We partner with lawyers, academics, and legal teams who want to put existing law to work on technology safety.
One of the strongest instruments we are not fully using.
Legal intervention is underused for technology safety. Your support helps ensure the legal system is ready before the crisis.