# FTC's AI 'Accuracy' Policy Draws Fire Over Free Speech and Authority The **Federal Trade Commission (FTC)** is under scrutiny for a proposed policy statement titled "concerning the suppression of accuracy in artificial intelligence systems." Cybersecurity and privacy advocates are urging the agency to withdraw the proposal, citing significant concerns about free speech, federal overreach, and the potential for government-mandated ideological alignment in AI. ## Echoes of 'Preventing Woke AI' The controversial policy directly references the Trump administration's "Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government" executive order. This connection has raised red flags among civil liberties groups, who view the original order as an attempt to compel AI companies to modify their models based on ideological agendas. In recently filed comments, the **EFF**, in collaboration with **Public Knowledge** and **Fight for the Future**, called for the **FTC** to cease what they describe as unconstitutional efforts to regulate lawful speech, override state laws, and intimidate AI developers into specific ideological stances. ## Three Critical Flaws Identified The joint comments outline three primary concerns with the **FTC**'s proposed policy: ### 1. First Amendment Violations The policy positions the **FTC** as the arbiter of what constitutes an "accurate" AI output, based on an undefined standard. Critics argue that installing the **FTC** in such a role constitutes a prior restraint on speech, allowing the government to judge viewpoint-based content. The advocates assert that "the government may not install itself as the arbiter of truth." ### 2. Exceeding Legal Authority and State Preemption The proposal attempts to assert federal regulatory authority over state laws concerning AI, claiming the power to "preempt" them. Specifically, the policy criticizes **Colorado's automated decision-making law**, which governs AI use in consequential decisions like employment, housing, healthcare, and insurance. The **EFF** contends that the **FTC** lacks the authority to override state laws without direct congressional delegation, which has not occurred in this instance. ### 3. Vague Language and 'Jawboning' Concerns The policy's vague wording sets the stage for improper "jawboning" – situations where the government pressures private entities to censor speech. The proposed enforcement regime, as written, could bias AI development and deployment towards specific partisan ideals, leading companies to censor content based on the administration's interpretation of "bias" or "untruthfulness." The **FTC** itself has conceded the difficulty in defining an objective standard for "bias," further highlighting the policy's ambiguity. ## A Call for Focused Consumer Protection The **EFF** and its partners urge the **FTC** to refocus on its core mission: promoting structural market competition and protecting consumers from genuine unfair and deceptive acts and practices within the AI industry and broader technology marketplace. "[We] implore the Commission to focus on its core strengths and the mission for which it is so urgently needed—promoting structural market competition and protecting consumers from real unfair and deceptive acts and practices—in both the burgeoning and critically important AI industry and across the broader technology marketplace." Advocates have consistently opposed government efforts to dictate private speech and urge the **FTC** to withdraw this problematic proposal. [Read the full comments here](https://www.eff.org/document/eff-pk-fftf-comments-ftc-re-concerning-suppression-accuracy-artificial-intelligence-systems).