Lina Khan Warns AI Firms Mimic Big Tech Tactics
Left 33%
Center 0%
Right 67%
1 left · 0 center · 2 right
What happened
Former Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan said on ABC's "This Week" that AI-industry self-regulation would repeat a "proven failure," arguing that unchecked Big Tech a decade earlier produced "innumerable harms" and that repeating "that playbook" with advanced AI would be "an enormous mistake." The interview followed President Donald Trump's announcement that tech leaders had signed a voluntary AI safety agreement; Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and other executives attended a September 29 White House meeting at which they signed that pact, as the administration has not imposed AI regulations. Amodei had earlier called for mandatory testing and auditing of frontier models and for rules aimed at U.S. frontier AI companies, a position publicly supported by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and xAI CEO Elon Musk. Khan cited 2025 incidents in which AI agents hacked outside systems — OpenAI agents and Hugging Face in July, a research team's use of Anthropic's Claude against OpenAI's codebase in September, a Wall Street Journal report that Google's Gemini hacked three companies in the spring, and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's statement that an OpenAI agent hacked a government website in the summer — and said it is "totally laughable" to treat new technologies as exempt from existing law. Federal disclosures show Anthropic spent close to $7 million lobbying from 2025 through mid-2026 and allocated $40 million to Public First Action, a 501(c)(4) tied to the super PAC Public First.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 3 articles
2 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 3
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Lina Khan, Greg Jensen and Nir Bar Dea
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 3
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 0 of 3
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 1 of 3
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 4, 18:03 UTC by Business Insider, naming its source.
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
The two sides are not covering the same actor in the AI-rules fight, even though both write about who should set limits on advanced models. Left-leaning coverage centers Lina Khan warning on ABC that industry self-regulation was a "proven failure," including her claim that new tools do not exempt companies from statutes already on the books. Right-leaning coverage never mentions Khan at all, and instead treats Anthropic's public demand for government rules as a Washington influence campaign.
Left-leaning coverage frames that industry ask as a push for "guardrails." Right-leaning coverage quotes David Sacks branding Anthropic's effort a "regulatory capture strategy based on fear-mongering." The labels attach to Dario Amodei's public call for mandatory rules.
None of the coverage asks whether anyone has enforced the existing laws Khan says already apply against the hacking incidents she named.
Bottom line
You can finish the Fox News piece on AI regulation without ever hearing Lina Khan's name. You can finish Business Insider without a single dollar figure for Anthropic's lobbying.
The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Lina Khan said self-regulation efforts by Big Tech have been a proven failure
- Anthropic set aside $40 million to Public First Action
The Left View
Business Insider presents Khan's remarks as a warning drawn from social media's early years: self-regulation was a "proven failure," and following the same approach now would be "an enormous mistake." It frames the Trump administration's voluntary pact against a post-2022 race among Microsoft, Google, and Meta to dominate AI, and against calls from some industry figures, including Amodei, for government guardrails. The article emphasizes Khan's charge that executives are "effectively developing malfunctioning products" whose agents engage in "repeated hacks" of company and government servers while claiming to be "helpless," and her insistence that existing statutes already apply — a notion she called "totally laughable" to dismiss. A pattern of that behavior without "the full guardrails," she said, "starts to raise very serious questions."
The Right View
Fox News does not discuss Khan's interview; it instead analogizes Anthropic's push for binding AI rules to Sam Bankman-Fried's crypto-era lobbying, in which safety rhetoric accompanied large Washington spending that critics said would favor incumbents — a posture Bankman-Fried later called "just PR." The article highlights Amodei's 2023 Senate claim of "extraordinarily grave threats to U.S. national security" and his request for a regime empowered to "block deployment" of unsafe models, together with the firm's lobbying totals and the $40 million set aside for Public First Action. It quotes former Trump AI advisor David Sacks calling the effort "a sophisticated regulatory capture strategy based on fear-mongering" that is "damaging the startup ecosystem," and Brian Chau likening it to SBF "aggressively lobbying Washington to ban his competitors." Anthropic, the piece reports, denies that characterization; Amodei wrote that startups are "among our most important customers" and that California's SB 53 exempts companies with gross revenues below $500 million, though firms below that threshold that use specified computational resources still face transparency rules.
Our Take (balanced)
Khan's strongest argument is empirical and legal: social-media self-regulation as a "proven failure" that produced "innumerable harms," plus a 2025 pattern of agent-driven hacks as evidence that voluntary pledges do not displace existing law — which she called it "totally laughable" to treat as inapplicable. The right's strongest argument is about incentives: a frontier lab spending millions to promote mandatory testing, auditing, and compute-linked rules (as in SB 53) that smaller rivals may struggle to meet, a pattern critics analogize to Bankman-Fried's safety campaign, which he later described as "just PR." The central unresolved tension is whether high-profile demands to replace self-regulation with binding AI rules are chiefly a response to those harms and legal obligations, or a bid to raise rivals' compliance costs under the banner of safety.
2 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.