The EU is poised to lead the world in AI landscape by implementing the EU AI Act, designed to regulate powerful AI models like GPT-4. However, allegations of influence on the French government's stance, aiming to weaken the AI regulation bill, have been made against Cedric O, a former French digital minister, and his association with Mistral, a company linked to American businesses and investment funds, causing controversy. Catherine Morin-Desailly, a centrist senator, points to Cedric O's involvement with Mistra, raising concerns about the AI regulatory process within the Intergovernmental Committee.

Cedric O, also a member of the AI Intergovernmental Committee, faced criticism for wielding influence and financial conflicts in EU AI Act regulatory process. The High Authority for Transparency banned Cedric O from lobbying or owning tech sector shares for three years. However, reports suggest Cedric O purchased shares in Mistral AI, raising ethical concerns. Cedric O's role in the Generative Artificial Intelligence Committee further intensifies the scrutiny. Parliamentarians call for a resolution on Cedric O's ethics, emphasising the need for transparency regarding his investments and raising questions about his suitability in advisory roles.

Digital Minister Jean-No?l Barrot denied allegations, emphasising the High Authority for Transparency's role in preventing conflicts of interest. Barrot contended that France prioritises the general welfare and denies being a spokesperson for private interests. Moreover, the Digital Minister asserted the French government's strong support for European innovation in AI to counter big tech dominance. He argued that technological leadership precedes economic and political authority, emphasising the importance of creating safe AI technology for citizens, authors, artists, and journalists. However, criticism arose during a Senate hearing, with Pascal Rogard claiming that Barrot failed to support culture, the creative industry, and copyrights. Rogard questions France's alignment with US big tech companies and draws parallels between the AI copyright debate and the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, noting no observed damage to big tech's business activities since enforcement.