As the European Union moves to implement its sweeping AI Act, tech giants are responding in sharply different ways. Microsoft appears poised to support the bloc’s new voluntary AI code of practice, while Meta has publicly rejected it, citing concerns over legal ambiguity and regulatory overreach.

The code, crafted by 13 independent experts, is designed to help companies align with the EU’s AI Act, which came into force in June 2024. While non-binding, the guidelines require signatories to disclose summaries of training data used in general-purpose AI models and establish clear policies for compliance with European copyright laws.

Speaking to Reuters, Microsoft President Brad Smith said the company is “likely” to sign the code. “We need to read the documents,” he noted, but emphasized Microsoft’s willingness to engage constructively. “We welcome the direct engagement by the AI Office with industry,” he added, referring to the EU’s AI regulatory authority.

In contrast, Meta has firmly rejected the guidelines. In a LinkedIn post, the company’s chief global affairs officer Joel Kaplan argued that the code introduces “a number of legal uncertainties for model developers” and includes provisions that “go far beyond the scope of the AI Act.”

Kaplan echoed concerns raised by a coalition of 45 European companies, warning that the voluntary framework could “throttle the development and deployment of frontier AI models in Europe” and hinder innovation for businesses building on top of these models.

While OpenAI and French AI startup Mistral have already signed on to the code, the mixed reactions highlight growing tensions between regulatory ambition and industry pushback in Europe’s evolving AI landscape.

The code is seen as a bridge to full compliance with the AI Act, which will impact major players including Alphabet (Google’s parent company), OpenAI, Meta, Anthropic, and thousands of smaller tech firms across the continent.

With Microsoft leaning toward cooperation and Meta leading the resistance, the divergence reflects broader debates around AI governance, innovation, and the balance between transparency and flexibility in a fast-moving sector.