AI Foundation Models Technical update report
This report by the UK Competition and Markets Authority updates its assessment of the AI foundation model sector, examining changes in the market landscape, stakeholder feedback on proposed principles, and competition risks. It confirms four foundational principles—access, diversity, choice, and transparency and accountability—to guide the market toward positive outcomes for competition and consumer protection. Additionally, the paper highlights key risks such as input restrictions, exploitation of consumer/business access points, and anti-competitive partnerships.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
This report is for policymakers, regulators, industry participants, and researchers interested in the intersection of AI foundation models, market competition, and consumer protection.
What the document contains
The document covers market developments in foundation models, stakeholder feedback on proposed regulatory principles, confirmed principles for competition and consumer protection, and specific risks to fair and open competition.
It does not provide binding statutory rules or direct technical specifications for model training.
- The CMA has confirmed four guiding principles for foundation models: Access, Diversity and Choice, Fair Dealing, and Transparency and Accountability.
- The report identifies three key interlinked risks to fair, open, and effective competition in the foundation model sector.
- Dominant incumbent technology firms risk leveraging existing market power across critical inputs and downstream routes to market.
- Strategic partnerships and investments require close monitoring to prevent the suppression of competitive threats.
- The CMA will continue its AI work program, including upcoming papers on AI accelerator chips and joint consumer research.
· 1. Introduction · 2. Market landscape · 3. The CMA's proposed AI principles · 4. The CMA's confirmed AI principles · 5. Risks to competition and consumer protection · 6. Next steps
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
5/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
We would be concerned if firms did not take responsibility for elements they control in the value chain, or did not take positive action necessary to ensure that consumers are adequately protected.
Chapter 3
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
4/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
We would be concerned by instances of anti-competitive conduct such as anti-competitive self-preferencing, tying or bundling in FM-related markets
Chapter 3
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
0/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
1/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
with limited human supervision, to complete complex tasks.
Chapter 2
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
5/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
We would be concerned if businesses and consumers did not receive the right information about FMs’ use and limitations, or if developers and deployers did not both play their part
Chapter 3
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
4/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill anticipates new powers for the CMA directly to enforce consumer protection law against infringing firms and envisages significant penalties for non-compliance.
Chapter 5
screening score · 2026-10-23