BenJacob1

I don't see how they can feasibly enforce on every tech business in the world selling in to the EU. Given that's the case, suspect they can only afford to divert resources to go after big tech. But that doesn't stop customers wanting to cover themselves for the liability (which is totally understandable)

You're presenting a false dichotomy between building good products and being capable of fulfiling extremely burdensome (not to mention, expensive) compliance requirements from the EU.

We're perfectly qualified to build the core tech. We're just not paperwork experts. Are you suggesting if we can't do paperwork, we shouldn't build innovative products that improve educational outcomes?

Thanks for sharing, think the assessment tool on there says it all - not many edtech players can avoid the arm of heavy regulation here.

My gripe isn’t “no regulation,” it’s the shape of this one for teams in a sector that’s already stretched. Some of these requirements are so high burden that it will add 10% to our OpEx e.g. data governance/provenance reqs: document sources, bias reviews, copyright posture, retention + redoing this after every model change; quality management system across the company (policies, roles, training, audits); conformity assessment + CE marking, with a third-party review all of which will be costly and slow.

I’m all for protecting students. But in practice this shifts months of team time and serious cash into paperwork before schools even pilot the tool. Big incumbents can eat that but small teams either raise prices, slow down, or skip the EU. That’s the innovation tax I’m worried about especially when schools need better tools now.