Public consultations — What’s the big deal?

With big pieces of tech policy pending this year — from the UK’s proposed digital ID framework to an under-16 social media ban and the EU’s forthcoming Digital Fairness Act — public consultations are again in the spotlight.

Consultations are often treated as a procedural step in policymaking. Yet they offer industry one of its most important opportunities for shaping regulation. Recent comments and proposed reforms to consultations from the UK’s Darren Jones MP, who described the digital ID consultation as a “proper” consultation rather than an “online survey no one reads,” have reignited debate about what good governance looks like in initiating policy.

Just where do consultations sit in this process? How influential are they? And how can tech companies engage effectively?

Why is tech-sector engagement important?

It’s a truism that not engaging in consultations means effectively accepting a regulatory environment designed by others — including potentially one’s competitors. While consultations benefit from a wide range of responses, digital and tech consultations, especially, benefit from industry input.

• ‘‘Tech’’ is by definition cutting-edge. Tech-related policies and legislation often stem from a new use-case or innovation. This often requires more qualitative analysis and out-of-the-box solutions: based on real-life market conditions rather than assessments of existing rules. Industry can provide the concrete data needed to test these assumptions and refine policy design.
• Policymakers are not technical experts. On the contrary, most are generalists: skilled in legislation and regulation but less often experts in how a particular technology or business model works. This is especially important in the context of new and innovative technologies, complex ecosystems and often free-to-use business models. To shape proposed policies, companies must be able to explain their business models to policymakers in order to ensure rules are realistic and proportionate, and avoid causing unintended harm.
• Technology moves fast. Legislation can take a long time, and regulation tends to offer long-term solutions — meaning one of policymakers’ biggest challenges lies in future-proofing a set of rules. For tech, this is crucial as policymakers try to balance regulations adaptive to changing markets, changing users and changing technologies whilst still remaining effective and enforceable.

Key considerations for tech companies

The most important question to consider is why engagement in a given case matters. Several factors are critical:

• Which proposed measures will impact the business model?
• How effective are these likely to be?
• What unintended outcomes may arise?

Evidence is key. Policymakers are generally not just looking for opinions; they need data, examples and practical insight.

Ultimately, consultations should not be treated as one-off exercises. They constitute, rather, the entry point into a longer process of strategic engagement. Companies that engage early — and continue engaging — are far likelier to influence outcomes as policy evolves.

Industry must also remain aware of the bigger picture, which may involve institutional dynamics or political shifts in government priorities. Offering alternative solutions, recommendations or case studies, including from other markets, can build credibility and offer invaluable perspective to policymakers.

Consultations and the policy cycle

Consultations are sometimes seen as a waste, with decisions already taken. This can indeed happen, especially for long-established policies in latter stages of development. But it is often not true for tech, given that so much of the market is emerging, evolving or in early stages of regulation.

It is helpful to see consultations in context. Policy design generally follows a familiar basic pattern:

1. Identifying the issue

Policy development typically begins with a trigger: a manifesto commitment, a high-profile event, sustained media attention or an industry campaign, for instance.

The tech industry itself often plays a key role in surfacing issues. The UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer (DMCC) framework, for example, was heavily informed by the Furman Review — commissioned following sustained concern about market dominance in digital ecosystems.

2. Developing a framework

The government then explores potential solutions: drawing on research, analysis and internal deliberations. This stage involves testing early ideas vis-à-vis stakeholders — including industry — before anything is made public.

Practical constraints also come into play. Legislative time is limited, so departments must decide whether to prioritise legislation or pursue non-legislative tools. Various policies, for instance, may form part of a wider legislative package; or, alternatively, governments may seek to work with industry and regulators.

Some policies build on existing legal frameworks; others start with softer, principles-based approaches. The UK’s AI regulatory principles, for example, were designed in the context of a non-legislative, iterative framework: allowing policy to evolve alongside the technology in a less resource-intensive way while still supporting a growing industry.

3. Consultation

At some point, proposals are formally published. Consultation documents may present multiple options or a “minded-to” position. Crucially, though, this does not signal the end of the process, but rather that government is actively seeking evidence in order to refine its approach.

Consultation responses often feed directly into impact assessments and policy decisions. Indeed, many rounds of consultation may ensue — from green papers (early ideas) to white papers (firm proposals), to detailed policy documents. Each stage offers a new opportunity to shape outcomes and share industry insights.

4. Policy statement and legislation

Once a general direction is agreed, governments are likely to publish a policy statement or introduce legislation. At this stage, the scope is largely set, though legislation typically defines powers and objectives, with detailed rules on implementation left for subsequent regulatory guidance. At this point, opportunities for engagement include parliamentarians, regulators and government officials, all scrutinising the policy and desired outcomes.

Final thoughts

Public consultations are not just a box-ticking exercise. They offer one of the few moments when policymakers actively depend on external expertise; this creates an opportunity for tech companies to shape the regulatory environment in which they will ultimately operate.

Companies may sometimes raise additional questions when considering engagement with policymakers: from practical concerns regarding resources and capacity, given the time needed to develop a thoughtful and evidence-based response, to reputational and regulatory ones. Firms may fear drawing attention to their current approach or business model, thus raising the risk of added scrutiny. Yet any such risk can generally be mitigated by the precise nature of the information shared — or by gathering, or joining, a wider, joint-industry view. A further deciding factor, of course, is the essential relevance of the policy in question: the more critical, the more invaluable any potential engagement.

Additional questions as to consultation type — ie, to what extent this may impact the effectiveness of responses (for example, a survey vs an email response) — are often less about what policymakers are looking for than they are about the expected audience, with one option generally as important as the other. So a consultation targeting individuals, say, is more likely to include a survey accounting for the scale and type of responses, whereas a technical consultation targeting industry is likely also to invite engagement and response.

Overall, those treating consultations strategically — by combining evidence, narrative and sustained engagement — are far likelier to be heard. With several high-impact tech consultations already underway in 2026, companies engaging early may find they have a (better) seat at the table.