EBM Newsdesk Analysis
Arthur Mensch, chief executive of France’s Mistral, is pressing Brussels to make every AI company operating in Europe pay a levy on revenue — reported at around 1% to 1.5% — in exchange for the legal right to train on any content freely accessible online. The pitch from Europe’s only real AI champion is seductively simple: a central fund for the continent’s cultural and creative sectors, and in return, blanket legal certainty for developers. Crucially, it would apply to American and Chinese firms operating in Europe too, not just home-grown ones, and Mistral frames it as a discussion starter rather than a finished policy. It casts creators and AI builders not as adversaries but as natural allies.
The problem is what the deal quietly removes. In exchange for a modest, fixed payment, AI companies would be shielded from liability for training on web material — stripping creators of the two things they actually demand: payment they negotiate, and permission they can refuse. It is less a peace treaty than a compulsory purchase order.
What Mensch is actually proposing
The mechanism is a revenue-based levy, not a licensing market. Any commercial provider placing an AI model on the European market would pay a percentage of revenue — Mensch suggested 1% to 1.5% — into a central pot dedicated to investing in new content and supporting Europe’s cultural industries. In return, developers would gain what Mensch calls urgently needed “legal certainty”: protection from liability for training on materials accessible on the web.
Join The European Business Briefing
New subscribers this quarter are entered into a draw to win a Rolex Submariner. Join 40,000+ founders, investors and executives who read EBM every day.
SubscribeMistral is careful to say the levy would complement, not replace, direct licensing deals between creators and AI firms. But the core trade is unambiguous — pay the toll, and the legal threat over training data disappears.
The competitiveness argument
Underneath the cultural framing sits an industrial-strategy pitch aimed squarely at Brussels. Mensch argues European developers fight with one hand tied. US and Chinese rivals, he says, train on vast troves of content — including European material — under copyright regimes that are permissive or barely enforced, while European firms operate in a fragmented legal patchwork that deters investment.
He reserves particular scorn for the EU’s current “opt-out” system, which lets rights holders signal that their work may not be used for training. In practice, Mensch argues, it is unworkable: applied inconsistently, too complex, and satisfying no one. Rights holders fear for their income; developers face paralysing uncertainty. A flat levy, he contends, cuts through the mess and levels the field inside Europe — a regulatory-arbitrage fix for a regulatory-arbitrage problem.
Why creators are unconvinced
The creative sector’s objection is fundamental, not fiscal. A levy converts a property right into a tax. Today, in principle, a publisher or musician can say no, or name their price. Under Mensch’s scheme, they could do neither: the work becomes trainable by default, and compensation arrives as a share of a central fund decided by others, at a rate set at perhaps a penny on the euro of AI revenue.
Critics have called it a “get out of jail free card” for the industry — a way to extinguish present and future lawsuits cheaply while removing the obligation to seek consent at all. For a European publishing and media industry already watching AI assistants summarise their journalism and erode their traffic, a compulsory, low, collectively administered payment is not obviously better than the messy status quo. It may be worse, because it forecloses the right to bargain.
The self-interest beneath the statesmanship
It would be naïve to read the op-ed as pure public service. Mistral is the chief beneficiary of its own proposal. Legal certainty removes the single largest cloud over every AI developer’s balance sheet, and a fixed sub-2% levy is a trivial, predictable cost compared with the open-ended risk of litigation or the expense of negotiating thousands of individual licences.
The genius of the framing is to dress a liability shield as solidarity with artists. Whether Brussels buys it will reveal how Europe weighs two of its own priorities against each other: nurturing a homegrown AI champion, and protecting the creators whose work that champion needs. Mensch has offered Europe a bargain. The question is whether the people whose content is being bought ever get a vote.
Related Analysis
