Fair Tech Policy Proposal Challenge

Congratulations to all our participants! Your time and effort in researching, understanding, and reflecting on current AI policy climates are key steps toward recalibrating fairness through technology.

We will soon be publishing the winners’ works, along with other submissions we believe merit publication. Notification emails will be sent out shortly.

First Prize

Harry Qu & Hunter Dorwart

Proposal for A Government-Guided, Market-Executed Assessment Framework

for Fair, Accountable, and Trustworthy AI

Second Prize

Priya Barke

California’s ADMT Regulations: Balancing AI Innovation and Consumer Protection

Third Prize

Jesstian Vincent

The Algorithmic Divide: How the FDA's Historic AI Policy Unwittingly Crafts Inequity

Honorable Mentions

Anton Goncear

Ensuring Legal Confidentiality for AI User Conversations in Moldova

Siri Jonnada

Evaluation of New York City Local Law 144-21 on AI Hiring Policy

Albert Parappuzha

The Equity Blind Spot: How the EU AI Act Fails to Protect the Most Vulnerable

Christophe Perrenoud, Huong Perrenoud, Pastor Perrenoud

The Digital Trojan Horse: Widespread Data Collection and Its Impact on AI and Societal Equity

Ashwin Kirubakaran

The EU AI Act’s Transparency Gap

Nikita Vijay

Beyond Digital Band-Aids: A Youth-Centered Framework for AI Mental Health Governance

Mabel Zheng

Analyzing Canada’s Proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act: A Critical Policy Review

Purpose

The Fair Tech Policy Proposal Challenge 2025 aims to crowdsource a wide range of perspectives for regulating and governing artificial intelligence (AI). At a time when AI is rapidly transforming society, it is essential to gather policy input from as many perspectives as possible.

Rather than requiring fully comprehensive or technical policy blueprints, this challenge encourages participants to focus on a specific issue, context, or stakeholder group that matters to them. Submissions may explore existing laws and regulatory frameworks, or propose new and imaginative policy interventions.

Participants may choose to:

Examine and critique existing AI policy in their own country or a country of choice;
Compare AI governance across multiple jurisdictions;
Propose targeted policy recommendations addressing a particular challenge, sector, or group.

Submissions can range from local-level interventions to national or international frameworks. Whether you are analysing an education ministry’s AI rollout, proposing guardrails for AI surveillance, or designing a participatory accountability mechanism, your work contributes to a growing archive of thinking on tech policy.

Every entry, whether grounded in analysis, comparison, or original recommendation, is a vital contribution to more inclusive, just, and forward-thinking AI governance.

Challenge Prompts

Choose any of the following prompts to guide your research and writing:

1. How should your country prepare for the societal impacts of AI on equity?

2. Choose one existing or proposed AI-related law or policy in your country. What are its strengths and weaknesses?

Judging Criteria

Research depth

We value submissions grounded in academic rigour and integrity. Whether drawing on law, social sciences, ethics, computer science, or lived experience as a primary resource, strong entries should demonstrate thoughtful analysis supported by well-cited, credible sources. Plagiarism is strictly prohibited, and all work must be original.

Originality of thought

In addition to academic credibility and rigour, we prioritise original thinking and underrepresented perspectives. Whether you’re challenging dominant narratives, proposing bold new approaches, or spotlighting communities too often left out of policy conversations, your voice matters. Thoughtful, creative contributions have the power to reshape how AI is governed.

Clarity and structure

Effective communication matters. We look for entries with a clear argument, logical flow, and actionable insight. Your writing should be concise and purposeful where every sentence should serve a function. We value depth of content over complexity of language: clarity, precision, and substance are far more powerful than jargon or overly complicated phrasing.