Argumentation Strategies in Lobbying: The discursive struggle over proposals to regulate Big Tech

This study investigates, through a case study where organisations held opposing lobbying objectives, the argumentation strategies employed by organisations in their lobbying. Big Tech companies lobbied against proposed online harm regulations in the UK, with their objectives clashing with public interest groups with a health focus, who advocated for broader regulations. The research explores the functional relationship between these argumentation strategies and the lobbying objectives of the organisations involved. Additionally, it examines the extent to which organisations with similar lobbying objectives converge in the argumentation strategies they deploy. Design/methodology/approach: A qualitative content analysis of N = 13 submissions in response to the UK Online Safety Bill from seven public interest groups and six Big Tech companies was conducted. It captured both the public affairs objectives and argumentation strategies submitted in response to the regulatory proposal. Findings: Our findings suggest Big Tech use argumentation strategies that emphasise cost implications, threats to freedom of speech and claim proposed regulations are impractical, while at the same time seeking to align their objectives with public interest norms. Public interest groups continuously stress the costs and risks for mental health if regulations are not widened in scope or rigorously enforced. Contribution/originality: Situating lobbying within communication management, the study contributes to theorising language strategies. It reveals the argumentation strategies with which both powerful corporations and public interest groups attempt to influence public policy. Both theoretically and practically, it will contribute to developing analytical frameworks for understanding the influence intent in lobbying argumentation.