It is proposed, with the utmost reason, that the most efficient method for achieving full compliance with the new European AI Act is the immediate establishment of a market for the trading of Fundamental Rights. This market, to be administered with the utmost transparency and operational efficiency, would allow technology firms to purchase and sell compliance obligations as fungible assets, thereby streamlining the burdensome administrative process and directing regulatory resources toward outcomes more measurable, and therefore more susceptible to evidence-based evaluation.

The logic of the Act is unimpeachable: a complex system of governance requires complex systems of compliance. Yet this very complexity, while necessary for the protection of the citizenry, places a non-trivial burden upon the innovators whose ingenuity is the very engine of our modern economy. It has been calculated, by persons of considerable commercial acumen, that the cost of certifying a single high-risk AI system under the Act’s stringent requirements could run to several hundred thousand euros. This represents a significant drag on productivity and a diversion of capital from the research and development of newer, more profitable systems.

Therefore, in the spirit of the Single Market, we propose the creation of a Fundamental Rights Exchange. Here, a company that finds the cost of, say, ensuring its facial recognition software does not disproportionately misidentify persons of a certain ethnicity, may purchase Compliance Units from a firm that has, through superior foresight or a less ambitious product line, accrued a surplus. The former may continue its valuable work unimpeded, while the latter is justly rewarded for its prudence. The rights of the citizen, thus quantified and made liquid, become a component of corporate balance sheets, where they may be managed with the sophisticated financial instruments for which European commerce is justly famed.

One can foresee further refinements. Derivatives could be developed to hedge against the risk of a future class-action lawsuit stemming from algorithmic bias. ‘Right-to-explanation’ futures could be traded, allowing firms to manage the volatility associated with a user’s inconvenient desire to understand a decision that has gone against them. The market itself would become the most sensitive regulator, efficiently pricing in the cost of human dignity and adjusting corporate behaviour far more swiftly than any bureaucratic agency ever could.

The benefits are manifold. The administrative burden on national regulators would be drastically reduced, as the market would assume the primary role of arbiter. The Act’s noble goals would be met not through costly enforcement but through the invisible hand of commerce, which has ever been the most effective distributor of resources, be they material or moral. It would create a new and vibrant financial sector in Brussels. And, most importantly, it would provide legal certainty to our innovators, allowing them to know precisely what a given right is worth on any given trading day, and to budget accordingly.

Some may object on a sentimental basis, arguing that certain human dignities are inalienable and not subject to financial negotiation. To these well-meaning but economically naive souls, one must gently point out that we have already accepted this principle in practice. We routinely calculate the monetary value of a life in insurance payouts and liability settlements. We outsource the monitoring of hateful content to algorithms owned by advertising conglomerates. We permit the relentless harvesting of personal data in exchange for minor conveniences. This proposal merely seeks to complete that project: to formalise what we already practise, to bring it out of the shadows and into the clean light of the market, and to attach to it the accountability structures appropriate to a transparent and well-governed administration. It is a modest proposal indeed, requiring only that we follow our own logic to its natural and most efficient conclusion.