Avoision

Avoision, a portmanteau of 'avoidance' and 'evasion,' describes conduct in the legal grey area intended to minimize regulatory burdens. Coined in the context of the EU AI Act, it refers to how firms might exploit regulatory ambiguities or loopholes to sidestep stringent requirements. Within a risk management framework, this behavior constitutes a significant compliance risk. According to ISO 37301:2021 (Compliance management systems), organizations must identify and assess such risks. Unlike fully legal 'avoidance' (e.g., not developing a high-risk AI) or illegal 'evasion' (e.g., falsifying test data), avoision involves strategically redefining a product's purpose or restructuring operations to fall just outside the scope of high-level scrutiny, leaving its legality open to interpretation.

Enterprises might apply avoision strategies through these steps, while being mindful of the inherent risks: 1. **Regulatory Gap Analysis**: Engage legal and technical experts to dissect regulations like the EU AI Act, identifying ambiguities in scope, exemptions, and risk classifications. This aligns with the 'risk identification' stage in ISO 31000:2018. 2. **Strategic Product Repositioning**: Modify the official 'intended purpose' of an AI system. For instance, a company could market its AI recruitment tool as a 'preliminary resume sorting assistant' instead of an 'automated hiring decision system' to avoid a 'high-risk' classification under the AI Act, thereby reducing compliance obligations like extensive documentation and human oversight. 3. **Supply Chain & Organizational Restructuring**: Shift legal responsibility for a high-risk AI system to entities in jurisdictions with laxer regulations through complex contracts or offshore subsidiaries. While this may cut short-term costs, it risks severe penalties, potentially up to 6% of global annual turnover if deemed malicious circumvention by regulators.

Taiwanese enterprises face three major challenges when considering avoision strategies in response to international regulations like the EU AI Act: 1. **Disadvantage in Regulatory Interpretation**: Lacking proximity to EU authorities, Taiwanese firms struggle to track evolving enforcement practices and legal interpretations, making any navigation of legal grey areas extremely risky. 2. **Complex Supply Chain Liability**: As key component suppliers in the global AI chain, Taiwanese companies can be held liable for the non-compliance of their downstream clients, even if their own product is not a high-risk system itself. This interconnectedness makes avoision a dangerously unpredictable strategy. 3. **Interdisciplinary Talent Gap**: Effective avoision requires a rare blend of deep AI expertise, international legal acumen, and strategic business insight—a talent pool that is limited in Taiwan. **Solution**: Instead of risky avoision, firms should build a robust AI governance framework. Priority actions include commissioning a compliance gap analysis, establishing an internal AI ethics committee, and conducting regulatory training for legal and R&D teams.

Winners Consulting specializes in Avoision for Taiwan enterprises, delivering compliant management systems within 90 days. Free consultation: https://winners.com.tw/contact