Public Policy
Antares Group builds asymmetric marketing technology: automation, data, and AI systems that let small operators compete against incumbents many times their size. Our platforms touch contact data, automated outreach, social platform integrations, and applied AI. Because of that, the policy debates around privacy, data, AI, and platform governance are not abstract to us — they shape what we build and how our customers operate. The positions below reflect how we engage those debates: grounded in operational reality, skeptical of hype, and oriented toward keeping the playing field open for challengers.
A level playing field for small operators
The greatest risk in marketing-technology regulation is that compliance cost becomes a moat for the largest platforms. Rules written for trillion-dollar incumbents are survivable for them and fatal for the independent agencies and founders who are our customers. We support clear, proportionate rules that scale with the size and risk of the actor, and we oppose regimes whose practical effect is to entrench the dominant platforms by pricing everyone else out.
Privacy as a discipline, not a slogan
Our products handle contact and engagement data. We believe privacy protections and effective marketing technology are not opposed — the best systems treat data minimization, consent, and purpose limitation as design constraints rather than afterthoughts. We support a single, predictable federal privacy standard in the US over a fragmented patchwork of state laws, because clarity protects consumers and lets small businesses comply without a legal department.
Honest data sourcing and provenance
Asymmetric advantage should come from better targeting and better creative, not from laundered or illegally obtained data. We support clear rules on the provenance of contact data, transparency about how data is collected, and enforcement against genuinely abusive collection. We oppose treating all data aggregation as inherently illegitimate; the question that matters is consent, accuracy, and use — not volume.
Automated outreach should be accountable, not banned
Cold email, automated DMs, and outbound at scale are legitimate business tools that have always been part of commerce. The right framework polices outcomes — fraud, deception, harassment, ignoring opt-outs — rather than prohibiting the channel. We support strong, enforceable opt-out and suppression requirements, accurate sender identification, and anti-fraud rules, and we hold ourselves and our customers to them. We oppose blanket bans that would only push outreach toward bad actors who ignore the law anyway.
Fair and transparent platform governance
Much of our technology operates on top of platforms we do not control. We support clear, consistently applied, and appealable rules from social and communications platforms, and predictable API access that does not arbitrarily favor a platform's own commercial interests over third-party developers. Capricious, opaque enforcement harms legitimate businesses far more than it harms the abuse it claims to target.
AI grounded in real use, regulated in context
We use AI to draft, target, and optimize marketing — not to make high-stakes decisions about people's rights. We favor AI regulation that is contextual and proportionate to actual risk, rather than sweeping rules that treat a copywriting assistant and a consequential automated decision system as the same thing. We prefer realistic frameworks for adoption over hype in either direction, and we believe the best applications augment human marketers rather than replace judgment entirely.
Transparency and disclosure in AI-generated content
As AI-generated marketing content becomes routine, we support reasonable, workable norms around disclosure where it matters to consumers — and we oppose deceptive synthetic content, impersonation, and fabricated endorsements. The goal is to preserve trust in the channel that our customers depend on.
American competitiveness and the independent operator
The next generation of marketing and software innovation will not come only from the largest firms. We support policy that keeps barriers to entry low for founders, that resists regulatory capture by incumbents, and that treats small technology companies as a source of national economic dynamism rather than a problem to be managed.
American-led AI in service of human freedom and truth
For the sake of national security and the long-term interest of freedom, truth, historical reference, and future opportunity for the people of the planet, we believe the development of advanced AI must be led by the United States. Our AI companies carry an obligation that extends beyond shareholders: their systems must work in favor of all humans, and must never be built to trample the freedom and opportunity of people, distort the truth of historical events, or rewrite the record to serve power. We support an American AI sector that competes hard on capability while holding the line on these principles, because whoever leads this technology will shape what billions of people are allowed to know, build, and become.
We engage these debates the way we build products: by confronting the real constraints our customers face rather than offering solutions to problems that do not exist. We welcome scrutiny, we update our positions as the technology and the law evolve, and we aim to be a credible voice for the operators who are too small to have a lobbyist but large in number and consequence.