In his talk, Professor Hilgartner revisited the 'law lag' narrative, i.e. the idea that technology advances quickly, while law and policy struggle to keep pace. In the critical literature, this conception is characterised as one that presents technologies as inevitable and assigns society (including law) a reactive role. This subtly narrows the range of political and regulatory choices that are available.
Professor Hilgartner explored why the 'law lag' concept remains so appealing despite long-standing criticism. He suggested that this narrative survives because it is a useful rhetoric for those who follow an innovation-first approach as well as those who want to control the development of technology. Additionally, those who feel overwhelmed by new technological developments may find the concept of law lagging behind useful to understand their experience.
Instead of questioning the persistence of the law lag concept, Professor Hilgartner suggested asking a different question: Under what circumstances does the perception arise that technology is available even before law and policy are ready to control it? He presented three answers. First, due to the specialisation of expertise, new technologies may arrive as 'surprises' even for those who are experts in a certain area. Second, state policies that systematically promote emerging technologies are institutionally embedded and considered obligatory. Third, surprises and secrecy have a strategic value in competition, which Professor Hilgartner illustrated by historical references such as the 'battle of the laboratories' around the atomic bomb.
To make these ideas more concrete, he introduced the notion of knowledge‑control regimes that allocate entitlements as well as burdens pertaining to knowledge, thus shaping the experience of technological advances as a gradual development or a sudden shock. Such regimes include rules and practices that determine which actors can anticipate, shape or respond to technological change. Examples are confidentiality and peer‑review rules as well as trade‑secret protections. Building on that, Professor Hilgartner talked about launch control – every major technology goes through a moment of release, whereas the mode and time of its introduction are a deliberate choice. He mentioned ChatGPT as a vivid example of how a fast launch gave the impression of an overnight technological novelty rather than the product of a long research process. From there, the discussion connected to the logic of 'blitzscaling', i.e. the practice of growing a product quickly enough, so that oversight cannot keep up.
In his fourth response to the question of what conditions make the experience of the law lag so pervasive, Professor Hilgartner referred to a lack of evidence of the need for control. Even when risks or harms are documented, they may stay contestable, creating the same uncertainty seen in today’s debates around AI regulation.
The main takeaway was that the concept of 'law lag', although it might be an oversimplified and theoretically shaky form of technological determinism, remains a powerful interpretative resource. People use it to make sense of rapid change and because it resonates strongly with lived experience, it is likely to stay with us.
We thank Professor Stephen Hilgartner for his thought‑provoking insights and all participants for the lively and engaging discussion. Questions of enforcement and of the relationship between 'economic forces' and law emerged as key themes in the concluding discussion.
The Lunch Bytes series is organised by Professor Iris Eisenberger.
