At our event 'Does regulation kill innovation' on 15 May 2025, Parham Kouchikali chaired a panel of advisors and regulators, asking them for their thoughts on whether regulation is a help or a hindrance for innovators. The panel was made up of Ed Richards, (Partner from Flint Global and former Ofcom Chief Executive), Alexandra Aninoiu, (Legal Counsel for Farfetch), Barrister Aidan Christie KC, and Alex Fell (Chief Executive of the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority). Here are some of the key takeaways:
Ed Richards: regulation must enable, not control
Ed Richards set the tone early by acknowledging the double-edged nature of regulation. “I have absolutely no doubt that regulation can kill innovation,” he stated, cautioning that overly prescriptive regulation could stifle the very activity it intends to encourage. However, Richards was careful not to dismiss the role of regulation outright. “Regulators can do great things,” he said, noting that while regulation may not stimulate innovation directly, it can certainly enable it, if implemented thoughtfully.
Richards pointed to the example of spectrum licensing during his time at Ofcom. The strategic release and management of radio spectrum enabled significant innovation in mobile communications and Wi-Fi — from 3G through to 5G. “That is innovation, huge innovation, enabled from that,” he said. It was a clear example of regulators facilitating industry progress.
He also stressed the importance of embedding innovation within the regulatory mindset: “Personally I do think it's incredibly important for regulators to have a duty to promote or to have regard for innovation — and quite a lot don’t”.
Crucially, Richards warned against regulators becoming too focused on process and method, rather than public outcomes: “They've got to remember that the objective is to secure certain public interest outcomes... and, where possible, get out of the way”.
Alexandra Aninoiu: trust is the key to innovation
Alexandra Aninoiu took a practical view, reminding the audience that regulation’s primary purpose is not to promote innovation, but to protect consumers and the public interest. “You might get it to accidentally, or inadvertently, support innovation but that's not its primary aim,” she said. “It's more of a correlation than a causation.”
However, Aninoiu acknowledged that regulation can play a crucial role in building consumer trust, which in turn is a necessary condition for the adoption of innovative products and services. “A thoughtful, nimble, proportionate framework can really contribute to innovation,” she argued, while warning that overbearing frameworks can have the opposite effect and suppress growth.
Aidan Christie KC: regulation as a catalyst
Offering a different perspective, Aidan Christie KC pushed back against the idea that regulation inherently stifles innovation. “Far from killing innovation,” he said, “regulation which is properly focused and balanced can stimulate and encourage innovation in a manner which is safe, secure, transparent and accountable”.
Focusing particularly on the crypto sector, Christie emphasised that innovative companies actively seek regulatory clarity. “They need to know where the line is so they can stay on the right side of it.” He said for legitimate businesses, regulation can serve as a stamp of trust. “Without that, they’re lumped in with fraudsters and the entire ecosystem suffers from a lack of trust".
His view was clear: timely and well-designed regulation can stimulate innovation.
Alex Fell: regulation builds confidence in risk-averse industries
In the pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors, regulation takes on a different role. According to Alex Fell, regulation doesn’t just constrain — it empowers. “What regulation can do in the medical space is provide confidence in innovation,” he said.
Interestingly, Fell reported that companies in the pharmaceutical industry are often calling for more regulation, not less. “We are not confident to sometimes take those decisions ourselves,” he explained, noting that businesses want clarity and reassurance when navigating highly sensitive areas involving patient outcomes and public health.
“In a world such as pharmaceuticals and medicines,” he continued, “you have a very risk averse environment… companies are very worried about getting it wrong, wanting to do the right thing for patients, and will push often for more definition and regulation”. This provides an alternative to the narrative that regulation always inhibits progress.
Balance is everything
What emerged clearly from the discussion is that regulation is neither inherently good nor bad for innovation. Its impact depends on how it’s designed and implemented and whether it is proportionate.
When regulators focus on outcomes over process, provide clarity without overreach, and stay agile in the face of rapid technological change, they can be powerful enablers of innovation. But when regulation becomes rigid, burdensome, or disconnected from real-world commercial dynamics, it risks hampering innovators.
As Ed Richards succinctly put it: “It is not regulators that do innovation. It is companies — and the process of competition — that lead to innovation. It’s extremely important to get that balance right”.
