Subscriptions to paid Artificial Intelligence (AI) services: FOI Review

Information requested

Original Request 202500472238

1.Whether any Scottish Government departments or agencies (or Scottish Parliament, if sending to them) currently hold or have previously held subscriptions to paid AI services, including but not limited to OpenAI’s ChatGPT Plus, ChatGPT Enterprise, Microsoft Copilot, or comparable generative AI platforms.

2.If such subscriptions exist or have existed:

• The date of purchase, duration, and cost of each subscription.
• The name of the provider (e.g. OpenAI, Microsoft, Anthropic, Google, etc.).
• Which department, office, or individual made or approved the expenditure.

3.Copies of any internal correspondence, memos, or procurement justifications relating to the use or approval of these services (excluding personal information).

Response

I have now completed my review of your request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) which asked:

‘I appreciate the breakdown of AI-related expenditures across departments, but I am seeking clarification on a key point that remains ambiguous.

Specifically, I would like to clarify whether the listed payments to services such as OpenAI and Synthesia reflect recurring subscriptions (e.g. monthly or annual) or one-time purchases. The current response includes spend amounts and start dates, but does not specify renewal terms or the nature of the billing arrangement.

Review Request Grounds:

Clarify Subscription Status: Are any of the AI services purchased operating on ongoing subscription models? If so, what are the renewal terms (e.g. monthly, annual) and total cost incurred to date?

Projected Spend: If these are active subscriptions, has any forecasted budget or renewal cycle been set?

Understanding whether these services entail recurring public expenditure is essential for transparency and accountability.’

Response to your request

Further to my email of 1 August 2025, I have now completed my review of your request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).

My role as a reviewer is to look at the information afresh to establish whether the original  response should be confirmed, with or without modifications as appropriate, or whether a fresh decision should be substituted. I can confirm that I was not involved in the handling or decision-making in respect of the original response.

In reviewing the case, I have considered how the case was handled, the procedures that were  followed and assessed if our response addressed each of the specific points you raised in your request.

In  my  review  of  the  case,  I  have  concluded  that  the  original  decision  should  be modified.  Your review request raised dissatisfaction
with our original response on the grounds that all of the information was requested was not provided in the response. Your original request asked for details of subscriptions to paid AI services, to include the date of purchase, duration, and cost of each subscription.

Costs of Subscriptions

Our  original  response  provided  the  name  of  the  provider,  the  Directorate/business areas who hold, or have held, subscriptions to paid AI services, the date of purchase and total costs to date (as of 18 July 2025). The enclosed table provided an ‘end-date’ column, which stated this is ‘ongoing’ for each entry.

Having considered your request, I agree that this means we need to clarify whether these are monthly costs or annual costs.  I can confirm  that as these  are recurring subscriptions which are purchased at a local level via our ePC (Electronic Purchasing Card).  Synthesia is an annual subscription service, paid once a year, while Chat GPT is a rolling monthly subscription. As there is no contract in place for these services, they may be stopped at any time.

You also asked about projected spend, and if any forecasted budget been set for these services.
While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the Scottish Government does not have the information you have asked for. As the spend disclosed in our initial response is not contracted spend, this information is not held by the Scottish Government. Therefore, this is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested, in this instance.

Although not specifically raised in your review, no information falling within part 3) of your  original  request  was  provided  in  our  initial  response.  I  have  contacted  the cardholders in the relevant business areas within the Scottish Government, and have identified material that I consider to be within scope of part 3) of your initial request. I am, therefore, releasing this information to you as enclosures to this letter. While we aim to provide information wherever possible, I have also concluded that some of the information, otherwise within scope of your request, should be withheld under the following exemptions:

Section 38(1)(b) (personal information)

​​​​​​​An exemption under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA (personal information) applies to some of the information requested because it is personal data of a third party, and disclosing it would contravene the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation and in section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018. The names and email addresses of junior officials and members of staff are exempted from release as this is classified as personal data.

​​​​​​​It is my view that the redaction of those individuals’ names and email addresses has had no material effect on the substantive items for release. This exemption is not subject to the public interest test, so I am not required to consider if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption

​​​​​​​Section 30© (the effective conduct of public affairs)

​​​​​​​The section 30© exemption has been applied to a small section of the information in scope of your request. The information this exemption is applied to relates specifically to log-in details for an account created for an AI subscription service. The substantial prejudice to the conduct of public affairs in terms of the exemption is therefore that disclosure may have a harmful effect on the conduct of public affairs, if this were to be disclosed.

​​​​​​​This exemption is subject to the public interest test. Taking account of all the circumstances of this case, I have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. I have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption on the basis that disclosure would cause significant harm to this process, for security and privacy reasons.

​​​​​​​Finally, in regard to your point about transparency and accountability, please note that the Scottish Government publishes detailed reports of all expenditures over £25,000 on a monthly and annual basis, as part of its commitment to financial transparency. These details are publicly accessible on www.gov.scot.​​​​​​​

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.

FOI 202500477145 - Information Released - Annex

File type

PDF

File size

4.1 MB