Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI and Google Face Antitrust Lawsuit Over Coordinated AI Development Slowdown

A federal court in Northern California accepted a lawsuit accusing Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI and Google of conspiring to limit the speed of AI progress. The complaint alleges that executives from the four companies coordinated to slow AI product improvements, allegedly violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case, titled Buist v. Anthropic PBC and identified by docket number 3:26-cv-10693, was filed by consumers who subscribe to the companies' AI services, including Cheyenne Hunt, Charles Buist, Nick Spetsas and Christine Bullock. Their counsel, Nick Rowley of Trial Lawyers for Justice, seeks class certification, an injunction against the defendants and a declaratory judgment that the alleged conduct breaches federal antitrust law. The lawsuit stems from a September 12 article by Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei, who called for industry‑wide coordination to "set the pace for frontier AI" and to "limit the unchecked speed of AI progress," allowing safety assessments to keep up.

Amodei clarified that his proposal does not halt model training or technological advancement but urges firms to balance capability gains with thorough safety validation. He suggested third‑party evaluations, industry alignment and further international cooperation. Executives from OpenAI, including chief executive Sam Altman, SpaceXAI founder Elon Musk and Google DeepMind co‑founder Demis Hassabis publicly endorsed the call for controlled development. Plaintiffs argue that such public endorsement from competing firms constitutes an agreement to synchronize product improvement rates, thereby restricting competition. They contend that if rivals decelerate AI iteration, consumers would receive slower‑advancing products at comparable prices, harming their interests.

The suit demands that the court prohibit the alleged coordinated behavior and recognize it as unlawful under U.S. antitrust statutes. Plaintiffs' attorney Nick Rowley emphasized that the case aims to prevent "self‑serving private agreements" among the world's most powerful profit‑driven technology firms from pushing AI beyond human oversight, especially amid existential risks such as nuclear conflict. The plaintiffs intend to expand the action into a class suit representing other consumers affected by the companies' slowdown decisions.

Reported by ITHome.