A new lawsuit claims Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI and Google made an illegal deal to slow the pace of their respective AI development.
The lawsuit, which was filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues that the leading AI companies violated antitrust laws when they agreed to coordinate slowdown efforts, and that doing so would reduce the value consumers get for paid AI subscriptions.
The coordination largely took place on Sept. 12, the lawsuit argues, when Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay urging for industrywide cooperation on decelerating advancements in favor of enhanced safety measures. That same day, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, SpaceXAI CEO Elon Musk and Google DeepMind’s co-founder and chair Demis Hassabis each publicly responded to Amodei’s proposals in agreement.
But the lawsuit also alleges that the coordination began to take shape months earlier. It points to a statement from July 2026 that high-ranking employees from several of the leading AI labs signed that acknowledged the “intense competitive pressure not to unilaterally slow” development. That statement called on the government to support a global effort to slow automated AI development.
It is clear that an agreement among the chief rivals in AI that their progress “should be slower than competition would otherwise produce has an anticompetitive effect on consumers,” the plaintiffs argue.
Lawyers representing four named plaintiffs, who pay for subscriptions to ChatGPT, Claude, Grok or Gemini, are bringing the lawsuit on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other paid subscribers to those services.
The plaintiffs don’t object to the companies individually deciding to slow their own progress in favor of safety. They instead argue in the complaint that antitrust laws forbid them from taking the “shortcut” of agreeing to “substitute collective restraint for individual accountability.” A competitive market allows for responsibility and genuine progress, the lawsuit argues.
Are we sure there’s actually an intentional slowdown and not “shit we’re all hitting diminishing returns and now we need to keep the narrative that we’re the trusted superpowers of the magical word box”?
I thought it is: “we need to make a reason why we are loosing money before the IPO, quick let’s make everyone afraid and Trump will tell us to slow down - so we can get even more $$; oops he went off-script now WHAT?”
“AI is dangerous! You have to slow down development!”
“We’ve agreed to slow down development.”
“That’s illegal!”
Convenient that these AI companies are self-advocating for a slow down (but we still gotta be faster than china!) at the same time profitability issues, energy price hikes, and hostile political sentiment are starting to say the bill is due. I think we should be skeptical of these companies reasoning and advocate for real regulations that address the real harms of the industry and not doom posting fears of an skynet agentic takeover.
Generally, if tech CEOs are advocating for something, it’s usually bad. When they all agree with advocating for something, that should be a massive red flag.
The anti-trust collusion part seems correct but also fucking stupid. If the slow down is indeed for safety, fuck investors and users. What other product is sold with guarantees of a specific pace of development? Unless that’s explicit in the contract, how do they justify the suit on those grounds?
To my knowledge, all they need is standing, which they have, and collusion, which they seek to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why they are suing is ironically immaterial. This is a civil class action suit, but winning it very well may trigger a federal collusion case (until the bribes start flowing, of course).
I guess it comes down to what counts as collusion? This isn’t price fixing. Where does collaboration end and collusion begin?
I think it stops being collusion when it stops being done in secret with intent to deceive, though I dont know the letter of that law. I just know the definition of collusion in the dictionary. It differs from cooperation because of the secrecy.
