Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI, Google face federal antitrust lawsuit over calls to slowdown AI development
According to a news report by Politico, the complaint filed in the Northern District Court of California, claims that public statements made earlier this month amounted to an illegal business agreement between competitors under US antitrust law. The matter began with Anthropic Chief Executive Officer Dario Amodei issuing a public plea for "industry-wide coordination" to "pace the frontier" of…
AI developers Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI, and Google are embroiled in a federal antitrust lawsuit alleging collusion to slow down AI advancement, according to a civil complaint filed in a US federal court on Friday. The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, asserts that public statements made earlier this month constituted an illegal business agreement among the companies under US antitrust law.
The legal document reports that the controversy originated when Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called for industry-wide coordination to manage the pace of artificial intelligence development. This call was swiftly echoed by SpaceXAI CEO Elon Musk, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and Google DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis. The legal action alleges that this collective agreement among competitors violates the Sherman Act by forming an unlawful pact to restrict competition.
The plaintiffs, including lawyer Cheyenne Hunt, Florida attorneys Charles Buist and Nick Spetsas, and California resident Christine Bullock, have signaled their intention to seek class-action status on behalf of other individuals affected by corporate decisions to slow down AI development. Their attorney, Nick Rowley, emphasized that the lawsuit aims to prevent private arrangements from bypassing regulatory oversight.
Rowley stated that the case was filed to prevent private self-serving agreements between major technology companies from resulting in AI developments spinning out of human control. He emphasized the need for transparent and lawful government establishment of rules, with accountability to the public. Hunt, in her social media announcement, criticized the companies for circumventing legislative scrutiny, stating that they deserve real AI safety standards, not shady agreements cut by an unaccountable group of billionaires.
The plaintiffs argue that the AI firms are framing the slowdown as a safety breakthrough, but it is merely four corporations agreeing not to compete on safety standards. This, they claim, is a blatant violation of the Sherman Act, which prohibits corporations from joining forces to evade public pressure rather than facing it alone. The timing of this agreement coincided with lawmakers preparing binding statutory rules on AI regulation, suggesting a coordinated effort to sidestep legislative scrutiny.
According to the lawsuit, this "deal" was struck precisely when lawmakers were gaining momentum to pass binding AI regulations. The "pinkie promise" publicly announced by the CEOs allegedly provided House Speaker Mike Johnson cover to adjourn the House of Representatives just before they could pass legislation on the topic. The plaintiffs argue that such private agreements bypassing legislative processes are not genuine safety standards but rather a corporate grift, and the public should be the one writing the rules, not a select group of billionaires.
Written by urgent.news from Economic Times Tech's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
