Four paid subscribers claim the companies violated antitrust law by agreeing to limit how quickly ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Grok improve.
Charles Buist, Cheyenne Hunt, Christine Bullock, and Nick Spetsas sued Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and SpaceXAI on Friday, alleging the companies agreed to slow improvements to their competing AI products.
The proposed class action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claims the alleged agreement violated federal antitrust law and reduced the value of paid ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Grok subscriptions.
Plaintiffs cite coordinated public statements
The plaintiffs cite a September 12 essay in which Anthropic Chief Executive Officer Dario Amodei called for AI companies to slow the development of more capable models. The complaint says Amodei proposed common safety requirements and limits on the pace of AI development so that participating companies could slow down without losing business to competitors that continued moving faster.
The plaintiffs point to public responses from leaders of the other three companies. Elon Musk said Amodei was right, while OpenAI Chief Executive Officer Sam Altman agreed the industry needed to slow the development of its most powerful models. They also cite Google DeepMind Chair Demis Hassabis, who called Amodei’s proposal the right direction while saying the details still needed work.
The complaint also alleges that representatives of Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google had met regularly since July to discuss creating an industry group to develop common AI safety requirements. SpaceXAI was not identified as a participant in that working group. The plaintiffs instead cite Musk’s public endorsement as evidence that SpaceXAI joined the alleged agreement.
Plaintiffs say alleged agreement reduces subscription value
The plaintiffs argue that customers pay for access to each company’s newest and most capable models. They argue that the alleged agreement left subscribers paying the same price for products that improved more slowly than they would have under normal competition.
The complaint says the alleged collusion has not yet shown up in released products because AI development takes months. It also alleges that the agreement has already influenced company decisions about investment, training, and releases.
The plaintiffs want to represent everyone in the United States who bought a paid individual ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, or Gemini subscription directly from one of the companies from September 12 until the alleged agreement ends. The court has not yet decided whether it may proceed on behalf of that larger group.
Plaintiffs seek damages and an end to alleged coordination
The plaintiffs seek three times any amount the court finds subscribers overpaid because the products improved more slowly than they would have without the alleged agreement. The requested order would not prevent any company from independently slowing its own development. None of the defendants have responded as yet.
