Menu
SUBSCRIBE
SUBSCRIBE
Menu

Antitrust Law

Four AI company logos ringed around an empty brass balance scale, illustrating an AI slowdown lawsuit

Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and SpaceXAI Sued Over Alleged AI Slowdown Deal

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

Abstract shield blocks red digital threats in an image illustrating a Chinese AI espionage bill.

Bipartisan Bill Targets Chinese Espionage Against American AI Companies

, , , , , , , , , ,

The proposal would let AI developers share threat information and coordinate defenses against model theft without violating antitrust law.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers introduced a Chinese AI espionage bill Thursday that would let American AI companies work together to prevent foreign actors from stealing or copying their most advanced models.

Sens. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced the bipartisan Collaboration on Adversarial Threats and Security Risks Act. Reps. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) and George Whitesides (D-Calif.) introduced the House version with additional bipartisan sponsors.

Banks and Schiff said foreign adversaries are using cyberattacks, model theft and distillation attacks to steal or reproduce advanced American AI systems.

Their announcement cites reports that Chinese actors used tens of thousands of fraudulent accounts to obtain millions of responses from leading American AI systems. Those responses can be used to train another model to reproduce some of the original system’s capabilities at a much lower cost, a process known as “distillation.”

The bill would let rival AI companies work together to identify and respond to foreign espionage without violating antitrust laws. That could include sharing intelligence and resources, investigating threats and coordinating defenses across companies. The same protection would extend to collaboration against other catastrophic AI risks, including threats involving weapons, critical infrastructure or the loss of control over advanced systems.

Companies could also agree to slow or stop an AI system’s development, delay its release or restrict how it is tested and used. They would first have to notify the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and explain the risk and planned restrictions.

Organizations receiving shared information would have to limit its use to the security purpose covered by the bill.

The exemption would apply only to security collaboration. Companies could not use it to engage in collusion activities such as coordinating prices, dividing up customers, or otherwise limiting competition. A company invoking the exemption in an antitrust case would have to prove that it acted in good faith for a covered security purpose.

The attorney general could also ask a court to stop coordinated action that violates antitrust law or would increase the security risks the companies claimed to be addressing.

The House version, H.R. 9914, was referred to the House Judiciary Committee after its introduction on July 23.