Lawsuit Says Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI And Google Made Illegal Agreement On AI Slowdown (apnews.com) 29
Tom's Hardware reports:
Four plaintiffs subscribed to ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, or Gemini filed a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that the developers of these AI models violated antitrust laws when they agreed to slow AI development. According to the Associated Press, the lawsuit argues that this agreement would "reduce the value consumers get for paid AI subscriptions" and that this coordination started in July 2026 after the leading AI labs signed a statement admitting there is "intense competitive pressure not to unilaterally slow" development.
The plaintiffs recognize the need for AI development to slow for the sake of safety, but they say that Anthropic founder Dario Amodei's cooperation proposal is a "shortcut" that "substitutes collective restraint for individual accountability." Attorney Nick Rowley, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, says, "AI will quickly spin out of human control and could kill us all if we allow AI safety and protocol ... to be controlled by private self-serving agreements between the world's most powerful 'for profit' technology companies."
"Representatives for Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and SpaceXAI did not immediately respond..." reports the Associated Press: 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.
Sam Altman even specificially said "we do not believe we need to wait for an antitrust exemption or legislation to begin the work of providing this confidence," notes Tom's Hardware. However, the Trump administration shot down this idea... Chinese state media also criticized this announcement, saying that the call to put the brakes on AI development is nothing but a response to Chinese competition, especially as Amodei's essay explicitly mentioned the desire to slow China's progress and widen the U.S.'s gap over Beijing
The plaintiffs recognize the need for AI development to slow for the sake of safety, but they say that Anthropic founder Dario Amodei's cooperation proposal is a "shortcut" that "substitutes collective restraint for individual accountability." Attorney Nick Rowley, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, says, "AI will quickly spin out of human control and could kill us all if we allow AI safety and protocol ... to be controlled by private self-serving agreements between the world's most powerful 'for profit' technology companies."
"Representatives for Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and SpaceXAI did not immediately respond..." reports the Associated Press: 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.
Sam Altman even specificially said "we do not believe we need to wait for an antitrust exemption or legislation to begin the work of providing this confidence," notes Tom's Hardware. However, the Trump administration shot down this idea... Chinese state media also criticized this announcement, saying that the call to put the brakes on AI development is nothing but a response to Chinese competition, especially as Amodei's essay explicitly mentioned the desire to slow China's progress and widen the U.S.'s gap over Beijing
Standing? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump probably already shopped around for a favorable court.
Re:Standing? (Score:4, Interesting)
"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."
In this case it's in the article linked to in the linked article, but it's covered.
From your own Wikipedia article it says:
"The party is granted automatic standing by act of law.[2] For example, under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows the plaintiff to receive attorney's fees from the defendant if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film, or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a district attorney to do so."
I believe that's what applies here, though I am not a lawyer. The law in question is the Clayton Act.
“Any person, firm, corporation, or association shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief . . . against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws . . .”
https://www.govinfo.gov/conten... [govinfo.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
The hand-waving you open with doesn't apply to what you cited.
You cited a statute that merely shifts it so that a class can sue before the anticipated harm, whereas normally you'd have to wait for the harm to happen to sue.
They still need loss or damage.
"The product might have been better" isn't a harm.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is not that a single company's product will not improve as quickly. It's that the plaintiffs think the big players got together and decided to to slow down development of their products, supposedly to increase profits at the expense of subscribers. In effect, the plaintiffs are claiming that's a cartel.
It's not so much "the product might have been better" as it is "you're trying to make it so that nobody's product will get better." If all the big AI players sign on, then subscribers are stuck with
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and this is likely also an attempt at regulatory capture, to get lawmakers to set the bar high enough that new players would find it very difficult to gain traction.
I won't be surprised if DeepSeek gets banned entirely from the USA and ordered to be blocked by ISPs
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and this is likely also an attempt at regulatory capture, to get lawmakers to set the bar high enough that new players would find it very difficult to gain traction. I won't be surprised if DeepSeek gets banned entirely from the USA and ordered to be blocked by ISPs
Possibly but regulatory capture is not illegal or an anti-trust violation and a common practice for many industries. Even if the US decided to block DeepSeek and it didn't get thrown out on First Amendment grounds, VPNs make banning a whack a mole game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They'll have trouble proving even 1 cent of harm, since they don't pay for results they pay for access.
You can't sue that your burger could have been better, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
So they are suing for some capability that doesn't exist and wasn't promised anyway. Or was it?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, was it? Is that your claim, or not? Were they subscribing now for a future discount, or was the subscription for current use? Seems pretty straightforwards. Note that it doesn't matter what they anticipate unless it was promised.
Sometimes a company does make future promises to get people to subscribe now based on FOMO. Is that the case in these services? I don't use them, but my understanding is that people are merely subscribing to what is currently offered.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, was it? Is that your claim, or not? Were they subscribing now for a future discount, or was the subscription for current use? Seems pretty straightforwards. Note that it doesn't matter what they anticipate unless it was promised.
Sometimes a company does make future promises to get people to subscribe now based on FOMO. Is that the case in these services? I don't use them, but my understanding is that people are merely subscribing to what is currently offered.
I do subscribe to one and use it for work. They basically promise access with usage limits at various tiers, and offer more powerful models on a pay as go basis for the basic tier. No where do I recall being promised ongoing development of ever more powerful models. You do expect that given how computer development occurs, but it is not unreasonable to think they may at some point decide what they offer is powerful enough and not introduce more powerful ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Or that it's not getting better fast enough might be a better analogy. It's such a strange thing to feel entitled to, I can't think of anything that's getting better.
Re: (Score:2)
Or that it's not getting better fast enough might be a better analogy. It's such a strange thing to feel entitled to, I can't think of anything that's getting better.
Welcome to an age where everyone is entitled...
Oh good (Score:2)
So we'll have precedent to sue the oil companies when the courts rule in favor of Tru.... I mean the "plaintiffs".
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what a precedent is.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares?
I paid for a handbasket license (Score:2)
And they are colluding to slow the speed of my handbasket towards its destination.
the four plaintiffs (Score:1)
What should be a straightforward engineering... (Score:2)
...project has turned into a crapfest of irrational investment, exaggerated nonsense, all sorts of skullduggery and political manipulation.
I suspect that the nonsense will get worse as monopolists and governments use every dirty trick in the book.
They are scared, billions gone, no chance for RoI (Score:3)
I do not believe a single word how they are worried about humanity.
They are only scared of their investors... They spent hundreds of billions, if not more with no chance for any RoI...
Additionally they did not do it safely, have no control so their AI starts to do actual damage, break-ins, multiple wrong decisions in US military using AI...
And they are doing it to cover their as..s ... as any "care for humanity" needs to include China et all and I do not see that in any near future...
Re: (Score:2)
They want regulation to block competitors. Regulation makes startup investors quest, for good reason -- as it can easily prevent a business from succeeding.
Re: (Score:2)
The worries are coming from every level within the companies, from junior developers to safety officers to the C-suite and board.
The worries are coming not just from within the companies, but also from people who left the companies. Including a huge number who left specifically to whistleblow about how worried they were that the companies were risking safety.
Also, most of the people at these companies were already worried about the topic even before they joined - again, at all levels.
The worst-fear scenari
Bullshit Lawsuit (Score:4, Interesting)
who filed (Score:4, Insightful)
The named plaintiffs in the case are:
Cheyenne Hunt, an attorney and activist.
Charles Buist, an attorney from Florida.
Nick Spetsas, an attorney from Florida
Christine Bullock, a California resident
Buist and Spetsas formed a firm, Spetsas Buist, that handles serious personal injury and wrongful death cases, ambulance chasers is the way I read that. Cheyenne Hunt is an 'influencer", i.e. has big mouth and found the intertubes welcoming for that. Christine Bullock seems similar.
My guess is that these folks are merely looking for a big payday, i.e., please pay us to go away.
Otherwise known as a Cartel (Score:2)
Hopefully when the AI bubble bursts it causes as little damage to ordinary folk as possible.
And maybe we'll learn that capitalism often makes dumb decisions, is technically illiterate and socially irresponsible when its purely driven by greed.
I am all for little capitalism, people owning businesses and making their own way, improving the world and their lot, that's great, long live it.
But big capitalism, the dragon's den , VC mob working in tandem with Internet marketers, just in it for the money, they are