Four consumers filed a proposed class-action antitrust lawsuit, Buist v. Anthropic PBC, accusing Anthropic, OpenAI, xAI and Google of coordinating to slow AI model improvements in violation of the Sherman Act. The complaint cites a September essay from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and a July industry meeting as evidence, and targets a market where the four companies allegedly control roughly 80% of paid AI subscriptions.
Four AI subscribers accused Anthropic, OpenAI, xAI and Google of secretly agreeing to make their products worse in a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in federal court. Plaintiffs Charles Buist, Nick Spetsas, Christine Bullock and Cheyenne Hunt allege in Buist v. Anthropic PBC that the four companies violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by coordinating to deliberately slow down AI development. Their theory: paying customers signed up for AI tools that keep improving, and the industry's biggest players quietly agreed to pump the brakes instead.
The essay that lit the fuse
The complaint traces the alleged conspiracy to a September 12 essay from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei advocating a coordinated deceleration of AI capability improvements. Within days, both Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman publicly endorsed the sentiment. The complaint also points to an earlier data point: in July, representatives from Anthropic, OpenAI and Google reportedly attended a working group meeting to establish an industry standards body, which plaintiffs argue laid the groundwork for an agreement to collectively throttle output.
An 80% market at stake
The complaint alleges the four defendants collectively control roughly 80% of the paid consumer subscription market for frontier AI models — Claude, ChatGPT, Grok and Gemini account for the vast majority of what consumers spend on AI tools. The plaintiffs, represented by Florida-based attorneys, are seeking class certification on behalf of all US paid subscribers to the defendants' AI services. They want injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment affirming that antitrust laws were violated, though the complaint does not detail specific monetary damages at this stage.
Antitrust law meets the AI safety debate
Sherman Act jurisprudence doesn't carve out exceptions for good intentions. If competitors agree to limit the quality or pace of their products, it can constitute an illegal restraint of trade regardless of whether the stated motivation is public safety. The defendants will likely argue that discussing industry standards is normal and encouraged by regulators, but the plaintiffs will counter that coordinating to limit capability improvements for paying customers is different.
Courts have historically been skeptical of antitrust claims built mainly on public statements and inferred agreements rather than direct evidence of collusion, such as emails or recorded conversations. Still, the July working group meeting could prove significant if discovery reveals more than a general discussion about safety protocols.
Source: Crypto Briefing
Trading involves risk.
Risk Disclaimer
