Users sue OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, and Google for alleged AI collusion

Four AI subscribers walked into a federal courthouse and accused the most powerful AI companies on the planet of secretly agreeing to make their products worse. The proposed class-action lawsuit, Buist v. Anthropic PBC, names Anthropic, OpenAI, xAI (Elon Musk’s AI venture), and Google as defendants. The plaintiffs, Charles Buist, Nick Spetsas, Christine Bullock, and Cheyenne Hunt, allege the companies violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by coordinating to deliberately slow down AI development. Their theory: paying customers signed up for cutting-edge AI tools that keep getting better, 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 specific moment. On September 12, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay advocating for a coordinated deceleration of AI capability improvements. Within days, both Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman publicly endorsed the sentiment.

The complaint points to an even earlier data point to bolster its case. In July, representatives from Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google reportedly participated in a working group meeting to establish an industry standards body. The plaintiffs argue this meeting wasn’t just about setting safety benchmarks. They characterize it as the foundation for an agreement to collectively throttle output, the kind of behavior antitrust law was designed to prevent.

The market math behind the claims

The complaint alleges the four defendants collectively control roughly 80% of the paid consumer subscription market for frontier AI models. That’s Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, and Gemini accounting for the vast majority of what consumers spend on AI tools.

The plaintiffs are represented by Florida-based attorneys and are seeking class certification on behalf of all US paid subscribers to the defendants’ AI services. They want injunctive relief, meaning a court order to stop the alleged coordinated slowdown, along with a declaratory judgment affirming that antitrust laws were violated. Notably, 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 almost certainly argue that discussing industry standards is normal, lawful, and encouraged by regulators. The plaintiffs will counter that discussing standards is one thing, but coordinating to limit capability improvements for paying customers is another.

Courts have historically been skeptical of antitrust claims built primarily on public statements and inferred agreements rather than direct evidence of collusion like emails, contracts, or recorded conversations. The July working group meeting could prove significant if discovery reveals more than a general discussion about safety protocols.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.