Amodei and Altman's Antitrust Waiver Dispute Leads to Lawsuit
Sam Altman and Dario Amodei, along with Demis Hassabis, are at the center of a class action lawsuit filed by four consumers in the Northern District of California on September 18, 2026. The suit names Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI, and Google.
The Lawsuit:
Buist v. Anthropic PBC alleges a horizontal agreement among the companies to slow the development of their competing AI products, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The lawsuit seeks treble damages, an injunction, and a jury trial.
The Core Issue: Waiver or Intent?
The dispute centers around the need for an antitrust waiver for discussions about AI safety. Amodei had suggested government mediation and a narrow waiver for specific conversations, while Altman stated OpenAI would not wait for such exemptions.
- Amodei's Position: Believes in government mediation and a targeted waiver for safety discussions.
- Altman's Stance: Declares OpenAI will not be held back by antitrust regulations or legislation.
The Public Nature of the Agreement:
Interestingly, the lawsuit relies heavily on public statements from the executives involved, with no leaked emails or confidential sources. It argues that the agreement was openly proposed, accepted, and confirmed publicly.
The Alleged Terms:
The complaint claims the companies agreed to:
- Slow the rate of capability advancement: Each company would limit its own development efforts.
- Implement training restrictions: Limiting compute power and training runs for their AIs.
- Restrict AI-to-AI improvements: Preventing their AIs from enhancing each other.
- Adoption of capability checkpoints: Regularly evaluating and publicly disclosing their AI's progress.
The Role of Verifiable Pacing:
The proposed "embedded evaluator" system, known as verifiable pacing, is presented as both the agreement's mechanism for policing adherence and a tool for ensuring responsible AI development.
What the Complaint Does Not Claim:
- Safety Concerns are False: The plaintiffs do not allege that safety concerns raised by the companies are fabricated.
The Legal Argument:
The lawsuit argues that while competition can be dangerous, it is a matter for Congress to decide, not the courts. It maintains that the companies' conduct, even if questionable, does not constitute illegal coordination.
Strengths and Weaknesses:
While the public nature of the agreement makes the evidence accessible, the lawsuit's success hinges on persuading a court that publicly stated intentions do not equate to illegal coordination.