Four paid subscribers filed a federal antitrust complaint on September 18, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint accuses Anthropic PBC, OpenAI OpCo, LLC, SpaceXAI LLC and Google LLC of coordinating to slow AI development and reduce the value of subscriptions to ChatGPT, Claude, Grok and Gemini. It alleges a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, a federal antitrust law.
The named plaintiffs are Christine Bullock, Cheyenne Hunt, Charles Buist and Nick Spetsas. They seek to represent a proposed class of paid subscribers to the four services.
The complaint centers on public calls to pace AI development
The plaintiffs’ account ties the alleged coordination to public responses to a September 12, 2026, essay by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, titled “We Must Pace the Frontier.” The essay called for slowing the pace of AI capability improvements while safety measures catch up.
Amodei’s proposal included independent oversight, coordination among AI companies in democratic countries and broader international cooperation. He also proposed government mediation or a narrow antitrust waiver for certain safety discussions. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman publicly supported a federal framework with consistent safety requirements, while saying safety work need not wait for an exemption or legislation. Elon Musk and Google DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis also publicly expressed support for Amodei’s proposal. The complaint cites these responses in its account of the alleged coordination.
The plaintiffs distinguish individual safety decisions from coordination
The complaint draws a line between one company choosing to slow its own development for safety reasons and competing companies agreeing on a shared pace. The plaintiffs say the former is not what they are challenging; they allege the latter could restrain competition.
| Issue | One company acting independently | Competing companies coordinating |
| Decision-maker | One AI company | Multiple competitors |
| Conduct at issue | The company adjusts its own development for safety | Competitors allegedly agree on a shared pace or restraint |
| Plaintiffs’ position | They say an individual company’s safety decision is not challenged | They allege collective restraint may violate antitrust law |
Paid subscribers are at the center of the proposed class
The plaintiffs’ consumer-impact theory is that if competing services improve more slowly, paid subscribers may receive less value for their subscription fees. The proposed class covers paid subscribers to ChatGPT, Claude, Grok and Gemini.
