Four subscribers sue AI labs in Buist et al. v. Anthropic PBC et al. over slowdown

This lawsuit represents a direct challenge to the AI industry's recent embrace of voluntary safety coordination. The sequence of events is striking: Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published 'We Must Pace the Frontier' on September 12, advocating for deliberate deceleration in model deployment. That same day, Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and Demis Hassabis publicly endorsed the pacing strategy. By September 15, OpenAI's Chris Lehane confirmed to TechCrunch and Bloomberg that the major labs had been coordinating on safety protocols for weeks. Three days later, the class action was filed.

The plaintiffs argue that this coordination, however well-intentioned, amounts to an unlawful agreement to restrain trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. They contend that by collectively slowing the pace of AI development, the labs artificially reduce output and stifle product improvements, harming paying consumers. The defense will likely hinge on whether the labs' safety objectives provide a legal shield for what the plaintiffs characterize as a cartel-like reduction in competition.

This legal battle unfolds against a backdrop of political resistance. Senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz recently blocked a national-security antitrust exemption for AI companies in the NDAA, signaling that the labs will not receive legislative cover for their safety pacts. Meanwhile, White House AI czar David Sacks has dismissed self-regulatory proposals as potential regulatory capture. Third-party observers like Cohere CEO Aidan Gomez have labeled the push for a FINRA-style regulatory body 'a cartel by any other name,' drawing parallels to historical frameworks like the SEC's 1975 NRSRO designation and Europe's 1985 Motor Vehicle Block Exemption. The outcome of this case could determine whether industry-led safety coordination is legally sustainable or requires formal antitrust exemptions.