The Hill | September 19, 2026

Trial Lawyers for Justice represents consumers in a proposed antitrust class action against Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI, and Google. The lawsuit alleges that the companies coordinated to slow the pace at which their artificial intelligence products improve, potentially denying subscribers the benefits of competition.

As The Hill reported, the complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and alleges a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

What the Lawsuit Alleges

According to the complaint, the alleged coordination followed public calls for industry-wide cooperation on the pace of frontier AI development. The plaintiffs allege that executives associated with Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI, and Google DeepMind expressed support for a collective effort to slow the rate of AI capability improvements.

The lawsuit contends that competitors may not agree among themselves to reduce the rate at which their products improve. The plaintiffs allege that such an agreement would restrain competition in a market where companies otherwise would have powerful incentives to offer better AI products, faster innovation, and greater value to subscribers.

Why This Matters for Consumers

Competition is supposed to give consumers better products, more choices, and continuing innovation. Millions of people pay for AI services such as ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, and Gemini because the companies developing them compete to improve their capabilities.

According to the complaint, an agreement to slow those improvements could leave subscribers paying the same prices while receiving products that advance more slowly than they would in a competitive market. The plaintiffs allege that consumers were financially harmed when competitive pressure to improve AI systems was reduced.

AI Safety and Antitrust Law

The plaintiffs do not challenge any company’s right to make its own independent decisions about AI safety or development. Companies may choose their own safety practices, investment priorities, and product timelines.

Instead, the lawsuit challenges what the plaintiffs allege was coordination among competitors about the pace of improvement for products that compete for the same paying customers. Federal antitrust law generally prohibits agreements among competitors that improperly limit output, innovation, or competition.

Government Oversight and Private Coordination

The Hill reported that the complaint also raises questions about whether decisions affecting the development of consequential technologies should be addressed through public policy and government oversight rather than private agreements among competing companies.

Absent coordination, the plaintiffs allege, each company would face competitive pressure to improve its products or risk losing customers, revenue, talent, and technological leadership to its rivals.

TL4J Represents the Plaintiffs

Trial Lawyers for Justice represents the plaintiffs in the litigation. The proposed class includes paying consumers who subscribe to AI services offered by the defendant companies.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, injunctive relief, and a declaration that the alleged agreement violates federal antitrust law. The allegations have not yet been adjudicated, and the defendants have not been found liable.

Media Coverage

The Hill covered the filing and the plaintiffs’ allegations that Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI, and Google coordinated to slow AI development.

TL4J’s takeaway: Companies developing some of the world’s most consequential technologies remain subject to the competition laws designed to protect consumers and competitive markets.

Current Status

The complaint was filed on September 18, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case is Buist et al. v. Anthropic PBC et al.

The lawsuit is in its early stages. No determination has been made regarding the plaintiffs’ allegations, and TL4J will continue to provide updates as the litigation develops.

Read The Hill Coverage

Bloomberg Law | September 18, 2026

Trial Lawyers for Justice represents consumers in a proposed antitrust class action against four of the world’s largest artificial intelligence companies: Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI, and Google.

The lawsuit alleges that the competing AI companies coordinated to slow the pace at which their artificial intelligence products improve, potentially depriving paying subscribers of the benefits of competition.

According to the complaint, the alleged coordination followed public statements by executives supporting an industry-wide effort to limit the pace of AI development. The plaintiffs allege that an agreement among competitors concerning how quickly their products will improve violates Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Why This Matters

Competition is supposed to give consumers better products, more choices, faster innovation, and greater value.

The lawsuit alleges that consumers subscribing to products such as ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, and Gemini paid for services in a competitive market where the companies developing those products had incentives to continually improve them.

According to the complaint, if competing companies collectively agree to reduce the pace of those improvements, consumers may continue paying the same subscription prices while receiving products that advance more slowly than they otherwise would in a fully competitive market.

The plaintiffs are not challenging the right of an individual company to make its own decisions about AI safety or the pace of its development. Instead, the lawsuit challenges what the plaintiffs allege was coordination among competitors regarding the rate at which competing products would improve.

What the Lawsuit Alleges

The complaint alleges that the coordination began after Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called for industry-wide coordination concerning the pace of frontier AI development.

According to the complaint, executives associated with SpaceXAI, OpenAI, and Google DeepMind subsequently expressed support for the proposal.

The plaintiffs contend that collectively slowing the development of competing AI products constitutes an unlawful restraint on competition. They are seeking class certification, injunctive relief, and a declaration that the alleged agreement violates federal antitrust law.

Protecting Competition and Consumers

Federal antitrust laws are designed to prevent competitors from entering agreements that improperly restrain competition.

The central issue raised by the case is not whether artificial intelligence companies may independently adopt safety measures. It is whether competing companies may coordinate decisions affecting the development and output of products for which millions of consumers pay.

The lawsuit alleges that without such coordination, each company would face competitive pressure to improve its products or risk losing customers, revenue, talent, and technological leadership to its rivals.

TL4J Represents the Plaintiffs

Trial Lawyers for Justice represents the plaintiffs in the litigation.

The proposed class includes paying consumers who subscribe to AI services offered by the defendant companies. The plaintiffs allege that they were financially harmed because the companies’ purported agreement reduced competitive pressure to improve their products while consumers continued paying subscription fees.

The allegations have not yet been adjudicated, and the defendants have not been found liable for violating antitrust law.

Media Coverage

Bloomberg Law: “OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, SpaceXAI Hit With Antitrust Lawsuit”

Bloomberg Law reported on the filing of the case and the plaintiffs’ allegations that the four artificial intelligence companies coordinated to slow AI development in violation of federal antitrust law.

TL4J’s takeaway: Companies developing some of the most consequential technologies in the world remain subject to the same fundamental competition laws designed to protect consumers and competitive markets.

Current Status

The complaint was filed on September 18, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The case is Buist et al. v. Anthropic PBC et al.

The lawsuit is in its early stages. No determination has been made regarding the plaintiffs’ allegations, and TL4J will continue to provide updates as the litigation develops.

Read the Bloomberg Law Coverage

Daily Journal | May 20, 2026

A proposed California ballot initiative backed by Uber is drawing serious concern from trial lawyers, consumer advocates, and access-to-justice organizations.

In a recent Daily Journal column, Trial Lawyers for Justice founder Nicholas Rowley and attorney Arash Homampour warned that Initiative 25-0022A1 could dramatically weaken California’s contingency fee system and make it harder for injured people to find lawyers willing to take complex, high-risk cases. The article argues that the measure would benefit corporate defendants and insurers while limiting the ability of injured Californians to pursue full accountability after serious vehicle-related injuries.

The California Attorney General’s official title and summary states that the proposed constitutional amendment would limit attorney fees in automobile accident cases so victims retain at least 75% of their monetary recovery, while also noting that it does not restrict fee arrangements for defendants’ attorneys. The summary also states that the measure would increase the burden of proof and limit recovery for certain medical expenses, and could increase Medi-Cal costs by millions to tens of millions of dollars annually.

Why This Matters

The contingency fee system allows people who cannot afford hourly legal fees to pursue justice against powerful corporations, insurance companies, and institutions.

Without contingency fees, many injured people would be priced out of the courthouse before their case even begins. Complex injury cases often require years of work, expert witnesses, medical analysis, depositions, trial preparation, and substantial litigation costs. Lawyers who take those cases on contingency assume the risk of receiving nothing if the case is unsuccessful.

That risk-based model is what gives ordinary people access to legal representation when they are up against billion-dollar companies and insurance defense teams.

What Is at Stake

If Initiative 25-0022A1 passes, the legal playing field could become even more unequal.

According to the Attorney General’s summary, the measure would limit plaintiffs’ contingency fee arrangements, but would not place similar limits on what defendants may pay their attorneys. That means corporations and insurance companies could continue spending heavily to fight claims, while injured people may face new restrictions on the representation available to them.

For people with catastrophic injuries, including traumatic brain injuries, spinal injuries, amputations, paralysis, severe disfigurement, or lifelong medical needs, these cases are often the hardest and most expensive to pursue. If the financial risk becomes too high and the ability to recover fees is constitutionally restricted, fewer lawyers may be able to take those cases.

TL4J’s Position

Trial Lawyers for Justice believes access to the courts should not depend on a person’s bank account.

The civil justice system exists so ordinary people can hold wrongdoers accountable, including corporations with vast financial resources. When that system is weakened, the burden does not disappear. It shifts to families, public hospitals, safety-net systems, and taxpayers.

The fight over Initiative 25-0022A1 is not just about attorney fees. It is about whether injured people can still find strong legal representation when they need it most.

Media Coverage

Daily Journal: “Protect access to justice and be munificent”
The column by Arash Homampour and Nicholas Rowley argues that Uber’s proposed initiative would undermine California’s contingency fee system and restrict access to justice for injured victims. TL4J’s takeaway: the plaintiffs’ bar must treat this as a major access-to-justice fight, not a narrow fee dispute.

California Attorney General: Official Title and Summary for Initiative 25-0022A1
The official summary states that the measure would limit the fees plaintiffs’ attorneys may receive in automobile accident cases, increase the burden of proof, and limit recovery for certain medical expenses, and that it does not restrict defense attorney fee arrangements. TL4J’s takeaway: the official summary confirms the imbalance at the center of the debate.

Current Status

Initiative 25-0022A1 has received an official title and summary from the California Attorney General. TL4J will continue to monitor developments and share updates on efforts to protect access to justice for injured Californians.

Read the Daily Journal Coverage

Courthouse News Service | Hillel Aron | April 23, 2026

Summary

A Los Angeles jury is hearing testimony in a wrongful death case against the LAPD after a 14-year-old girl was fatally shot inside a retail store. Represented by Nick Rowley, the family argues the shooting was preventable and reflects critical failures in police decision-making and training.

What Happened

In December 2021, LAPD officers responded to reports of an assault inside a Burlington store. During the encounter, an officer fired a department-issued rifle at a suspect believed to be armed.

The round struck the suspect but continued through a wall into a dressing room, where 14-year-old Valentina Orellana-Peralta was hiding with her mother. She was killed at the scene.

At trial, the officer testified that he believed the suspect posed an immediate threat and that he feared the individual was armed.

The Case

The family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, alleging:

• Negligent use of deadly force
• Failure to assess the environment before firing
• Inadequate training and tactical decision-making

Nick Rowley, representing the family, is advancing the argument that the shooting was not an unavoidable tragedy, but a preventable failure rooted in poor judgment under pressure.

The Result

• Trial is currently underway in Los Angeles
• No final verdict has been issued at this stage

Why It Matters

• Raises questions about the use of force in confined, civilian-heavy environments
• Highlights the obligation to identify what lies beyond a target before firing
• Tests the extent of civil liability for tactical police decisions
• Reinforces the role of the courts in holding public agencies accountable

TL4J Statement

“This case is about responsibility. When decisions made in seconds carry irreversible consequences, accountability cannot be optional. The legal system exists to examine those decisions and determine whether they were justified or preventable.”

Current Status

The case remains in trial, with testimony focused on the officer’s decision-making, perceived threat level, and adherence to departmental training standards.

Media Coverage

• Courthouse News Service — focused on officer testimony and courtroom developments
• Associated Press — broader context on the civil case and claims against LAPD

Disclaimer

This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

CVN | January 20, 2026

Breaking Success: Nick Rowley’s Record Verdict Named Among 2025’s Most Impressive

Nick Rowley’s plaintiff victory was recognized by Courtroom View Network as one of the Top 10 Most Impressive Plaintiff Verdicts of 2025, placing it among the most significant civil trial outcomes nationwide this year. The distinction reflects not only the size and impact of the verdict, but also the strategic execution and courtroom advocacy behind it.

According to CVN’s annual rankings, the case stood out for its compelling presentation, trial strategy, and meaningful outcome for the injured plaintiff. The verdict reinforced Rowley’s reputation as a trial lawyer willing to take complex, high-stakes cases to a jury and secure results that resonate beyond the individual matter.

CVN’s Top 10 list evaluates plaintiff verdicts across jurisdictions, highlighting cases that demonstrate exceptional litigation performance and substantial impact. Inclusion in this list underscores the significance of the result and its place among the most notable plaintiff wins of 2025.

For trial lawyers and clients alike, the recognition reflects a continued commitment to aggressive advocacy, careful case preparation, and jury-focused storytelling. This latest distinction adds to a history of high-profile verdicts achieved in complex civil litigation.

Read the entire article at CVN.

Calmatters | February 24, 2026

A Santa Barbara woman was killed by an Uber Eats driver who was speeding 120 miles per hour while intoxicated, according to the family’s lawsuit. The driver already had a criminal history and was on probation for a second DUI. But he was good enough for Uber.

Uber’s inadequate background check system has resulted in other lawsuits and led to several New York Times stories that portrayed Uber as cheap and negligent when it comes to background checks and safety, for allowing violent convicts to drive and ignoring customer complaints.

Instead of making safety improvements, Uber is making a political investment in the form of a ballot measure in California.

Uber’s initiative would protect negligent drivers in every type of motor vehicle accident case, which would benefit corporations and insurance companies to the tune of billions of dollars each year.

The proposed law also would limit victims’ medical recovery and their freedom to contract with an attorney who’ll stand up against the mega-billion-dollar corporation and its insurance companies.

Uber’s propaganda claims its initiative will protect people from “billboard lawyers,” but that’s far from the truth. Uber’s real goal is getting richer by dodging accountability and driving a wedge between victims and lawyers.

Here’s how Uber’s “evil genius plan” works. 

Most injury victims and families cannot afford a lawyer who bills by the hour. Contingency fee lawyers only get paid if they win and often invest years of work and hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money into a case. 

Uber’s proposed law says victims must keep 75% of the “total recovery,” which sounds like 25% goes to pay their attorneys, but that’s not true. 

When accident victims need treatment and rehabilitation, providers treat them with the understanding they will be paid when the case is over, or “on a lien.” These medical bills are not recoverable costs under the initiative and would come out of the 25% that would fund the attorneys’ costs. 

That means in many serious injury cases, the more lawyers do to help clients get care, the less they’ll get paid. A $1 million serious injury settlement, for instance, could result in medical liens and bills exceeding $250,000, and the lawyers would get nothing.  

Uber’s law also makes it nearly impossible to find reputable doctors to provide treatment on a lien.

Creating even higher stakes, Uber has announced it would redeploy its self-driving cars and robotaxis on California roads in late 2026, after the election.  

In Arizona in 2018, an Uber robotaxi was the first to kill a pedestrian. The National Transportation Safety Board report said Uber had an “inadequate safety culture,” and noted the Uber vehicle’s system detected the pedestrian six seconds before impact but didn’t hit the brakes. The company had decreased the number of expensive sensors on the car before the accident.

“Fully autonomous vehicles would have to be driven hundreds of millions of miles and sometimes billions of miles to demonstrate their safety in terms of fatalities and injuries,” a report from RAND Corporation has said. Uber’s partner, Nuro, had only logged 210,540 miles in California, according to a 2024 DMV report. 

To be clear, Uber’s political strategy has nothing to do with helping people and everything to do with protecting itself and getting richer, just as it launches dangerous technology on California roads.   

Uber and its insurers could hire lawyers without limit and face no penalty for legal delays or frivolous defenses. 

Uber’s proposed law would give the corporation a license to kill, by making it next to impossible for most injury victims to get legal representation to match Uber’s lawyers — blocking fair access to our civil justice system when a person is hurt, maimed, or killed.

Read the entire article at Cal Matters.