Four US nonprofit groups have asked a California court to order a freeze on the training and release of advanced artificial intelligence models. The civil complaint was filed Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court.
The suit names five companies: Anthropic, Google, Meta, OpenAI and SpaceX. The plaintiffs are the Irreplaceable Education Fund, Public Citizen, Heat Initiative and the Alliance for Secure AI.
The groups claim the companies cannot stop their AI systems from causing “catastrophic harm.” They want the firms to pause their technology until safeguards are in place.
The Legal Case Rests on a State Competition Law
The plaintiffs argue the companies broke a California unfair competition law. They say the firms have endangered public health and interfered with the use of property, such as computer systems.
The law bans deceptive advertising, anti-competitive market behavior and bait-and-switch tactics. The groups also say they have had to shift their own resources to respond to “near-daily crises” tied to fast-moving AI models.
The complaint points to recorded cases of AI-driven cyberattacks and other harmful behavior. It also cites the companies’ own public warnings that their technology could go rogue and threaten humanity.
The complaint says no other industry may treat building unsafe products as “inevitable.” It states that the plaintiffs want to stop the defendants “from continuing their unlawful path to disaster.”
The groups are seeking an emergency injunction that would apply to next-generation models. Under their request, the companies could resume work only after proving the technology is under human control.
The filing comes shortly after a sweeping Democratic win in the midterm elections. Some analysts have said the result could lead to tighter rules for Silicon Valley.
Plaintiffs Lay Out How a Freeze Would Work
The Irreplaceable Education Fund, a New York-based nonprofit, said it wants government regulation of AI development. It also described what a court-ordered pause would need to include.
“A real freeze must specify what work has to halt, how compliance is verified, and the consequences of breaking the rules,” said Phil Aroneanu, the group’s founder and executive director. He said this would require government inspections and the power to stop banned work, not just limits on public releases.
Aroneanu added that large computing facilities could be monitored to help enforce a freeze. The group said AI development should depend on a “deliberate, considered decision informed by the general public.”
Its proposals include independent federal evaluators and regulators, strict liability for tech companies and their products, and a separate agency to oversee the sector. The group said federal law should set minimum protections while letting states adopt stronger rules.
The plaintiffs also addressed concerns that a pause could help China. AI companies and President Donald Trump have said the US is racing to beat Beijing in AI development.
The groups argue a domestic pause would not hand China a win if Washington sets global rules and opens talks with Beijing. “We anticipate that bilateral deals and an international treaty will be needed,” the Irreplaceable Education Fund said in a statement to Al Jazeera.
