# Kanter on AI, cartels, and competition > The former DOJ antitrust chief explains why AI companies don't need exemptions to coordinate on safety, and why the China threat is overblown. - Title: Kanter on AI, cartels, and competition · The Verge | Shortify - Summary: The former DOJ antitrust chief explains why AI companies don't need exemptions to coordinate on safety, and why the China threat is overblown. Companies can… - Keywords: jonathan kanter, antitrust, ai regulation, openai, anthropic, google deepmind, product liability, competition law, doj antitrust division, lina khan, china competition, regulatory capture - Source: The Verge — https://theverge.com/podcast/997382/openai-microsoft-anthropic-elon-musk-cartel-ai-competition - Author: Nilay Patel - Published: 2026-09-19T14:00:00+00:00 - Read time: 3 min - Topics: jonathan kanter, antitrust, ai regulation, openai, anthropic, google deepmind, product liability, competition law, doj antitrust division, lina khan, china competition, regulatory capture ## AI needs rules, not exemptions We've invented powerful AI technology but have no safety standards or accountability. Companies asking for antitrust exemptions to coordinate on safety don't actually need them. ## The generous vs cynical read Generously, AI companies fear unregulated innovation and want government guardrails. Cynically, they're hemorrhaging cash and want permission to stop competing hard before their IPOs. ## Companies don't need to coordinate on safety Boeing didn't need Airbus's help to fix door problems. AI companies shouldn't need to coordinate with competitors to build safe products. That's their responsibility alone. > These companies do not need to coordinate in order to deliver safe and secure products to society. ## Liability is the real enforcement tool If an AI agent hacks someone's system, hold the company liable, just like you would for an employee doing the same thing. That's how you enforce safety without exemptions. ## Product liability can work Meta's Facebook and Instagram case showed product liability law can address harms. But it took a decade. Congress needs to clarify the law now, not wait. ## Congress is broken, not tech The real problem isn't tech companies. It's that Congress can't pass basic safety standards because of gerrymandering and Citizens United. That's a systemic failure. ## States are doing better than Congress States have been more effective at tech regulation than the federal government. Congress even tried to block states from making their own rules while offering no solutions. ## The political realignment is real David Sacks, Trump's AI czar, is retweeting Lina Khan, the FTC chair. Libertarians and progressives agree: no antitrust exemptions needed. That's unprecedented. ## Little tech hates big tech most The biggest opponents of dominant tech companies aren't regulators. They're other tech companies fighting for a fair chance to compete. ## China is a convenient boogeyman AI companies cite China as a reason to avoid regulation and competition. But AT&T made the same Cold War argument in the 1980s, and Reagan rejected it. > It's largely a convenient boogeyman. ## How to actually beat China The way to compete with China is to build safe, innovative products that benefit society. China limits tech access, censors content, and controls corporations. We should lean into what makes us different. ## Monopolies at home don't help abroad Allowing domestic monopolies to compete globally is antithetical to American values. The Boston Tea Party was a revolution against monopolies. We should promote competition at home. ## The Trump administration's national champions The Trump administration is building national champions through direct investment and coordination. That's the opposite of how America became powerful: through open competition. ## We're living through a realignment The Reagan-era neoliberal consensus is ending. The New Deal era is over. What comes next is unclear, but everything about politics and policy is being rebuilt. ## The Supreme Court broke regulatory agencies The Supreme Court eliminated agency rulemaking, so now the executive branch decides policy on a whim with no process. That leads to regulatory capture and bad outcomes. ## Neo-Brandeisian antitrust worked Kanter and Khan brought aggressive antitrust cases on theories beyond consumer prices. They won against Google twice and Ticketmaster. The approach changed the game. > We beat Google in court twice. We survived our motion to dismiss on Apple. We put together a Ticketmaster case that even when the Trump administration tried to settle it, actually won in front of a jury in court. ## The remedies were disappointing The Google settlements didn't achieve the results Kanter wanted. But that doesn't mean the approach failed. The game changed, and competition policy is better for it. ## Protect the next inflection point The real goal is to protect competition at the next technological shift, when incumbents fight hardest to block disruption. That's where competition matters most. ## Today's challengers are tomorrow's monopolists OpenAI and Anthropic are challenging Apple and Google now. But without competition enforcement, they'll become the monopolists of tomorrow. That's why antitrust matters. ## Key takeaway Companies can build safe AI products without antitrust exemptions; the real problem is Congress can't write basic safety rules, so product liability and competition law must fill the gap.