They will just pay whatever they need to to their lawyers, then maybe pay a fine, but then, I guarantee you, nothing will change.
"Is a lawsuit", not "was a lawsuit". Present tense, ongoing, not past tense.
Status: Complaint filed September 18, 2026 in the Northern District of California · responses due October 14–15, 2026 · initial case management conference December 23, 2026 · no class, no settlement.
> did they correct any of their behavior?
The behaviour being objected to is publicly agreeing with each other to slow down.
If a court orders them to correct this behaviour, it means they are forbidden from agreeing to slow down.
The speed of change is impressive, I don't think any tech ever before has gone from “brand new disruptor in public awareness” to “the incumbents feeling they have insufficient moat and so trying to arrange a regulatory capture situation” in such a short space of time.
It’s hilarious that you can write this and then act befuddled as to why they would therefore want laws as an external (and ideally impartial) coordination device.
Thinking this is a super unique scenario just reveals your ignorance of both 1) game theory and 2) actual industrial history. An industry asking for regulation to stop a race to the bottom is not atypical at all.
I didn't say, or even imply, that it is. Just that it is unusual, historically speaking, to see it being pushed for so strongly just a couple of years¹ into general public awareness. Either because previously things didn't move so quickly or, more likely, because the leading companies had more moat initially to keep other adopters moving slower.
--------
[1] talking about LLMs and related tech, image targetting models have been in the public awareness for a fair while longer but they are not the primary concern for most.
While I completely understand the claim I am addressing one part of it.