Eliza Labs and founder Shaw Walters filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against social media platform X on Aug. 27.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are alleging that the social media platform fraudulently extracted technical information about their AI agents before deplatforming them and launching competing products.

The complaint seeks damages exceeding $75,000 and immediate restoration of the account.

In an Aug. 28 statement, Walters described the lawsuit as a last resort after months of failed negotiations.

He said:

“X and xAI realize this on some level – they just filed a lawsuit alleging that Apple and OpenAI are doing the same anticompetitive conduct to them that X is doing to us.”

Walters added that X initially invited collaboration after seeing widespread adoption of Eliza’s open-source AI agent framework.

Following meetings at X headquarters in February, the platform demanded Eliza purchase a $600,000 annual enterprise license despite already paying over $20,000 annually in fees.

Antitrust claims

An antitrust lawsuit challenges practices that harm fair competition, such as monopolies and anticompetitive behavior, to protect consumers and ensure open markets.

Eliza’s complaint alleges X violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by leveraging monopoly power in short-form social media to suppress AI competition.

The lawsuit details how X suspended Eliza’s accounts in June 2025, then demanded extensive technical documentation under the pretense of account reinstatement.

Walters claims that X used this information to develop nearly identical AI features, including 3D avatars, voice integration, and telephone capabilities, which were launched through xAI’s products.

He added that X requested detailed explanations of Eliza’s framework architecture, endpoint functionality, and implementation specifics while developing competing products.

Remedies include platform restoration

The lawsuit seeks multiple forms of relief, including a declaratory judgment that X lacks Section 230 immunity for anticompetitive deplatforming, injunctions preventing future exclusionary conduct, and account restoration with full platform access.

Monetary remedies include disgorgement of X’s unjust enrichment from copying Eliza’s technology, compensation for fraudulent misrepresentation, and unfair competition damages, as well as treble damages under the Sherman Act provisions.

The plaintiffs also request punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The lawsuit comes days after Elon Musk’s xAI sued Apple and OpenAI on Aug. 25.

Musk’s lawsuit alleged that the companies conspired to suppress AI competition through Apple’s exclusive ChatGPT integration and App Store favoritism. The lawsuit claims Apple’s partnership with OpenAI makes it “impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store.”

The parallel litigation highlights escalating legal battles over AI market control, with Musk pursuing antitrust claims while facing very similar allegations from Eliza Labs.

Mentioned in this article

A multi-billion-dollar bank is planning to shell out $510,000 to settle a class action lawsuit stemming from allegations that the financial institution hit customers with improper overdraft fees.

Customers accuse Park National Bank of assessing allegedly improper Authorized Positive Purportedly Settled Negative (APPSN) fees between November 1st, 2016 and February 20th, 2025.

An account that is initially authorized for a transaction but later has insufficient funds to process it and is overdrawn will receive APPSN fees, according to Law Insider.

The Ohio-based Park National Bank, which U.S. Federal Reserve statistics indicate has more than $9.8 billion in consolidated assets, denies any wrongdoing or liability but opted to settle the case to avoid dealing with the cost of litigation.

The bank agreed to create a settlement fund of $510,000, and it will also provide overdraft forgiveness as defined in the agreement.

Of that settlement fund, up to $170,000 could go toward attorneys’ fees. The court will determine the amount of the attorneys’ fees and costs based on numerous factors, including risk, time and the outcome of the case.

The court plans to hold a final approval hearing for the settlement on September 5th. If it is approved, payments should be made within two months of the effective date.

Follow us on X, Facebook and Telegram

Don’t Miss a Beat – Subscribe to get email alerts delivered directly to your inbox

Check Price Action

Surf The Daily Hodl Mix

&nbsp

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed at The Daily Hodl are not investment advice. Investors should do their due diligence before making any high-risk investments in Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or digital assets. Please be advised that your transfers and trades are at your own risk, and any losses you may incur are your responsibility. The Daily Hodl does not recommend the buying or selling of any cryptocurrencies or digital assets, nor is The Daily Hodl an investment advisor. Please note that The Daily Hodl participates in affiliate marketing.

Generated Image: Midjourney