As governments grapple with how to regulate advanced AI, Anthropic – known for its Claude AI assistant – is taking a proactive stance in favor of sensible rules.
The company has thrown its support behind California’s SB 53, a bill aiming to impose transparency and safety standards on the most powerful AI systems.
Anthropic publicly endorsed SB 53 as it was debated in the California legislature, calling it a “thoughtful” approach that could serve as a model for AI governance.
This is notable: AI firms often lobby against regulation, but Anthropic is signaling that smart regulation can enable safer innovation rather than hinder it.
What SB 53 would do: Often dubbed California’s “AI Trust Act,” SB 53 takes a “trust but verify” strategy toward AI developers. Instead of heavy-handed rules on how AI must be built, it focuses on disclosure and accountability. If passed, the law would require companies building very advanced AI (think GPT-4-level and beyond) to do a few key things:
- Publish safety policies/frameworks: Companies must publicly share how they’re assessing and mitigating catastrophic risks from their AI models. For example, an AI lab would outline procedures for testing whether a new model could be misused (e.g., to create bioweapons or wreak financial havoc) and what safeguards they put in place. Anthropic already publishes a Responsible Scaling Policy and detailed model “system cards,” so this largely formalizes what responsible players do.
- Transparency reports for new models: Before deploying any powerful new model, firms have to release a report summarizing the model’s capabilities, limitations, and risk assessment. This is akin to an environmental impact report but for AI: it would tell the public and regulators, “Here’s what this AI can do, here’s what we tested, and here’s how we’re making sure it doesn’t go awry.” Importantly, this is not asking for the secret sauce or code – just the evaluation results and mitigations.
- Report serious incidents: If a significant safety incident or near-miss occurs (say an AI produces dangerous instructions that lead to real harm, or is used in a major fraud), companies must alert the state within 15 days. They even have to confidentially inform regulators if internal tests reveal a model has the potential for truly catastrophic misuse (even if they haven’t deployed it publicly). This is an early warning system so authorities aren’t blindsided.
- Whistleblower protections: SB 53 would protect employees who speak up about AI risks or violations of these requirements. This encourages an internal culture of responsibility – staff won’t fear retaliation for flagging issues.
- Legal accountability: If companies make commitments in their published frameworks or reports and then don’t follow them, they could face fines. This gives the law teeth – it’s not just “trust us,” there’s a penalty if an AI developer says one thing and does another.
Anthropic’s endorsement of these measures is significant. “These requirements would formalize practices that Anthropic and many other frontier AI companies already follow,” the company wrote, noting that OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Microsoft also publish transparency documents and conduct red-team testing.
By making it law, SB 53 ensures all players (including future startups) adhere to a high standard, preventing a race-to-the-bottom on safety.
Anthropic pointed out a competitive reality: without such rules, there’s a temptation for some labs to cut corners on safety to move faster, which then pressures others to do the same. SB 53 would level the playing field by making transparency mandatory, so no one gains an edge by being secretive or reckless.
It’s also worth noting SB 53 only targets the very largest, most advanced models – using a threshold of 10^26 FLOPs in training (which roughly corresponds to models beyond today’s GPT-4 in scale). Smaller AI startups and research groups wouldn’t be burdened by it. Anthropic supports this calibrated scope, agreeing that the focus should be on “frontier” AI systems with the greatest potential impact.
In their blog, they did suggest even more could be done – such as requiring more detail in those transparency reports about tests and mitigations, and giving regulators authority to update the rules as AI evolves. Essentially, Anthropic is saying SB 53 is a great start and we should be ready to refine it over time.
Why Anthropic cares: Anthropic has built its brand around AI safety. CEO Dario Amodei (a former OpenAI research director) has long argued that some regulation is not only inevitable but desirable to ensure AI benefits society.
He and his co-founder sister Daniella Amodei started Anthropic after a famous controversy over how quickly to deploy powerful AI, bringing a more cautious philosophy.
So endorsing SB 53 fits their ethos. But it’s also strategic: if thoughtful regulations like this aren’t adopted, there’s a risk of harsher, knee-jerk regulations later if something goes wrong.
Better to help shape reasonable laws now than have, say, a blanket ban or overly restrictive rules emerge from panic down the line. Anthropic has said “the question isn’t whether we need AI governance – it’s whether we develop it thoughtfully today or reactively tomorrow”.
By aligning themselves with proactive regulation, they also gain trust from policymakers; Anthropic has been invited to key discussions (White House, U.N., etc.), enhancing their influence and reputation as the “responsible” AI lab.
Broader regulatory landscape: Anthropic’s stance contrasts with some industry voices. Notably, during California’s AI regulation debates, other companies (Elon Musk’s xAI, some trade groups) opposed state-level rules, saying they could conflict with eventual federal policy or stifle innovation.
Anthropic acknowledged the ideal is federal law for consistency, but as they diplomatically put it, “powerful AI advancements won’t wait for consensus in Washington”.
The subtext: DC is slow, and in the meantime, a patchwork might be necessary. Governor Gavin Newsom had convened a policy working group on AI with experts (including Anthropic folks) after an earlier AI bill failed in 2022.
That group’s recommendations of “trust but verify” are precisely embodied in SB 53, suggesting Anthropic’s influence on the process.
At the federal level, the Biden administration has leaned on voluntary commitments (which Anthropic signed) and NIST partnerships, and is working on an AI Executive Order.
Anthropic seems to be positioning itself as a cooperative player ready to comply and even help design these oversight mechanisms.
This could pay dividends if down the line, compliance becomes a mark of quality (companies could even compete on “we’re fully compliant and transparent, you can trust our AI”).
Industry Forum & global moves: Anthropic also joined the Frontier Model Forum with OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft, which aims to set safety standards and share best practices (a bit like an industry self-regulatory body).
Endorsing SB 53 publicly could prod Forum members and others to meet its bar regardless of whether it passes – essentially using California’s potential law as a lever to raise global norms.
Additionally, Anthropic has been engaged in Europe (EU’s AI Act discussions) and the UK (they provided Claude 3.5 to the UK AI Safety Institute for testing). They even supported a US Senate bill for AI licensing (another surprising move for a tech company, but again in line with their “reasonable rules” mantra).
All this signals Anthropic’s belief that regulation and innovation must go hand in hand to avoid an “AI trust crisis.” If AI were to cause a disaster, public backlash could be existential for the industry – so better to implement brakes and seatbelts now.
For the public and customers: Anthropic’s stance is likely to reassure enterprise clients and governments that Claude is a safer bet.
Some organizations hesitant to use AI due to regulatory uncertainty might feel more comfortable knowing Anthropic itself supports oversight and builds with those guardrails (like their “AI safety levels” system for model deployment).
In a way, Anthropic is marketing its philosophy: buy from us, we’re the folks who care about doing AI right. That could differentiate them from perhaps more cavalier competitors.
SB 53 status: As of early October 2025, SB 53 was nearing final votes in the California legislature. Anthropic’s blog post came just before a critical committee hearing, indicating they hoped to influence the narrative in its favor.
If it passes and is signed by Governor Newsom, compliance likely wouldn’t kick in until 2026, giving companies time to prepare. Anthropic obviously is already doing most of it – publishing safety policies, model cards, etc. Others might have to catch up.
In summary, Anthropic’s open-arms approach to AI regulation – especially a law enforcing transparency and risk management – sets it apart in an industry wary of government intervention. It aligns with their mission “to ensure transformative AI benefits humanity”, by embedding that ethos into law.
And as AI continues advancing, having companies support guardrails may well be what allows society to trust and adopt these powerful tools broadly.
Anthropic seems to recognize that trust is a prerequisite for AI’s long-term success – and you earn trust by being accountable. SB 53’s “trust but verify” could thus become a mantra for the next phase of AI development, and Anthropic is eager to lead by example on that front.