A unique effort to regulate major AI companies in California has stirred some intrigue, particularly after a ballot measure seemingly aimed at Sam Altman’s OpenAI was introduced by the brother-in-law of an executive at competitor Anthropic.
In December, Alexander Oldham, a California resident, proposed two ballot measures designed to empower the state to take action against large AI firms. These measures specifically seek to address “public interest corporations,” a classification OpenAI has recently adopted for its profit-driven sector.
“I think these are reasonably sensible steps, though, in this context, I’m just a nobody,” Oldham commented, noting his interest in AI regulation. His connection to the subject seems, well, somewhat unassuming.
Oldham is indeed related to Zoe Blumenfeld, Anthropic’s internal communications director since 2024. The company is a growing competitor to OpenAI. Despite this connection, he strongly asserts that it had no bearing on his decision to propose the ballot measures. Anthropic has also denied any involvement in the initiative, with Blumenfeld opting not to comment.
“Anthropic has no coordination or knowledge of any measures proposed by Mr. Oldham and does not support them,” said a company spokesperson.
It’s worth noting that Oldham also has connections to Guy Lavigne, a tech entrepreneur famously entangled in a legal feud with OpenAI regarding the company’s original concepts.
The recently assigned title and summary of the ballot proposal by the California Attorney General’s Office suggests the establishment of state-mandated bodies to oversee AI firms, particularly with powers to approve or block the transition of AI companies into public interest corporations.
While OpenAI isn’t explicitly mentioned, Perry Metzger, from a D.C.-based AI policy group, clearly recognizes the targeting of Altman as the key figure. “This seems like a direct shot at him,” he remarked. “If you know the players involved, it’s pretty apparent what’s happening here.”
Interestingly, Anthropic has maintained its status as a public benefit corporation since its inception in 2021, unlike OpenAI, which began in 2015 as a nonprofit. Experts believe Anthropic might navigate regulatory frameworks more easily than OpenAI, which has faced criticism for favoring rapid development over safety.
Controversy has emerged in Silicon Valley, mostly because Oldham has not previously shown any significant political involvement or donations in California. Politico described him as somewhat of a mystery in AI policy circles.
“Neither Guy Lavigne nor Zoe Blumenfeld played any part in this initiative,” Oldham clarified. “I haven’t spoken to Guy Lavigne in about a decade, and I lost contact with Zoe over two years ago. This whole effort was conceived and funded by me.” He added that he used an AI chatbot for the proposal and sought no legal advice, insisting these measures aren’t aimed at any specific company.
Oldham lives in Point Richmond, California, and his background includes working at a yacht charter firm run by his mother, who has faced her own legal troubles. The ties to legal disputes seem to run deep in his family, raising some eyebrows.
In a less publicized footnote of related legal documents, the name of Oldham’s mother appeared, highlighting her connections to Lavigne and drawing further scrutiny. Oldham’s family seems to have intersected with various stakeholders in this narrative.
Lavigne vehemently denied any collaboration in Oldham’s proposals, emphasizing the lack of regular contact and describing their connection as tenuous at best. Some observers remain skeptical about Oldham’s motivations.
His ballot proposals, which require many signatures to gain traction, could require significant funding and effort. Oldham himself acknowledged that they might not advance without financial support, making their fate uncertain.
Insiders have noted the likelihood of targeting specific companies rather than establishing broad industry standards in Oldham’s proposals. “The language here, it seems tailored,” commented a technology policy consultant. Oldham, however, dismisses those claims as “absurd.”
