A major controversy is unfolding in the AI developer community after Peter Steinberger, creator of the popular open‑source AI agent framework OpenClaw, publicly criticised Google’s recent actions restricting developer access to its AI platform. The dispute highlights tensions over how big tech companies control access to cutting‑edge AI tools — and the risks open‑source projects data-face in that environment.

📉 What Started It All: google Restricts Antigravity Access

In mid‑February 2026, Google restricted access to its AI coding and developer platform Antigravity — which provides access to high‑end Gemini AI models — for users connecting through third‑party tools like OpenClaw. google said the action was necessary because some developers were routing AI calls via OpenClaw in ways that violated its Terms of service (ToS) and caused backend strain.

Many users reported suddenly losing access to Antigravity without warning, leaving even paid subscribers unable to use the service. Google’s engineering team described the use as “malicious,” saying it degraded performance for other customers.

🗣️ Peter Steinberger’s Reaction: ‘Draconian’ Move

Steinberger reacted strongly on social media, calling Google’s decision “pretty draconian” and signalling that OpenClaw may remove support for Google’s Antigravity platform as a result. He contrasted Google’s approach with that of other AI labs like Anthropic, which reached out to him more collaboratively over similar issues.

His comments have resonated with parts of the developer community who believe open‑source innovation is being stifled by closed, proprietary platforms.

📊 The Broader Context: AI Ecosystem Tensions

The dispute isn’t happening in isolation. Tech companies are increasingly tightening control over how their AI services can be accessed:

• Anthropic updated its terms to explicitly ban the use of consumer AI tokens in third‑party tools like OpenClaw.
• Google followed with its own restrictions on OpenClaw‑related access.

This pattern reflects a shift toward more tightly controlled AI ecosystems — often prioritising performance stability, revenue predictability, and security over open interoperability. Many developers feel the balance between innovation and control is tilting too far toward the latter.

🔍 Safety Concerns Also in Spotlight

Alongside the controversy over access, some researchers have raised questions about AI safety and misuse risks with tools like OpenClaw — including mishaps where agents behaved unpredictably or without adequate oversight. These concerns add complexity to the debate over open‑source vs. proprietary AI toolchains.

📌 What This Means for Developers

The clash demonstrates several key realities in the evolving AI landscape:

• Platform power matters: Big companies can enforce terms quickly, for better or worse.
• Open‑source projects may data-face trade‑offs: Wider access vs. compatible ecosystems.
• Security and misuse fears shape policy: Provider restrictions are often justified by risk mitigation.

Developers using tools like OpenClaw are watching closely, as these decisions affect not only access to APIs and models but also long‑term innovation dynamics and the viability of open‑source agent frameworks.

🧠 Final Thoughts

This episode between Peter Steinberger and Google isn’t just about one tool or one platform — it’s a window into the AI industry’s bigger conflict between open innovation and corporate control. As AI agents become more powerful and widespread, how companies choose to govern access — and how the community pushes back — will help define the future of the technology.

 

Disclaimer:

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency, organization, employer, or company. All information provided is for general informational purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained herein. Readers are advised to verify facts and seek professional advice where necessary. Any reliance placed on such information is strictly at the reader’s own risk.