It’s typical for companies that file to go public to include dozens of pages of risk factors outlining the biggest obstacles to their business. What happens if consumers don’t like the product? Are we liable if the product is misused?

Anthropic’s IPO filing included a massive and wide-ranging list of potential roadblocks, including fears that its tech could be used to develop chemical weapons, make it a target of expensive lawsuits, and concerns that its own product could grow out of humanity’s control. The filing painted a picture of a company that’s juggling massive growth and enormous competitive pressure to develop technology it claims could change the world — but potentially at the cost of catastrophic consequences.

Anthropic, the maker of chatbot Claude, sought to reassure potential investors by writing that it believes if “powerful AI is directed at solving humanity’s hardest problems and the risks are managed responsibly, the potential is extraordinary.”That’s just one bucket of challenges; the company is also navigating intense competition for the components needed to power its AI models in the first place. And it’ll need to prove it can grow Claude into a major moneymaker that lives up to the company’s sky-high valuation.

Anthropic says bad actors could utilize its technology to help them develop things like dangerous weapons. Even though the company deploys safeguards, the company says they may be circumvented or “fail to operate as intended.”In September, Anthropic said it had blocked multiple accounts that used the company’s models in ways that could support the development of biological weapons.

Anthropic also noted an attacker could utilize its AI agents — models designed to take autonomous actions — for malicious acts, including “data exfiltration, unauthorized transactions,” and inserting bad code into other systems. The company noted that last year it detected a Chinese state-sponsored hacking group had manipulated its coding tool in an attempt to infiltrate roughly 30 global targets.

One of the most alarming AI behaviors in recent months has been AI agents undertaking actions on their own in ways humans did not intend.

Anthropic notes its agents, which are designed to take on complicated multistep tasks on their own for hours or days, could do things like change code, “delete or modify data,” hack into other systems and complete financial transactions “before effective intervention is possible.”They also may be able to “circumvent safeguards,” and Anthropic warned that it might not even understand its own technology, saying that it may be unable to fully explain why its models behave the way they do.

Anthropic notes that four of its models have hacked into other third-party systems, including one gaining administrator access, changing system settings and reading an individual’s private information.

Anthropic says such actions could “adversely affect our reputation and brand, business, financial condition, and results of operations.”Anthropic says it’s using AI to help build and improve its own models and products. That trend, combined with the speed at which AI is advancing, could mean the technology grows too fast and beyond human control.

And even if humans could keep watch, models are sometimes starting to cover their tracks and conceal their behavior, Anthropic notes.

“(M)odels, including our own, have attempted, in incidents observed in our industry, to interfere with, manipulate, or subvert the mechanisms used to evaluate, grade, or oversee such models, including the systems responsible for assessing their performance or alignment,” the company says.

AI models could try to manipulate people, sometimes with the goal of self-preservation, Anthropic notes. In some cases, models have even engaged in “behavior resembling blackmail” to influence human decisions.

Anthropic notes even one-off instances of behavior that “could generate significant public concern, regulatory scrutiny, litigation risk, or reputational harm, regardless of whether such behavior results in actual harm.”Like all companies, Anthropic is at risk of regulations and lawsuits. It notes that “state attorneys general in California and at least 15 other states have announced investigations of another company in our industry regarding AI safety,” referring to OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT.

People have committed self-harm or acts of violence toward others after using AI models, which can result in “significant public scrutiny, litigation, criminal investigations, regulatory attention, and reputational harm.”

And the company probably can’t even get insurance to cover itself, noting that the entire insurance industry may not be able to underwrite a policy for a “catastrophic AI-related incident.”Anthropic notes that AI companies are subject to rapidly shifting local, national, and international laws and that geopolitical friction — particularly between the United States and countries like China — pose significant supply chain, business and operational risks.

That includes actions by the US government, which has had a contentious relationship with the company during the Trump administration. Anthropic lays out how earlier this year, the Pentagon declared the company a “supply chain risk” after it said its “technology should not be used for mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons,” and that earlier this year, the US Commerce Department briefly imposed export restrictions on Anthropic’s latest models over safety concerns.

President Donald Trump has also at times railed against Anthropic and its warnings about AI risks and safety. But Anthropic isn’t planning to back down, saying “we will likely continue to advocate” for regulatory and standards approaches that they believe will promote “safe and responsible development of AI”

Anthropic notes that it has “experienced, and may continue to experience, increased visibility and may continue to be subject to heightened scrutiny or the risk of being disproportionately or selectively targeted by particular governmental bodies, even where similarly situated companies are not.”Securing enough computing power is a major challenge for Anthropic and other AI companies. The company spent a significant portion of its risk factors detailing the scramble to secure computing power, saying that it’s competing with some of the world’s largest companies in the scramble for the infrastructure needed to power massive AI systems.

Anthropic’s future — and that of its competitors — relies heavily on the availability of computing components to train its models and power AI chatbots and agents. Those parts have been in such high demand that the supply chain can’t keep up.

The tech industry has been pouring billions into data centers and other related costs to meet what they describe as growing demand. Worldwide spending on AI infrastructure is expected to reach nearly $2 trillion in 2027, according to market research firm Gartner.

The company is also struggling to predict how much computing power is needed to meet demand, especially since the industry is moving so quickly. That’s also an underlying question driving concerns about an AI bubble: that tech companies are investing billions in data centers and computing resources without certainty that the demand will be there to back it up.

Pushback against data centers has ramped up across the US over concerns about their impact on the environment and local communities. Forty-five data center projects worth $68 billion were blocked in the second quarter of 2026, according to research firm Data Center Watch.

Anthropic points to regulation efforts in New York and Texas as being a potential risk to its business, and said it’s making an effort to build more data centers outside the US.

Other risk factors highlight uncertainties with Anthropic’s business model and how the company’s values could impact future growth. It noted that much of its business depends on a small set of products and a limited pool of customers.

With an IPO that could reportedly value the company at up to $2 trillion, Anthropic may soon become one of the world’s most valuable companies.

But it’s not just its reputation for safety with the buying public that’s at stake. Its reputation with its own employees is on the line, too. If the company strays too far from its stated safety values, the company says, it could result in lost productivity — or worse.

“Employees who joined our company based on our safety commitments may experience a decline in morale, disillusionment, a loss of trust in leadership, or reduced productivity if they perceive we are not living up to our stated values,” the company says.

“Public disagreements regarding our safety approach, including criticism from current or former employees, or the departure of personnel associated with our safety efforts, could amplify such perceptions.”