Fetching from the wire…
Public story · 2026-07-19 · high
The New York Times reports Meta is still reviewing the two-year proposal, which would run alongside Anthropic's 45 billion dollar SpaceX GPU deal signed in May.
Why now: The New York Times broke the negotiation on July 17, and Meta still hadn't decided as of July 19.
Anthropic proposed buying roughly 10 billion dollars of compute capacity from Meta, structured as a two-year deal paid in monthly installments with an early exit clause for either side, according to the New York Times. Meta hadn't decided as of the report. The talks reportedly started in June.
This isn't Anthropic's first mega compute deal this year. In May, it signed a 45 billion dollar, three-year GPU agreement with SpaceX. Stack the two together and Anthropic is trying to lock in something like 55 billion dollars of compute across two non-traditional suppliers, neither of which is Nvidia, Google, or Amazon.
The market didn't wait for Meta to decide. Meta's stock dropped about 6% intraday on July 17 before closing down 2%, per the Yahoo Finance report of the Times story. Investors read the deal as Meta stepping into the compute-resale business while still funding Llama to compete with the same buyer for the same model customers.
If Meta says yes, it's monetizing spare data center capacity from a company it's supposed to be racing. If it says no, that tells you something too, maybe that Meta doesn't have 10 billion dollars of compute to spare, or doesn't want the optics of arming a rival. Either answer is information the market didn't have before July 17.
The exit clause is the detail worth watching. A deal either side can walk away from mid-term isn't a long-term supply commitment, it's a hedge. Anthropic gets to say it locked in capacity without fully betting on Meta's infrastructure, and Meta gets to test the resale business without marrying it. The Times report doesn't say what triggers the exit or what either side loses by using it.
Each link below shares sources, entities, or timing with this story.
Same source
Cite the same source (New York Times via Yahoo Finance).
Semantically similar
Covers closely related ground (similarity 0.73).
Covers closely related ground (similarity 0.72).
Covers closely related ground (similarity 0.71).
Covers closely related ground (similarity 0.70).
Covers closely related ground (similarity 0.69).
Covers closely related ground (similarity 0.68).
Covers closely related ground (similarity 0.67).