Not necessarily to fend off hostile takeovers, Anthropic adopted that structure too and it might be that they're just admitting that it's the right option
> However, it has proved popular with AI companies. Both Anthropic, the maker of the Claude AI tool, and Musk’s xAI are PBCs. One person close to xAI said this meant its probability of being sued was reduced if it did not act in accordance with the shareholders’ interests.
[...]
> “It is intentionally a way for incumbent management and directors to entrench themselves,” he said. “If you can convey the idea to people that you are a good enterprise, a morally safe enterprise and that comes with very little constraints, that has to be tempting to entrepreneurs.”
But I guess these things goes both ways, and the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
We just can't have any nice things.
But like with all entities, there is nothing inherent about them that would make the individuals within them act differently than a simple C-Corporation.
It all comes down to the bylaws.
Yes, a big benefit of a PBC is that you're not only beholden to increasing shareholder value - that's obviously inherent to the PBC model, and I think it could be used for both "good and bad". At the same time, PBCs need to say what their "public benefit" is, and (my understanding is that) they have fiduciary responsibility to others besides just shareholders. This, I imagine they could also be sued by people saying they aren't fulfilling their public benefit mission. Point being, PBCs have pros and cons, and it will take some court cases to find out where the line truly lies.