Judge Allows Lawsuit Over Anthropic’s Misleading Claude Max Usage Claims
A federal court ruled that Anthropic's marketing regarding subscription usage limits may be deceptive.
1Legal Challenge Against Anthropic
U.S. Magistrate Judge Alex Tse ruled that a class action lawsuit against Anthropic can proceed. Plaintiffs Karl Kahn and Solomon Smith allege that the company’s Claude Max subscription plans, priced at $100 and $200, deceptively promise significantly more usage than the standard Pro tier, failing to deliver these advertised volumes weekly.
2Discrepancy in Usage Limits
Anthropic markets its Max plans as offering five or 20 times more usage than the Pro subscription. However, plaintiffs calculated that the $200 plan provides only six times the weekly usage, while the $100 plan offers just 3.5 times. These limits are constrained by weekly caps rather than the per-session capacity.
3Hidden Disclosure Mechanisms
Anthropic argued that customers should interpret 'more usage' as applying strictly to five-hour sessions. Judge Tse rejected this defense, noting that the clarifying information is buried two hyperlinks away from the primary sales page. He concluded that consumers could reasonably interpret the monthly payment structure as applying to total monthly usage.
4Consumer Protection Act Claims
The court evaluated claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Solomon Smith’s claim survived because his use of Claude for academic projects qualifies as personal use. Conversely, Karl Kahn’s claim was dismissed due to insufficient detail regarding his programming tasks, though he may amend his filing to clarify his specific usage.
5Contractual and Negligence Claims
While the judge dismissed claims regarding unfair business practices and false advertising, the lawsuit will continue regarding allegations of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. The court found that sales pages could be considered part of the subscription agreement, as terms direct customers to the order process for specific details.
6Rejection of Bait-and-Switch
Judge Tse dismissed the allegation that Anthropic engaged in a 'bait-and-switch' by tightening usage limits during billing cycles. He noted that company terms explicitly allow for capacity adjustments. Furthermore, Max subscribers still retain access to the Claude Code tool and continue to receive higher weekly usage than standard Pro plan users.
7Limitations on Legal Remedies
The court ruled that plaintiffs cannot seek a court order requiring Anthropic to change its marketing, as they remain active subscribers despite their knowledge of the disputed claims. Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to adequately explain why monetary damages would be an insufficient remedy for the alleged harm caused by the subscription model.
8Broader Context of Subscription Models
This case highlights the tension between complex AI usage policies and consumer expectations. As companies like Anthropic navigate rapid growth, the transparency of technical limitations becomes a central legal issue. While Anthropic recently renamed its Max plans, the outcome of this litigation may set a precedent for how AI firms disclose service limits.