A U.S. Magistrate Judge has ruled that AI company Anthropic must continue to face a lawsuit alleging its Claude Max subscription tiers mislead consumers about usage limits. U.S. Magistrate Judge Alex Tse dismissed other claims in the case on Friday, but allowed the core allegations regarding the “false advertising” of usage credits to proceed.
The Core of the Complaint
Consumers who filed a class-action lawsuit in June accuse Anthropic of misrepresenting the usage limits of its higher-tier Claude Max plans. Specifically, the lawsuit targets claims that the $100 and $200 monthly subscription plans offer 5 and 20 times the usage credits, respectively, compared to the Pro plan.
The plaintiffs, identified as Karl Kahn and Solomon Smith, allege that when usage is calculated on a weekly basis, the actual usage multipliers fall significantly short of Anthropic’s advertised figures. For instance, their calculations indicate that for a particular Claude model, the $200/month plan provided only 6 times the weekly usage of the Pro plan, while the $100/month plan offered just 3.5 times the Pro plan’s weekly limit.
How the Calculation Differs
The discrepancy arises from Anthropic’s method of calculating usage credits. While Max users might indeed receive 5 or 20 times the credits for a single, isolated usage period compared to Pro users, the weekly caps on these credits do not scale proportionally. This means that over the course of a week, the advertised multipliers are not realized.
Judge’s Ruling: Marketing Lacks Clarity
Anthropic had argued that consumers should have understood the advertised multipliers to refer to limits per “session” or “use cycle,” pointing to its help pages as evidence. However, Judge Tse did not accept this defense.
“Anthropic’s explanation regarding the single-use cycle requires two clicks from the main sales page at claude.com to be visible,” the ruling stated.
The judge reasoned that since consumers pay a monthly subscription fee, it is reasonable for them to expect that the usage limits promised by Anthropic are also calculated on a monthly basis. Consequently, the plaintiffs are permitted to continue pursuing claims against Anthropic for alleged negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.
What’s Next?
This decision means the legal battle over Anthropic’s subscription tier marketing is far from over. The plaintiffs can now proceed with trying to prove their case that the company engaged in deceptive practices by overstating the value of its Claude Max plans. The ruling underscores the importance of clear and accessible information for consumers, especially in the rapidly evolving AI subscription market.
