US Judge Allows Some Claims in Anthropic Claude Max Lawsuit to Proceed

AT A GLANCE

A US federal court in California allowed some claims regarding Anthropic's plan advertising to proceed, but has not found it to have violated the law.

Article

Claude「20 times usage" sparks lawsuit: Key restrictions hidden behind two layers of links, US judge allows suit to proceed

Beating AI News Flash, Anthropic sued for allegedly misleading advertising regarding Claude Max subscription quotas. November 6, a federal court in California, USA rejected Anthropic's request to dismiss the entire lawsuit. The judge ruled that the officially advertised "5 times, 20 times usage" could mislead consumers, allowing some claims to continue to trial.

This lawsuit was first filed on June. Previously, Claude Pro cost 20 USD，Max 5x per month, while 100 USD，Max 20x cost 200 USD. However, the plaintiff discovered that the advertised multipliers only applied to usage limits every 5 hours, and there was also an additional weekly total limit.

According to Sonnet 4 usage data cited by the plaintiff, Max 5x actually offered only about 3.5 times the weekly quota of Pro, and Max 20x only about 6 times. 200 USD plans were twice as expensive as 100 USD plans, yet the expected weekly usage was only about 71% higher. 。

Anthropic argued that these restrictions had already been disclosed on the official website. But the judge pointed out that users must click through two layers of links from the sales page to find the explanation that "the multiplier applies only to each session." Since plans are billed monthly, consumers could easily interpret 20 times as the usage amount for the entire month.

However, the judge did not fully support the plaintiff. The court allowed claims of negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and certain consumer protection allegations to proceed, but temporarily dismissed other claims. Among them, the plaintiff failed to sufficiently prove that Anthropic maliciously reduced quotas; requests related to false advertising laws and unfair competition laws also did not meet the legal conditions for seeking injunctions or refunds.

Notably, Anthropic adjusted its plans on October 30. The original Max 5x was renamed Max, with the weekly quota explicitly marked as 5 times that of Pro; Max 20x was renamed Ultra, with the weekly quota marked as 10 times that of Pro, and verified accounts are no longer subject to the 5-hour usage limit. Prices for both tiers remained unchanged.

Currently, the case is still in the early stages of litigation. The court has not yet determined Anthropic illegal, nor approved class action status, nor awarded damages. The plaintiff may amend the complaint before December 2; if not amended, Anthropic must formally respond to the existing complaint before December 16.

Original link https://m.theblockbeats.info/flash/376305

Key points

Anthropic has been sued over allegedly misleading advertising regarding Claude Max subscription quotas.
On November 6, a US federal court in California rejected Anthropic's request to dismiss the entire lawsuit and allowed some claims to proceed.
The plaintiffs claim that the advertised multipliers apply only to usage quotas per 5 hours, and that the plans also have a separate weekly total quota limit.
Sonnet 4 usage data cited by the plaintiffs shows that Max 5x actually provides about 3.5 times Pro's weekly usage, and Max 20x about 6 times Pro's.
The judge pointed out that users must click through two consecutive layers of links from the sales page to find the explanation that the multiplier applies only to each session.
The court allowed claims of negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and some consumer protection allegations to proceed, while temporarily dismissing other claims.
Anthropic adjusted its plans on October 30: Max 5x was renamed Max, and Max 20x was renamed Ultra, with prices for both tiers remaining unchanged.
The court has not found Anthropic to have violated the law, nor has it approved class action status or awarded damages.

AI-assisted interpretation

The following is analysis, separate from reported facts. Verify important claims independently.

The focus of the dispute is not that the plan completely failed to disclose the restrictions, but whether the important restrictions were hidden too deeply, and whether "5 times, 20 times usage" could easily be understood as the monthly allowance. The court has currently only allowed some of the claims to proceed and has not ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

Why it matters to readers

The case may affect how subscription products display usage multipliers, periodic limits, and pricing information, and may also bring legal, reputational, and compliance pressure on Anthropic. The original text provides no data on changes in subscription numbers or revenue.

Seeing "allowed to continue suing" should not be understood as the company having violated the law or being required to pay compensation; it only means that some claims can proceed to further hearings. When choosing a subscription plan, one should check session quotas, weekly total quotas, and prices together.

Risks and unknowns

The material is a media paraphrase and does not provide the original court ruling; the specific content of the ruling has not been independently verified.
The case is still in its early stages, and it remains uncertain whether the remaining claims will ultimately be upheld.
It remains uncertain whether the plaintiffs will amend their complaint by December 2.
It remains uncertain whether the court will approve class action status or award damages.

US Judge Allows Some Claims in Anthropic Claude Max Lawsuit to Proceed

Article

AI-assisted interpretation

Why it matters to readers

Risks and unknowns

Related Developments

Related concepts

Keep following

Security Center