Judge allows lawsuit against Anthropic over Claude Max usage claims

The core of the legal dispute

A federal magistrate judge in Northern California has ruled that Anthropic must face a lawsuit regarding its marketing of Claude Max plans. The lawsuit, titled Kahn v. Anthropic, was filed in June and alleges that the company misled customers about how much they could actually use the service. While Anthropic marketed these high-tier plans as offering significant jumps in capacity, the plaintiffs argue the reality is much different.

According to the court documents, Anthropic told potential buyers that its $100 and $200 Max plans provided five or 20 times more usage than the standard Pro plan. This marketing was intended to attract power users who require high-volume interaction with the AI model. However, the plaintiffs claim that these numbers do not hold up when looking at a full week of usage.

The plaintiffs, Karl Kahn and Solomon Smith, conducted their own calculations to determine the actual value of the subscription tiers. They found that for a single Claude model, the $200 plan only provides six times the weekly usage of the Pro plan. They further calculated that the $100 plan provides only 3.5 times the Pro plan's weekly capacity. This discrepancy is the primary basis for the claims of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

How the usage limits work

The confusion stems from the difference between session-based limits and total weekly limits. Anthropic's system grants Max users five or 20 times more usage during each individual five-hour session. This means that for a short burst of work, the higher capacity is indeed available as advertised to the customer.

The problem arises when those sessions are aggregated over a month. Because the plans are billed on a monthly basis, the plaintiffs argue that customers reasonably assume the advertised multipliers apply to their total monthly allowance. The lawsuit suggests that the actual weekly limits are not scaled by the same factors as the per-session limits, creating a gap between the marketing promise and the user experience.

Anthropic defended its marketing by pointing to a help page that explains these limits. The company argued that customers should be able to understand that the extra usage applies specifically to the sessions. However, the judge was not persuaded by this defense. The court noted that the disclosure was not prominent enough to be considered clear to the average consumer.

The judge's specific findings

Magistrate Judge Alex Tse ruled that the way Anthropic presents its information may be misleading. A key factor in this decision was the placement of the fine print. The judge noted that the per-session disclosure is located two hyperlinks away from the primary sales pages on the company's website.

Because the information is not easily accessible during the initial purchase process, the court found that customers could reasonably read the marketing promises as applying to the entire month. This finding allows the plaintiffs to move forward with their primary claims of breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. These types of claims focus on whether a company failed to be honest about the terms of a paid service.

While the judge allowed these key claims to proceed, he did dismiss several others. These included claims under two California laws regarding unfair business practices and false advertising. He also rejected a claim that Anthropic acted unfairly by tightening usage limits during specific billing periods. However, he did give one plaintiff the opportunity to add more detail to a specific state consumer law claim.

Impact on Anthropic and users

This ruling puts Anthropic in a position where it must now defend its marketing practices in court. The company has not yet provided a formal response to the news of the judge's ruling. This situation comes at a time when the company is already making adjustments to its product offerings, having recently renamed the Max plans.

For users, the ruling highlights the complexity of AI subscription models. As these tools become more integrated into professional workflows, the distinction between 'per session' and 'per month' limits becomes a critical detail for budgeting and productivity. Users may find themselves having to do more manual math to determine if a high-tier plan actually meets their needs.

The outcome of the lawsuit could set a precedent for how AI companies disclose usage limits. If the court eventually finds that Anthropic's marketing was intentionally deceptive, it could lead to a requirement for clearer, more standardized disclosures across the industry. For now, the case remains in the federal court for northern California as the legal process continues.

What to watch next

The next phase of the litigation will involve the plaintiffs refining their arguments and Anthropic preparing its formal defense. The court will need to determine if the marketing was sufficiently clear or if it constituted a legal misrepresentation. This will likely involve a deeper look at how users navigate the website and interpret the pricing tiers.

Observers will also be watching to see if Anthropic makes further changes to its website to make disclosures more prominent. If the company moves the information from behind multiple hyperlinks to the main sales page, it may be attempting to mitigate further legal risk. This could change how new customers perceive the value of the Max plans.

Additionally, the case may influence how other AI providers structure their subscription tiers. As the market becomes more competitive, companies may move toward more transparent, flat-rate usage models to avoid similar litigation. The final ruling in Kahn v. Anthropic will be a significant indicator of how the courts view