Judge allows lawsuit against Anthropic over Claude Max usage claims

The misleading marketing claims

A federal judge in California has ruled that Anthropic's marketing for its Claude Max plans could be misleading to customers. The company offers four tiers of its large language model, including a free plan, a Pro plan for $17 to $20 a month, and two high-end Max plans. The Max 5x plan costs $100 a month, while the Max 20x plan costs $200 a month.

Anthropic's website explicitly promises that Max subscribers receive "5x more usage than Pro" or "20x more usage than Pro." However, the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit argue that these figures do not hold up over a full week of use. They claim that the actual increase in weekly usage is much lower than the numbers advertised on the sales pages.

The plaintiffs calculated that Max 20x users actually receive only six times the weekly usage of Pro users, while Max 5x users get 3.5 times the amount. This discrepancy has caused frustration for customers who find their weekly allowances running out much faster than they expected based on the marketing. One customer reported using 50% of their 20x Max weekly allowance by only the third day of the week.

How the usage limits work

The core of the dispute involves how Anthropic calculates and discloses its usage limits. While the marketing highlights large multipliers, the judge found that these numbers actually refer to usage during specific five-hour sessions. This means that while a user might have more capacity in a single window of time, their total weekly allowance does not scale by the same factor.

Anthropic defended its marketing by pointing to a help page that explains these specific session limits. The company argued that customers should understand "more usage" to mean more usage per session rather than a total monthly increase. However, the judge was not convinced by this defense because the information is not prominent on the main website.

The court noted that the per-session disclosure is located two hyperlinks away from the primary sales pages on claude.com. The judge stated that customers do not need to visit that specific page to sign up for the service. The plaintiffs compared the way this information is presented to the fine print found on the back of a shampoo bottle.

Legal hurdles and remaining claims

U.S. Magistrate Judge Alex Tse dismissed several parts of the lawsuit while allowing the core claims to proceed. The judge found that because customers pay on a monthly basis, they could reasonably understand the marketing to mean they would get five or 20 times more usage each month. The court also noted that an asterisk on one sales page mentions that "Usage limits apply" but fails to specify that these are per-session limits.

The ruling also split the two plaintiffs on their claims under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. This law protects consumers from deceptive business practices for personal or household use. The judge agreed that a computer science student using the tool for coursework qualifies for protection, but dismissed a claim from a user who did not specify how they used the tool for programming tasks.

Several other claims were dismissed, including those regarding unfair business practices and false advertising under other California laws. The judge also ruled that Anthropic did not engage in a "bait-and-switch" by tightening limits during billing periods. The court found that Max subscribers still receive more weekly usage than Pro users and maintain access to the Claude Code tool.

What comes next for the lawsuit

While many claims were tossed out, the lawsuit can continue on the grounds that Anthropic negligently misrepresented its plans. The plaintiffs also maintain that the company broke its subscription agreements. The judge ruled that the contracts could include the sales pages because Anthropic's terms point customers to the order process for subscription details.

The court did not grant a request for a court order to force Anthropic to change its marketing at this stage. This was because the plaintiffs remain subscribers despite knowing about the disputed advertising, and they did not explain why monetary damages would not be sufficient. The case will now move forward to determine the extent of the company's liability for these representations.

The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how AI companies disclose usage limits to their paying customers. If the court finds that the current marketing is deceptive, Anthropic may be forced to rewrite its sales pages to be more specific. For now, the company faces a significant legal challenge regarding how it communicates the value of its most expensive tiers.