A federal judge has ruled that Anthropic must face key claims it misled customers about the value of its Claude Max plans, a decision that strikes at the heart of how AI companies market usage-based subscriptions. The ruling, issued by Magistrate Judge Alex Tse in California on Friday, allows a proposed class action to proceed on claims of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract, while dismissing several other related claims, Courthouse News reported.
Why the Marketing Math Doesn’t Add Up for Max Users
The core of the legal dispute hinges on a simple, yet powerful, marketing promise: “5x or 20x more usage.” Anthropic’s website for its Claude Max plans—a $100 “Max 5x” and a $200 “Max 20x” tier—promises subscribers five or twenty times more use than its cheaper Pro plan. The lawsuit, filed by Karl Kahn and Solomon Smith in June, alleges this promise is deceptive. The plaintiffs calculated that for one Claude model, the $200 Max 20x plan actually delivers only six times the weekly usage of the Pro plan, while the $100 Max 5x plan offers just 3.5 times more.
The discrepancy isn’t a bug; it’s a feature of how the limits are structured. Max users do get a five or twenty-fold increase in usage capacity during each individual five-hour session. However, their overall weekly limits are not scaled by the same factor. This means a user who exhausts their per-session allowance multiple times could find their total weekly quota is depleted far more quickly than the “20x” marketing suggests. As one frustrated Max user cited in the court filing noted, “I am only on my third day of the week, and I have already used 50% of my weekly allowance on the 20x Max plan.”
Anthropic is getting sued over its $200/month Claude plan not delivering the advertised 20x usage… Well, this is interesting. A federal judge has allowed a proposed class action lawsuit against Anthropic to move forward over its Claude Max subscriptions. The company… pic.twitter.com/lt8qoazYyz
Anthropic argued that its use of “more usage” should be reasonably understood to mean “more usage per session,” pointing to a help page two hyperlinks away from its sales pages. Judge Tse was not convinced. Because customers pay a monthly fee, he wrote, they could reasonably interpret the promise of “more usage” to apply to their entire monthly subscription cycle, not just a single, isolated session.
The Fine Print Deficit
The court found the disclaimer insufficient. “Anthropic’s per session disclosure is located two hyperlinks away from the primary sales pages on claude.com,” Tse wrote, comparing it to the fine print on a shampoo bottle. Such information might help the company defend its advertising later, but it was not enough to dismiss the case at this early stage. An asterisk on one sales page saying “Usage limits apply” without mentioning the per-session nature of the boost was deemed equally inadequate.
A US judge has allowed claims over Anthropic’s Claude Max usage promises to proceed. Subscribers allege the advertised 5x and 20x multipliers applied per session, while weekly allowances were much lower. The judge said customers could reasonably expect more usage over the full… pic.twitter.com/0h0EnHBCbt
How the Ruling Splits the Claims
While the judge allowed the core misrepresentation and breach of contract claims to move forward, the ruling was not a complete victory for the plaintiffs. Tse dismissed claims brought under two California laws governing unfair business practices and false advertising. He also dismissed a specific claim that Anthropic acted unfairly by tightening usage limits during billing periods, ruling that the company’s terms of service explicitly reserve the right to change capacity limits.
The ruling also created a split between the two plaintiffs regarding their claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), a consumer protection statute. The claim for Solomon Smith, a computer science student who uses Claude for coursework and coding projects, survived. The judge agreed that his educational use qualifies as a personal, family, or household purpose under the law. However, Kahn’s claim was dismissed for lack of detail, with the judge noting that his stated use for “computer programming tasks” could encompass commercial software development.
‼️ A US judge says Anthropic must face claims that it misleadingly advertised its $ 200-a-month Claude Max plan as "20x more usage than Pro" when it delivers about 6x a week. The multiplier applies per five-hour session, but weekly caps don't scale with it. A Max subscriber can… pic.twitter.com/BZq57B2BAU
The case, Kahn v. Anthropic, remains in the federal court for the northern California. Anthropic and the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to Courthouse News for comment on the ruling.
Anthropic Must Defend Its Marketing Claims
Anthropic dodged a bullet on some claims but must now defend the core of its marketing in court. The central question is whether “5x more usage” is a statement about raw capacity or a practical promise about total value over a month.
