{"id":6675,"date":"2026-09-08T18:16:29","date_gmt":"2026-09-08T18:16:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/silvybrand.com\/?p=6675"},"modified":"2026-09-08T18:16:29","modified_gmt":"2026-09-08T18:16:29","slug":"anthropic-class-action-lawsuit-pricing-subscription-plans","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/silvybrand.com\/?p=6675","title":{"rendered":"A new class action lawsuit questions whether Anthropic broke the law by misleading power users"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Anthropic says power users are key to its business \u2014 it\u2019s prioritized them even when it means cutting off other popular applications, like OpenClaw. But some of these same customers say Anthropic misled them into believing they\u2019d get more out of a top-tier pricing subscription than they did.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In an expanded class action lawsuit filed today, a group of Claude subscribers say the company deceptively advertised the limits of its Max subscription tier. The lawsuit was brought by attorneys Monica Vaca and Kati Daffan, who both formerly worked at the Federal Trade Commission under Lina Khan. It\u2019s a rare attempt to legally penalize AI companies for a widely held point of frustration: the industry\u2019s growing money squeeze<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Anthropic\u2019s Max plan for Claude is an upgrade to the $20\/month Pro plan. It has two pricing options: $100 per month for \u201c5x\u201d the usage limits of Pro or $200 per month for \u201c20x\u201d. But the lawsuit alleges that these numbers, advertised in Anthropic\u2019s marketing graphics, are misleadingly couched in fine print. Anthropic actually says you\u2019ll get 20x or 5x the usage that the Pro plan offers, but it\u2019s only promised for five-hour chunks of time that are subject to a weekly limit \u2014 which the complaint alleges adds up to a much smaller total increase in usage capacity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

To understand this, \u201cyou\u2019ve got to dive deep,\u201d Vaca said. It requires clicking two different hyperlinks to see the word \u201csession,\u201d and then to see what \u201csession\u201d meant, you\u2019d need to separately go to the Pro plan webpage for an expanded definition.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Complaints about Max\u2019s terms have cropped up online. One Reddit user wrote<\/a>, \u201cThe weekly allowance is what the pricing page makes you think you\u2019re buying. The rolling 5-hour window is what actually controls whether you can work \u2026 It\u2019s like giving someone a bigger gas tank while keeping the fuel pump limited to one gallon every five hours.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Vaca said in an interview that Claude users often will upgrade on the fly if they encounter limits while working on a project, then are often frustrated after they pay. \u201cPeople see that they are going to get this dramatically expanded usage \u2026 What we hear from people, though, is that when they sign up, they are surprised that they\u2019re not getting the usage that they thought they were getting.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Over the past eight months or more, as pressures to turn a profit increase, AI customers have frequently complained that top labs are passing on their steep operating costs. Although Anthropic announced the Max plan in April 2025, it didn\u2019t impose the allegedly deceptive weekly limits until a few months later in August, as the company pushed to compete with OpenAI. In Anthropic\u2019s latest model release, Fable 5.1, the company hinted at broader cost concerns among customers, writing that it was \u201caddressing the feedback we\u2019ve received from customers on price\u201d in the new model\u2019s pricing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The complaint was filed in July before being withdrawn and refiled as an expanded class action. In a motion to dismiss the earlier case, Anthropic argued that it didn\u2019t necessarily omit the session limits from its marketing; rather, it says it\u2019s technically available to the consumer if they know where to look. \u201cAccessing this clarifying information \u2026 required nothing more than clicking hyperlinks available in the purchase process\u2014the digital equivalent of flipping a product over to read the back label,\u201d Anthropic wrote in the motion to dismiss.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Anthropic did not respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Vaca disagrees that it\u2019s that easy to understand the terms. \u201cThis is hard for consumers \u2014 they don\u2019t know what\u2019s in that black box,\u201d she said. \u201cThey have to rely on the claims the marketer is giving. There\u2019s no way for them to audit it. There\u2019s no way for them to know exactly what it is they\u2019re going to get\u2026 They\u2019re basically taking a leap, and they\u2019re believing in an honest marketplace.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

She added that another reason the case was \u201ccompelling\u201d for her is that she and Daffan started hearing from people who felt they needed to pay high-priced subscription costs for AI services in order to avoid becoming irrelevant in the job market. But oftentimes, she said, they felt they weren\u2019t getting what they paid for, which was frustrating for a service that costs between $100 and $200 per month.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201c[Daffan] and I worked at the Federal Trade Commission for 38 years combined,\u201d Vaca said, adding, \u201cThere is a long line of precedent on false advertising. It\u2019s commercial speech. You can\u2019t lie when you\u2019re marketing a product.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Even if Anthropic has the stipulations somewhere on its website, Vaca said, it shouldn\u2019t be up to the consumer to have to seek that out.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a \u2018buyer beware\u2019 approach,\u201d she said. \u201cAnd that\u2019s really not fair to people.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Follow topics and authors<\/strong> from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.<\/span><\/p>\n