A US magistrate judge has ruled that Anthropic faces crucial allegations that its advertising for Claude Max plans overstates users' access, rejecting the company’s defense that usage disclosures were sufficiently clear.
- Judge allows claims about misleading usage ads to proceed
- Plaintiffs say weekly limits are far lower than advertised
- Some claims dismissed, but key allegations remain in court
What happened
A federal magistrate judge in Northern California ruled on November 6 that Anthropic must face pivotal claims in a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging the company misled customers about the amount of usage included in its Claude Max subscription plans. The lawsuit, filed in June and known as Kahn v. Anthropic, centers on discrepancies between Anthropic’s advertised usage multipliers and the actual weekly limits experienced by users.
Anthropic had marketed its $100 and $200 Max plans as offering five or twenty times the usage of its Pro plan, respectively. However, plaintiffs Karl Kahn and Solomon Smith demonstrated that, in practice, the weekly usage on these plans was closer to 3.5 and 6 times that of Pro, far less than the advertised multiples would imply. The judge found the company’s argument—that extra usage applied only per five-hour session and was disclosed—unconvincing because those disclosures were not sufficiently clear or easy to find.
Why it matters
This ruling highlights the legal risks AI companies face when their advertising claims do not align transparently with actual product limits, especially for subscription plans where customers pay monthly and expect clarity about their usage. It underscores the importance of precise and prominently placed disclosures regarding plan limitations to avoid misleading consumers.
For Anthropic, a prominent startup in the AI assistant space, the decision to allow key claims to proceed could result in increased scrutiny of its marketing practices and potential financial or reputational consequences if the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs. The case also sends a broader message to the AI industry about the need for clear communication of service terms to protect consumers and reduce the risk of legal challenges.
What to watch next
The plaintiffs will continue pursuing their claims of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract, while other claims related to California’s consumer protection laws were partially dismissed but in some cases allowed to be amended for further detail. How the court eventually rules or whether Anthropic opts for settlement will be important developments to observe.
Additionally, the lawsuit may influence Anthropic’s subscription packaging and advertising strategies going forward, as the company recently renamed its Max plans. Industry stakeholders will also likely monitor if this case sets precedent for how usage limits and pricing multipliers are disclosed in AI services marketed to consumers.