A new class action lawsuit questions whether Anthropic broke the law by misleading power users
A group of Claude subscribers has expanded a class-action lawsuit accusing Anthropic of misleading customers about the usage limits of its Max subscription tier. The complaint alleges marketing promised 5x or 20x the Pro plan usage but that these multipliers apply only to short "session" windows and are subject to a weekly cap, reducing the real extra capacity buyers receive.
Why It Matters
The case tests whether AI companies can be held legally accountable for how they present premium pricing and usage limits to heavy users, a contentious issue as large labs press customers for revenue while tightening access. The suit is notable because it was brought by former FTC attorneys and targets alleged deceptive commercial claims in the AI subscription market.
Key Facts
- Plaintiffs' product: Anthropic's Claude Max subscription tier
- Legal action: Expanded class-action lawsuit filed by Claude subscribers
- Attorneys: Monica Vaca and Kati Daffan (both formerly at the FTC under Lina Khan)
- Max pricing options: $100/month (5x) and $200/month (20x) above $20/month Pro plan
- Alleged limitation: Multipliers apply only to five-hour "session" windows that are subject to a weekly allowance, according to the complaint.
Subscribers to Anthropic's Claude have expanded a class-action lawsuit alleging the company misrepresented the utility of its Max premium tier. The plaintiffs contend Max was advertised as offering 5x or 20x the usage of the $20/month Pro plan, but that those claims are effectively narrowed by small time-limited “session” windows and an overall weekly cap that greatly reduce the total usable increase.
According to the complaint, the full meaning of the 5x and 20x claims is buried behind multiple hyperlinks — buyers must click to find the term "session" and then consult the Pro plan page to learn how the service defines a session. Plaintiffs say that structure obscures the real limits from customers who upgrade during work because they think they will get dramatically expanded capacity, only to later find the apparent multiplier applies only to short rolling windows.
The suit was brought by attorneys Monica Vaca and Kati Daffan, both of whom previously worked at the Federal Trade Commission under Chair Lina Khan. The original complaint was filed in July, withdrawn, and has now been re-filed as an expanded class-action. Plaintiffs and online users have voiced frustration that the rollout timeline contributes to the issue: Anthropic announced Max in April 2025 but added the contested weekly restrictions a few months later in August while trying to compete with rival offerings.
Anthropic pushed back in an earlier motion to dismiss, arguing the clarifying information was accessible via hyperlinks presented during purchase — likening it to flipping a product over to read the label. The company did not respond to a request for comment for this report. The case arrives amid broader industry pressure to monetize large models; Anthropic's recent model release, Fable 5.1, referenced addressing customer feedback on pricing, reflecting wider cost concerns among AI customers.
Keep Reading
Nintendo isn’t scared of GTA VI
OpenAI fought dirty on career-making math problem, says NYU mathematician
Tesla Cybercab doesn’t have any manual controls — but it does have a virtual joystick
