A new class action lawsuit questions whether Anthropic broke the law by misleading power users
The Verge

A new class action lawsuit questions whether Anthropic broke the law by misleading power users

A new class action lawsuit questions whether Anthropic broke the law by misleading power users

Overview

A new class action lawsuit has been filed questioning whether Anthropic violated the law by misleading power users through deceptive advertising of its Max subscription tier. Subscribers of Anthropic's Max plan ($100-$200 per month) allege they were led to believe they would receive significantly more usage than actually available.

The Max Plan and Its Pricing Structure

Anthropic's Max plan serves as an upgrade to the existing $20/month Pro plan and offers two pricing tiers:

  • $100 per month - labeled as "5x" the usage limits of the Pro plan
  • $200 per month - labeled as "20x" the usage limits of the Pro plan

These figures are presented in marketing graphics as substantial increases in capability. However, the lawsuit contends that the actual benefits are far smaller due to restrictive timing conditions.

Allegations of Deceptive Advertising

The complaint alleges that the numbers advertised are misleadingly couched in fine print. Specifically, the Max plan promises 20x or 5x the usage of the Pro plan, but this benefit is only realized within five-hour chunks that are subject to a weekly limit. The complaint claims this rolling limitation results in a much smaller total increase in usable capacity than the promotional language suggests.

To understand the discrepancy, users must click multiple links to uncover definitions-requiring navigation beyond standard marketing materials. As attorney Monica Vaca explained during an interview, "you've got to dive deep," referring to the need to access separate pages to define key terms like "session."

Legal Background

The lawsuit was filed by attorneys Monica Vaca and Kati Daffan, both former employees of the Federal Trade Commission under Lina Khan. It represents an expanded class action that grew from an earlier case which was withdrawn and refiled. The plaintiffs describe the situation as a "rare attempt to legally penalize AI companies" for what they view as a widespread frustration within the developer community regarding rising operational costs across the industry.

Timeline of Events

  • April 2025: Anthropic announced the Max plan
  • August 2025: The company implemented the allegedly deceptive weekly limits to compete with OpenAI
  • July 2026: The original complaint was filed before being withdrawn and refiled as an expanded class action
  • Earlier case: Was dismissed on the grounds that the company did not omit session limits from its marketing

Company Defense

In a motion to dismiss the earlier case, Anthropic argued that it did not deliberately obscure the session limits from consumers. The company stated that the clarifying information was available through hyperlinks during the purchase process, comparing the effort to reading a product's back label. Anthropic maintained that there was no obligation to make such details immediately visible to consumers.

Consumer Perspectives and Evidence

Complaints about Max's terms have circulated online, including a Reddit post that illustrates the disconnect between perceived and actual benefits:

"The weekly allowance is what the pricing page makes you think you're buying. The rolling 5-hour window is what actually controls whether you can work โ€ฆ It's like giving someone a bigger gas tank while keeping the fuel pump limited to one gallon every five hours."

Attorney Vaca noted that many Max subscribers experience frustration when they upgrade expecting dramatic improvements but instead encounter unexpected constraints. She emphasized that the complexity of navigating these terms places an unfair burden on consumers who cannot easily audit the underlying offerings themselves.

Regulatory Precedent

Vaca and Daffan referenced their combined 38 years at the Federal Trade Commission, noting that there is established precedent for false advertising as commercial speech. They argued that requiring consumers to actively seek disclaimers constitutes an unfair "buyer beware" approach that undermines informed decision-making in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.

Read on The Verge ↗ ← Back to News

Comments

No comments yet. Start the discussion.