Judge lets Claude Max subscribers pursue claims over Anthropic’s usage promises

Claude Max subscribers can pursue key claims that Anthropic overstated how much extra usage its premium plans provide. In a November 6 ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Alex Tse in San Francisco found consumers could reasonably read the company’s “5x or 20x more usage” advertising as a monthly promise, rather than a per-session allowance.

The decision keeps parts of the proposed class action alive; it does not establish that Anthropic broke the law. Tse also dismissed several claims and gave the plaintiffs permission to amend their lawsuit. The subscribers are seeking class-action status on behalf of thousands of Claude users.

One multiplier, different time windows

The lawsuit challenges the benefits advertised for Max subscriptions costing $100 and $200 a month. According to the plaintiffs, subscribers receive five or 20 times Pro’s usage during a five-hour session, but separate weekly caps are not five or 20 times higher. Their allegation concerns the gap between the headline multiplier and the amount of use available over a longer period.

The complaint offers a model-specific example. Using weekly estimates for Claude’s Sonnet 4 model, the plaintiffs calculate that Max 5x provides about 3.5 times Pro’s weekly usage, while Max 20x provides six times as much. Those figures are the complaint’s calculations, not independent measurements or a judicial finding about how much capacity subscribers actually received.

Anthropic argued that reasonable buyers would understand the multiplier to apply per session, pointing to disclosures on its website. Tse found that the qualification sat two hyperlinks away from the primary sales pages, outside the sales funnel. Given monthly billing, he concluded that consumers could reasonably infer the advertised increase applied over a month. The disclosures were too removed to justify dismissal at this stage.

Personal use and changing limits

The two subscribers received different outcomes under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Smith, a computer-science student who used Claude for coding projects and other work, could proceed with that claim. Kahn had not shown that he used Claude for personal rather than commercial purposes. Tse also rejected Anthropic’s argument that a Claude subscription was not a service covered by the law, finding Claude Code plausibly qualified.

Other dismissals turned on the remedies the subscribers sought. Both plaintiffs still subscribed, and Tse found they lacked standing to seek an injunction under California’s unfair-competition and false-advertising laws. They also had not explained why monetary damages would be an inadequate remedy. Those claims were dismissed with permission to amend.

The judge separately dismissed a claim challenging Anthropic’s tightening of usage limits during billing cycles. He found that the company’s terms of service reserved its right to change capacity limits. That part of the decision addressed the contractual ability to change limits, rather than whether the headline usage multipliers plausibly misled buyers.

The plaintiffs have until December 2 to amend their complaint. If they do not, Anthropic must answer by December 16. Anthropic and its lawyers did not immediately respond to Reuters’ requests for comment; the plaintiffs’ lawyers also had no immediate comment.