Anthropic will have to defend itself in court against allegations that it overstated the benefits of its premium Claude Max subscriptions, after a federal judge in California refused to dismiss several key claims brought by subscribers.
US Magistrate Judge Alex Tse, sitting in San Francisco, ruled that customers had presented a plausible case that Anthropic’s promotional claims of offering “5x or 20x more usage” could mislead consumers about the actual benefits of its higher-priced plans.
The lawsuit centres on Anthropic’s $100 and $200 monthly Claude Max subscriptions. Two subscribers argue that the company’s marketing created the impression that customers would receive five or 20 times more access to the AI chatbot over an entire month compared with users on cheaper plans.
However, the plaintiffs contend that the increased usage allowance applies only within individual five-hour sessions, while weekly usage restrictions remain in place. According to their complaint, these limits mean subscribers do not necessarily receive five or 20 times more overall usage.
The court allowed claims involving deceptive advertising under California consumer protection law, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract to move forward. However, it dismissed several other allegations, including a claim brought under the state’s unfair competition law.
Judge Tse also permitted the plaintiffs to submit an amended complaint to address the claims that were thrown out.
Anthropic had argued that an ordinary customer would understand the 5x and 20x usage figures as referring to individual sessions rather than an entire month. The company also relied on explanations available on its website to support its position.
The judge, however, found that those disclosures were not sufficiently prominent, noting that they appeared too far removed from the main subscription sales pages to justify dismissing the case at this preliminary stage.
The proposed class action was originally filed in September by two Claude Max subscribers, including Solomon Smith, a computer science student who said he relied on the chatbot for coding assignments and other projects.
The plaintiffs are seeking class action status, potentially bringing thousands of Claude subscribers within the scope of the proceedings.
Glenn Danas, representing one of the plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling, saying it allowed the central allegations to proceed into the evidence-gathering stage while giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to revise the dismissed claims.
Anthropic and its legal representatives had not immediately commented on the court’s decision.
The case, Karl Kahn and Solomon Smith v. Anthropic PBC, is pending before the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
The proceedings could put greater scrutiny on how artificial intelligence companies advertise subscription tiers, particularly when usage limits and access restrictions determine the practical value of premium services.
