Follow us on Google News
A federal court in California has cleared the way for key claims in a class-action lawsuit against artificial intelligence company Anthropic, rejecting its bid to dismiss allegations of misleading advertising, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. The legal action centers on the promotional claims made for premium tiers of the company’s Claude AI chatbot, specifically marketing assertions that high-end subscriptions deliver five times or twenty times more usage compared to cheaper entry-level tiers.
Dispute Over Premium Monthly Tiers
The controversy stems from Anthropic’s $100 and $200 per month Claude Max subscription tiers, priced at approximately 9,000 rupees and 18,000 rupees respectively. Company promotions presented these offerings as providing five times and twenty times the usage capacity of the standard Claude Pro plan. Plaintiffs allege that the marketing overstated the actual benefits provided to subscribers.
According to the complaint, while Claude Max customers may receive five or twenty times more usage within each individual five-hour session compared to Pro subscribers, they remain bound by overall weekly limits. The lawsuit states that these weekly caps do not scale up by five or twenty times, leaving subscribers unable to access the proportional increase across an entire month. Customers argue the promotional phrasing led them to expect a comprehensive monthly increase, creating a substantial discrepancy between advertised session caps and practical weekly limits.
Court Rejects Dismissal Based on Website Disclosures
In a ruling issued on Friday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Alex Tse in San Francisco found that the plaintiffs established a plausible basis that reasonable consumers could interpret the advertisements as offering five or twenty times more usage across the entire month. The court held that the promotional language could not be interpreted as strictly confined to per-session limits at this preliminary stage.
Anthropic argued that typical consumers would understand the usage multiples as applying strictly to individual sessions. The company pointed to disclosures and explanations posted on its website regarding its operational caps. Judge Tse determined that these disclosures were placed far from the primary sales page and were insufficient to confirm that buyers had full knowledge of the actual restrictions at the time of purchase. While permitting the main misrepresentation and contract claims to advance to evidence gathering, the court dismissed certain allegations, including claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, while granting the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.
Class Action Seeks Representation for Thousands of Users
The proposed class action was originally filed in September by two Claude Max subscribers, including computer science student Solomon Smith, who used the AI tool for coding projects and related tasks. The suit seeks to represent thousands of paying Claude customers affected by the marketing practices.
Glenn Danas, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, welcomed the decision, noting that it opens the path to discovery on their primary legal claims and leaves room to amend the dismissed portions. Anthropic and its legal counsel did not provide immediate comment on the ruling. The case, titled Karl Kahn and Solomon Smith v. Anthropic PBC, remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where upcoming proceedings are expected to address how clearly AI providers must disclose session versus weekly usage caps in subscription marketing.
