Anthropic must face claims that it misled customers by advertising its premium Claude Max subscriptions as providing “5x or 20x more usage” than lower-priced plans, a federal judge in California has ruled.
US Magistrate Judge Alex Tse in San Francisco ruled on Friday that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged consumers could interpret Anthropic’s marketing to mean Max subscribers would receive five or 20 times more usage than lesser-tier subscribers over the course of a month. The ruling allows claims for deceptive advertising under California consumer law, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract to proceed. The judge dismissed other claims, including one under the state’s unfair competition law, and allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended lawsuit.
What the lawsuit claims
The proposed class action was filed in September by two Claude Max subscribers, including Solomon Smith, a computer-science student who said he used the AI chatbot for coding projects and other work. The plaintiffs allege Anthropic’s marketing overstated the benefits of its $100- and $200-per-month Max plans.
According to the lawsuit, Claude Max subscribers receive five or 20 times more usage per five-hour session than Pro users, but remain subject to weekly caps that are not five or 20 times higher. The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of thousands of Claude subscribers.
Anthropic’s defense
Anthropic countered that reasonable consumers would understand its references to “5x or 20x more usage” to mean usage per session, and pointed to disclosures on its website. Judge Tse said those disclosures were too removed from the company’s primary sales pages to justify dismissing the case at this stage.
Anthropic and its attorneys at Weil, Gotshal and Manges did not immediately respond to requests for comment, Reuters reported. Attorneys for the plaintiffs also had no immediate comment.
Why it matters
The ruling does not decide whether Anthropic actually misled anyone. It decides only that the claims are plausible enough to move forward, and the plaintiffs may now file an amended complaint. If the case reaches class action status, it could cover thousands of subscribers who paid for the company’s most expensive plans.
The case adds to the legal pressure on AI companies over how they describe their products. Anthropic is separately facing a lawsuit from Elvis Presley’s rightsholders over lyrics allegedly used to train Claude, and the company is also preparing for a public listing that investors have valued in the low-to-mid trillion-dollar range. Marketing claims that once read as sales copy are now being tested in court, and this ruling shows judges are willing to let those tests proceed.
The case is Karl Kahn and Solomon Smith v. Anthropic PBC, US District Court, Northern District of California, No. 3:26-cv-05763-AGT.
