Anthropic Must Face Claims Its 20x Claude Max Pitch Misled $200 a Month Subscribers
A federal magistrate judge says Anthropic's promise of 5x or 20x more usage than Pro is plausibly misleading, letting a proposed Claude Max class action move forward on three claims.
Pay Anthropic $200 a month for Claude Max 20x and the sales page promises "20x more usage than Pro." Two subscribers say that is not what they got over a full week, and a federal judge in San Francisco has decided their lawsuit is strong enough to keep going.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Alex Tse partly granted and partly denied Anthropic's motion to dismiss on Friday, Nov. 6, in Kahn v. Anthropic PBC, a proposed class action in the Northern District of California. This is a pleading stage ruling, not a verdict. Tse had to treat the complaint's allegations as true, and nothing in his order finds Anthropic liable. But his opening paragraph does not mince words.
"The advertising in question is plausibly misleading, so the case will move forward." U.S. Magistrate Judge Alex Tse
According to the order, Anthropic sells four tiers of Claude: free, Pro at $17 to $20 a month, Max 5x at $100 and Max 20x at $200. On claude.com, the company promises Max subscribers "5x more usage than Pro" or "20x more usage than Pro." Tse wrote that because people pay monthly, they could plausibly read that as 5x or 20x more usage per month. "But they don't" get it, he added.
What Max buyers actually get, per the order, is 5x or 20x more usage per five-hour session. Weekly caps still apply, and those caps are higher than Pro's but not 5x or 20x higher. Plaintiffs Karl Kahn and Solomon Smith calculated in their complaint that on Claude's Sonnet 4 model, Max 5x users get 3.5 times Pro's weekly usage and Max 20x users get 6 times. Those are the plaintiffs' numbers, recited by the judge, not findings by the court.
One customer complaint cited in the suit sums up the frustration: "I am only on my third day of the week, and I have already used 50% of my weekly allowance on the 20x Max plan."
The fine print was two clicks too far
Anthropic argued that no reasonable customer would be fooled, because claude.com does explain the limits. The "more usage" line carries an asterisk reading "Usage limits apply," which links to a best practices page, which links to a Max plan page that spells out the per-session math. Tse was not impressed.
"Anthropic's per session disclosure is located two hyperlinks away from the primary sales pages on claude.com." U.S. Magistrate Judge Alex Tse
He compared it, as the plaintiffs did, to the back label on a shampoo bottle, and said a reasonable buyer would not necessarily dig that deep. The asterisk itself "says nothing about usage limits per session," he wrote. The disclosure "may persuade the fact-finder" later, but it is no reason to toss the case now.
That reasoning kept three claims alive: Smith's claim under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, a negligent misrepresentation claim, and breach of contract. On contract, Tse noted that Anthropic's terms point customers to "the order process" for subscription details, and the sales pages with the multiplier promises plausibly sit inside it.
Anthropic did win some ground. Kahn's consumer claim was dismissed because he only said he uses Claude Code "to accomplish computer programming tasks." Tse wrote that he "could be an entrepreneur who uses Claude Code to develop software for sale." Smith, a computer science student, cleared that bar. Claims under California's unfair competition and false advertising laws fell too, partly because both men are still paying Max subscribers. Tse also rejected a good faith claim over limits tightened mid-billing cycle, noting the terms let Anthropic change capacity.
"Anthropic didn't tighten usage limits as a bait-and-switch." U.S. Magistrate Judge Alex Tse
All dismissed claims came with leave to amend. The plaintiffs have until Dec. 2 to file a new complaint, and if they don't, Anthropic must answer by Dec. 16, according to the order. Courthouse News and Reuters both reported that Anthropic did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The case does not touch Anthropic's newest release, Claude Fable 5.2, but it puts a spotlight on how the company sells usage. Any AI company selling plans with multipliers on the box has reason to read this order closely.
