The judge's decision
A US federal judge, Alex Tse, has ruled that Anthropic must face on the merits the main consumer claims that the usage limits for Claude Max subscriptions were presented in a misleading way. IT之家 reports this, citing Courthouse News. In the same ruling, the judge rejected other requests filed in the case, though the available material does not specify which ones.
The disputed figures
According to the account given, Anthropic advertises the Max plans at $100 and $200 per month, stating usage limits of 5 and 20 times those of the Pro plan, respectively. However, the two consumers who sued the company, Karl Kahn and Solomon Smith, argued that, when usage is calculated on a weekly basis, the actual values would be much lower: for one Claude model, the $200 plan would amount to about 6 times the Pro plan and the $100 plan to about 3.5 times.
The difference would stem from the calculation mechanism: the limit for each individual five-hour cycle would indeed match the multipliers stated in the promotion, but the weekly cap would not increase in the same proportion. The crux of the dispute is therefore not whether a limit exists, but the unit of measurement consumers are led to assume when reading the commercial communication.
In the case, filed in June 2025, the two consumers challenge the claim that the advertising could lead people to read those multiples as referring to total usage. The available documentation does not indicate the amount of any compensation or the final outcome of the proceedings.
The rejected defense and the open issues
Anthropic argued that consumers should interpret the multipliers as referring to the individual usage period, citing a help page. The judge did not accept this reading: in the decision, as reported, he observes that the explanation of the usage cycle can be reached only after two link clicks from claude.com's main marketing page. Since subscribers pay monthly, according to the judge it is reasonable to expect that the promised quota is also monthly.
The consequence is that the plaintiffs may proceed with claims of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. However, based on the available information, the exact scope of the dismissed claims and the possibility that the matter may become a class action remain to be clarified: the material mentions an initiative of this kind only as a reference to a previous article, without details. It also does not indicate any reaction from Anthropic to the ruling.
