Judge lets case over Claude Max subscriptions move forward

Anthropic must continue to defend itself in a US case over how the company has sold its expensive Claude Max subscriptions. Magistrate Judge Alex Tse issued a ruling around November 7, 2026, in Kahn v. Anthropic at the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Parts of the class action may proceed, while other parts have been dismissed.

What is the case about?

The Max subscriptions cost $100 and $200 a month and were marketed as offering 5 and 20 times more usage than the Pro subscription. The plaintiffs, Karl Kahn and Solomon Smith, argue that the actual weekly multiplier for a single Claude model is only about 3.5 times for the $100 subscription and 6 times for the $200 subscription. According to them, this is because the multiplier applies only per session and not over a month. The figures are the plaintiffs' own calculation.

Weekly usage limits do exist and were introduced by Anthropic in 2025. The dispute is over whether the subscriptions were sold dishonestly.

What the judge thought

According to The Next Web, the judge found that the marketing is "plausibly" misleading. The disclosure that the multiplier applies only per session sits two hyperlinks away from the main sales pages on claude.com. The judge therefore did not find it unreasonable that customers who pay monthly did not read the promise as limited to a single session.

The following claims survived: negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and Smith's claim under a California consumer protection law.

Two California claims for unfair business practices and false advertising were dismissed. The reasoning is that the plaintiffs are still subscribers even though they know about the disputed marketing, and therefore have not shown grounds to demand an injunction to change the marketing. Kahn's own claim under a state consumer law was also dismissed, but he can amend it. A claim for stricter usage limits within a billing period was also dismissed.

Anthropic's defense

Anthropic had asked for the case to be dismissed. The company has argued that the terms clearly referred to extra usage per session, and that customers should have understood this. Anthropic also pointed to help pages. In a September motion, the company argued, according to Mealey's, that the plaintiff's unfair competition law claims required "unacceptable leaps" in logic.

What has not been decided?

The ruling was made at an early stage. It does not establish that the marketing was misleading, only that it is plausible. The allegations are unproven, and no date has been set for a trial. The class of affected customers has not been certified by the court either.

Kahn, who lives in Washington, D.C., filed the case in mid-June 2026. He is seeking refunds for subscribers and a finding of fraudulent marketing. According to The Next Web, the class includes everyone who has bought the subscriptions since April 2025. Anthropic declined to comment when the case was filed.