---
title: Class Action Over Claude Max Usage Limits Goes Ahead Against Anthropic
description: "A judge let the Claude Max class action go ahead on three claims, finding \"5x or 20x more usage than Pro\" could plausibly be read as a monthly promise."
author: Darie Nani (Editor-in-Chief)
date: 2026-11-08T12:45:46.949Z
updated: 2026-11-08T12:45:46.956Z
canonical: https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/claude-max-lawsuit-ruling
image: https://cdn.nanimediahouse.com/claude-max-billboard-per-session.webp
categories: Artificial Intelligence
content_type: News
region: United States
publication: Sovereign Magazine
about:
  - type: Organization
    name: Anthropic
---

A federal judge in California ruled on 6 November that the class action over Anthropic's Claude Max plans can go ahead on three claims, including breach of contract, and dismissed four others with leave to amend.

Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse's 19-page order in Kahn v. Anthropic keeps alive Solomon Smith's claim under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, along with negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. Smith and Karl Kahn are suing for a proposed class of Claude Max subscribers over the "5x or 20x more usage than Pro" wording on Anthropic's sales pages. No class has been certified, and at this stage the court takes the complaint's allegations as true, so the order does not find that Anthropic did anything wrong. Anthropic has not commented publicly on the ruling.

The order covers the plans as sold under their old names, Max 5x at $100 a month and Max 20x at $200, against Pro at $17 to $20. Anthropic [renamed them Max and Ultra on 30 October](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/claude-ultra-plan-5-hour-limit) and puts the weekly limit on the $200 plan at 10 times Pro's. Anthropic has already acknowledged the confusion at the center of the case. Announcing the rename, Mike Overell, its product lead for Claude subscriptions, said some new users had taken the 20x figure to cover both limits, and he apologized.

## The Judge Linked "5x or 20x More Usage" to Monthly Billing

The plaintiffs say Max subscribers do get 5x or 20x more usage per 5-hour session, but are also subject to weekly limits that are higher than Pro's by a smaller margin. Their own calculation, which the order cites, puts the weekly figure for Claude's Sonnet 4 model at 3.5 times Pro for Max 5x and 6 times for Max 20x. Judge Tse wrote that because payments are due monthly, reasonable consumers would plausibly understand the promise to mean 5x or 20x more usage than Pro per month.

The order quotes the plaintiffs' own experience. Kahn alleges that using Claude in a single 5-hour window to the fullest extent permitted "could burn a whopping 15% of the weekly usage allotment that Anthropic set." Smith, a computer-science student who upgraded to Max 5x, alleges that he "was required to ration or postpone usage."

## Anthropic Says the Per-Session Explanation Is on Its Own Site

Anthropic's argument is that its site explains the limits. On one of the main sales pages, "more usage" carries an asterisk and the words "Usage limits apply." That phrase links to a page of usage tips, which links on to a page saying that Max 5x provides 5 times more usage per session than Pro and Max 20x provides 20 times. Anthropic maintains that a reasonable consumer would therefore read the promise as per session, not per month.

> "Some of Plaintiffs' claims have shortcomings as pled, but not all. The advertising in question is plausibly misleading, so the case will move forward."
> — Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse

Judge Tse found that the per-session page sat two hyperlinks away from the main sales pages and, in the complaint's words, "outside the sales funnel", so subscribers did not need to open it to sign up. The order also draws on an analogy from product labeling. Courts can weigh fine print on the back of a product at this early stage only when the front label is too vague to carry any meaning, as with a shampoo marketed as "Nature Fusion". The sales pages here state prices and "more usage", and with monthly billing the order holds that a consumer can reasonably infer a monthly promise. The per-session page therefore cannot be used to dismiss the case, though it may still persuade a fact-finder later.

The judge was not persuaded by the asterisk either. The order says the "Usage limits apply" line says nothing about limits per session, so a reasonable consumer could read it and still expect more usage per month.

## Anthropic's Terms Point to the Sales Pages, Which Keeps the Contract Claim Alive

The breach of contract claim rests on Anthropic's Terms of Service, which carry almost no detail on what a Max subscription includes and point instead to "the order process." The judge found that the order process plausibly included the claude.com pages subscribers clicked through to sign up, which stated the "more usage" promise. Because the per-session page sat outside that process, it was plausibly not part of the agreement. Anthropic also pointed to a clause reserving its right to "increase or decrease capacity limits." Judge Tse noted that the plaintiffs allege a promise of a multiplier over Pro, not a fixed amount of usage, and that Anthropic had not said it changed the multipliers. The negligent misrepresentation claim survives on the same reading of the advertising.

For Smith's consumer claim, Anthropic also argued that Claude Code, the coding tool included with Max, is not a "service" under the consumer law, and that it sells only "mere access" to a service. Judge Tse disagreed, writing that Claude Code gives users ongoing coding help and is closer to an email subscription than to antivirus software or a one-time program, and so is plausibly a service when not used for business.

## Kahn's Consumer Claim and Three Others Were Dismissed With Leave to Amend

Kahn's claim under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act was dismissed because the law protects consumers buying for personal, family or household purposes, and he did not say in any detail what he uses Claude for. The order says he "could be an entrepreneur" developing software for sale. Smith, as a student, was treated as a plausible consumer.

The plaintiffs' claims under California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law were dismissed on two grounds. Both men remain Max subscribers, so the court found they have no standing to ask for an injunction. For restitution, they did not explain why damages would not be an adequate remedy.

The fourth dismissed claim, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, concerned Anthropic tightening usage limits during billing cycles. The court held that the Terms reserve Anthropic's right to change capacity limits, and that Max subscribers can still use Claude for more hours per week than Pro subscribers and still have Claude Code. Judge Tse also wrote that, as the plaintiffs allege, Anthropic "was trying to balance its supply of Claude with consumers' demand", and that Anthropic did not tighten limits "as a bait-and-switch."

## The Plaintiffs Have Until 2 December to File an Amended Complaint

The plaintiffs have leave to file an amended complaint by 2 December 2026, which they can use to try to revive the four dismissed claims. If they do not amend, Anthropic must answer the current complaint by 16 December. The order leaves the question of whether the "more usage" wording misled subscribers to be decided later.

## FAQ

**Q: Is Anthropic being sued over Claude Max subscriptions?**
Yes. Karl Kahn and Solomon Smith are suing in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a proposed class of Claude Max subscribers, over the "5x or 20x more usage than Pro" marketing. On 6 November the court kept Smith's consumer-law claim, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract, and dismissed the other claims with leave to amend. No class has been certified.

**Q: Is Claude Max really 20x?**
Anthropic says Max 20x provided 20 times more usage per session than Pro, and it argues that this is what the "20x" always meant. The plaintiffs say the promise was understood as per month, and by their calculation for Claude's Sonnet 4 model the weekly figure was 6 times Pro. Anthropic puts the weekly limit on the $200 plan at 10 times Pro. The court has not decided which reading is right, only that the plaintiffs' reading is plausible. Anthropic has since renamed the $200 plan Ultra.

**Q: Has the Anthropic lawsuit been settled?**
The Claude Max case has not been settled. It is at an early stage: the 6 November order ruled on Anthropic's motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs have until 2 December to amend their complaint, and Anthropic must otherwise answer by 16 December. Anthropic did agree a $1.5 billion settlement with authors in a separate copyright case in 2025.