The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California declined to dismiss Claude Max subscribers’ class-action lawsuit against Anthropic over advertised promises of “5x” and “20x” more usage compared with Pro. For someone buying a subscription, that’s an important distinction: a multiplier in the name still doesn’t explain how much work will fit into a week. Oink, the arithmetic here runs into not one pretty number on the pricing page, but two separate limits—per-session and weekly.
The ruling is dated 6 November 2026. Magistrate Judge Alex Tse found it plausible that the claims of “5 or 20 times more usage than Pro” could have misled buyers, and therefore the lawsuit may proceed. This is not a finding that Anthropic actually broke the law: at this stage, the court was checking whether the circumstances alleged in the complaint were sufficient for the case to continue, not determining whether they were true.
Subscribers Carl Kahn and Solomon Smith filed the lawsuit in Kahn v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:26-cv-05763. They allege that ads for the Max 5x and Max 20x plans could have given the impression of a corresponding increase in access per month, whereas, according to their account, the multipliers applied to a five-hour window. The weekly limits subscribers encountered during actual use, the plaintiffs’ calculations say, were far below a proportional increase.
Where the 3,5x and 6x figures came from
At the time covered by the lawsuit, Max 5x cost $100 per month, and Max 20x cost $200. Pro cost between $17 and $20, according to the court filing. On its sales pages, Anthropic described Max 5x as a plan with five times the usage of Pro, and Max 20x as one with twenty times the usage.
The plaintiffs compared those promises with emails Anthropic sent around 28 July 2025, when it introduced weekly limits. The emails gave estimated ranges of hours per week for most users. The company also cautioned that actual consumption depended on the size of the codebase and settings, and that concurrent Claude Code sessions could use up the available limit faster.
| Plan | Estimated Sonnet 4 hours per week in emails | Plaintiffs’ calculation |
|---|---|---|
| Pro | 40–80 | Baseline |
| Max 5x | 140–280 | Approximately 3,5 times more than Pro |
| Max 20x | 240–480 | Approximately 6 times more than Pro |
Under the comparison presented in the complaint, proportional multipliers would mean weekly ranges of 200–400 hours for Max 5x and 800–1600 for Max 20x. These are the plaintiffs’ calculations, not measurements confirmed by the court. For Opus 4, the emails listed 15–35 hours per week for Max 5x and 24–40 for Max 20x; these figures did not include a comparative Pro figure for Opus.
The plaintiffs also pointed out that the weekly volume they cited for Max 20x amounted to approximately 1,7 times as many Sonnet hours as Max 5x, even though the more expensive plan cost twice as much. According to the complaint’s reasoning, a higher limit within a single session can make it possible to use up the weekly allowance faster. Kahn said that a fully used five-hour Max 20x session consumed 15% of the weekly limit. Smith said that after switching to Max 5x, he had to conserve or defer usage and change his work habits. The court has not yet examined these personal claims.
Why the link to the explanation didn’t end the case
Anthropic argued that the advertised “more usage” did not mean more usage per session specifically, and pointed to explanations on its website. An asterisk next to the advertising text linked to a note saying “Usage limits apply” and a page about limits. From there, another link led to help documentation stating that Max 5x provides five times more usage per session than Pro, while Max 20x provides twenty times more.
The judge decided that this disclosure was not grounds to dismiss the lawsuit. The explanation about the per-session multiplier was two clicks away from the main sales pages; buyers did not have to open that help page to subscribe. The ruling compares this to information on the back of a shampoo bottle, which a buyer isn’t required to go looking for. The note “Usage limits apply” also did not explain that the advertised multipliers applied specifically to a session.
Another argument the court considered was the payment model. Since the subscription is billed monthly, a reasonable buyer could understand “20 times more than Pro” as a promise of more usage over the course of a month. The court did not rule out a different interpretation, but noted that buyers are not required to go looking for additional explanations first in order to understand an advertising claim.
What remains in the lawsuit
Three claims will continue: Smith’s claim under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), a negligent misrepresentation claim, and a breach-of-contract claim. The contract claim survived because Anthropic’s terms of use did not directly describe what the subscription included, but referred users to the checkout process, where the promises of 5x and 20x appeared.
The court dismissed other parts of the complaint, but allowed the plaintiffs to refile them in an amended version. These include Kahn’s CLRA claim, claims under California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws, and a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing over the change to limits midway through a paid period.
- The CLRA covers personal, not business, purchases. Smith said he used Claude for studying and an IBM hackathon; the court considered that use noncommercial. Kahn described his activity only as solving programming problems, and the court noted that he might have been an entrepreneur writing software for sale.
- For their request for an injunction against advertising under the UCL and FAL, the plaintiffs failed to show future harm, since they remained Max subscribers and continued paying. The court also did not allow them to seek restitution under those laws because they were simultaneously seeking damages but did not explain why damages would be insufficient.
- In considering the good-faith claim, the court took into account terms of use that allowed Anthropic to increase or decrease limits. According to the plaintiffs themselves, the restrictions were tightened because of a shortage of computing capacity amid rising demand; the judge concluded this was not a change to the limits “as a bait-and-switch.”
The court also found it plausible that Claude Code is a “service” within the meaning of the CLRA. Unlike a program that runs in the background or a one-off CAPTCHA, Claude Code continuously helps with programming in response to user prompts. The judge rejected Anthropic’s argument that the company sells only access to the service.
Current plan names are not at issue in this ruling
The offerings have changed since the lawsuit was filed. Kahn filed the initial complaint on 14 June 2026, and Smith later joined the case. On 30 October, Anthropic renamed Max 5x to Max, and Max 20x to Ultra, keeping the prices at $100 and $200. The company removed the five-hour limit for Ultra on verified accounts and separately said that weekly limits were unchanged.
The wording on the current pricing page is different: Max promises five times more Pro usage every five hours and every week, while Ultra promises ten times more weekly Pro usage. But the case concerns the previous “5x or 20x” advertising and people who paid for the old plans. The court did not assess the new wording or decide whether a potential class could include subscribers outside the United States: the claims were brought under California law.
Nothing changes for users right now: the court did not change limits, prices, or terms, and it did not award compensation. The practical takeaway is more modest than the flashy multiplier: when choosing a plan, check the weekly limit for the model you need separately, and look at actual consumption in the Usage section of Claude settings. Oink, one number on the price tag isn’t enough when different time windows are hiding behind it.
The next court deadline is 2 December 2026: by then, the plaintiffs may file an amended complaint and try to reinstate the dismissed claims. If they don’t, Anthropic must respond to the current complaint by 16 December. The source contains no public comment from Anthropic on the ruling.
