Anthropic, a company known for its advanced artificial intelligence models, is facing a class action lawsuit that claims it misled high-usage customers about the benefits of its top-tier Max subscription plan. The lawsuit, filed by former Federal Trade Commission attorneys Monica Vaca and Kati Daffan, accuses Anthropic of deceptive advertising related to the Max plan, which costs between $100 and $200 per month. The case was refiled after being initially withdrawn in July. Plaintiffs argue that the company failed to clearly communicate the limitations of the Max plan, leading to confusion among subscribers. According to the lawsuit, Anthropic advertised the Max plan as offering "5x" or "20x" the usage limits of its lower-tier Pro plan. However, these figures were presented in small print and not clearly explained. The complaint states that the increased usage capacity is only available in five-hour increments, with a weekly cap, resulting in a much smaller overall benefit than advertised. To understand the full terms, users would need to click through multiple links and refer to the Pro plan's webpage, which the plaintiffs argue is not user-friendly or transparent. Anthropic has defended its approach, stating that power users are central to its business strategy and that it has prioritized them even when it meant discontinuing other applications, such as OpenClaw. However, some customers feel they were misled into believing the Max plan would provide significantly greater benefits than it actually does. The lawsuit also notes that the Max plan was introduced in April 2025, but the allegedly deceptive weekly usage limits were not implemented until August, as Anthropic sought to compete with OpenAI. In its latest model release, Fable 5.1, the company mentioned addressing customer feedback on pricing, suggesting that cost concerns are a growing issue. In a motion to dismiss the original case, Anthropic argued that the session limits were accessible to consumers if they knew where to look. The company said that the information was available through hyperlinks during the purchase process. However, Vaca disputes this, stating that consumers are not expected to independently audit the terms of service and that it is unfair to place the burden of understanding on them. She argues that the practice is essentially "buyer beware," which she believes places undue responsibility on consumers. Vaca and Daffan also noted that many users feel they need to pay high subscription fees to stay competitive in the job market, but often feel they are not receiving the value they pay for.