Kahn v Anthropic PBC
AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.
Kahn and Smith v. Anthropic, PBC is a proposed consumer class action concerning Anthropic's marketing of the Claude Max 5x and Max 20x subscription plans. The plaintiffs allege that advertised usage multiples and a claimed savings comparison misled subscribers; those are allegations, not judicial findings.[1]
Background and allegations
Karl Kahn filed the original action on June 14, 2026. The September 8 consolidated complaint names Kahn and Solomon Smith as plaintiffs. They allege that the Max 5x and Max 20x plans delivered less usage relative to the Pro plan than Anthropic advertised, and that undisclosed limits affected paid subscribers.[2][1]
The consolidated complaint asserts claims under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, along with negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It seeks damages, restitution and equitable relief. The filing requests class treatment; it does not establish that a class has been certified.[1]
Procedural history
The original complaint was filed June 14, 2026, as ECF 1 in case 3:26-cv-05763. The consolidated complaint was filed September 8 as ECF 37 under case 3:26-cv-05763-AGT. The November 6 ruling on the dismissal motion is described below.[2][1]
November 6, 2026 partial dismissal ruling
Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse granted in part and denied in part Anthropic’s motion to dismiss. The court held that the alleged advertising of Claude Max as providing five or twenty times more usage than Pro was plausibly misleading when read against monthly billing and lower relative weekly limits. Disclosures reached through two hyperlinks did not require dismissal at the pleading stage. The order does not determine ultimate liability or certify a class.[4]
Smith’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim survives. Kahn’s corresponding claim was dismissed with leave to amend because he did not sufficiently describe personal, family or household use. The court held that Claude Code is plausibly a service under the CLRA when used for noncommercial purposes; it did not decide whether it is a good.[4]
The negligent-misrepresentation and breach-of-contract claims also survive. The court found that the order process plausibly incorporated the advertised usage multiples into the subscription agreement. It dismissed the UCL and False Advertising Law claims because the plaintiffs had not established standing for injunctive relief or adequately alleged why damages were insufficient for restitution. It also dismissed the implied-covenant claim, which challenged changes that the terms permitted, with leave to amend.[4]
The order gives the plaintiffs until December 2, 2026 to amend. If they do not amend, Anthropic must answer the operative complaint by December 16. Those are conditional directions in the order; later compliance has not been verified.[4]
See also
References
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 Kahn and Smith v. Anthropic, consolidated complaint, ECF 37, filed September 8, 2026, pp. 1–3, 23, 29–37
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Kahn v. Anthropic, original complaint, ECF 1, filed June 14, 2026, pp. 1–3
- ↑ AI lawsuit tracker, reproduced docket entry assigning Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse, June 15, 2026
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Order on motion to dismiss, ECF 50, November 6, 2026, pp. 1–19