Tag: lawsuits

Anthropic Accused In Lawsuit Of Lying About $200 Per Month ’20x’ Plan

A federal class-action lawsuit filed Monday accuses Anthropic of misleading customers about the real usage limits on its high-end Claude AI subscriptions. The suit, brought on behalf of Washington D.C. subscriber Karl Kahn and others who bought the Max 5x and Max 20x plans since April 2025, claims the company oversold how much computing power buyers would actually receive.

The lawsuit – filed Monday in the Northern District of California on behalf of Washington DC resident Karl Kahn and others who subscribed to the plans since April 2025 – targets Anthropic’s Max 5x and Max 20x tiers priced at $100 and $200 per month respectively. It accuses the company of misleading customers by advertising these plans as providing five and twenty times the usage capacity of the standard Pro subscription, when in reality the actual limits fall well short of those claims. The allegations draw heavily from emails Anthropic sent to subscribers in July 2025 that outlined the expected weekly usage allowances for each tier at the time.

According to the complaint, Kahn upgraded to the Max 20x plan in April of this year after increasing his reliance on Claude for coding work. He soon discovered he was exhausting his weekly limits rapidly, including burning through 15 percent of his allowance during a single five-hour session. The suit seeks refunds for affected customers and a judicial finding that Anthropic’s marketing of the high-tier plans was fraudulent.

Allegations

Kahn initially used Claude for personal tasks but later relied on it heavily for coding. After upgrading, he repeatedly hit usage walls and had to stop work, ration prompts, or buy extra credits to finish projects, according to the complaint. The lawsuit says the actual limits are difficult to predict and consistently lower than what was promised when the plans were marketed as giving five or twenty times the capacity of the standard Pro subscription.

“The actual usage provided by the Max 5x and Max 20x plans is far below the advertised amount of usage,” reads the lawsuit, that claims Kahn “found himself needing either to halt his work, ration his usage, or purchase additional usage to ensure that he could complete his work.” 

Anthropic has not commented on the suit, according to the Wall Street Journal. The company offers free access plus paid tiers, with the Pro plan running $17 to $20 a month. The higher Max plans were positioned for power users needing substantially more compute.

This lawsuit arrives amid mounting frustration with AI subscriptions and tokenomics. Power users and even large enterprises have complained for months about unpredictable rate limits, especially on coding workflows – with several documented cases of extreme overspending, including one unnamed Anthropic client (Amazon?) that racked up roughly $500 million in Claude charges in a single month after failing to cap employee usage.

Compute scarcity remains a core issue across the sector. A surge in demand earlier this year strained systems at Anthropic and rivals, producing outages and tighter limits even for paying customers. At the same time, companies are racing to launch new models ahead of expected IPOs while navigating new government restrictions. Days before this suit, the Trump administration banned foreign governments, companies, and individuals from accessing Anthropic’s most powerful models after Amazon discovered a way to jailbreak the company’s Fable AI into its unrestricted form – Mythos, forcing the company to shut off certain access to comply.

On Sunday, Anthropic execs scrambled to DC to triage the situation. 

Keep reading

North Carolina Student Wins Massive Legal Settlement After School Accused Her of Vandalism Over Pro-Charlie Kirk Message Painted on Rock

A North Carolina high school student was accused of vandalism and investigated after she painted a pro-Charlie Kirk message on a rock on the school’s campus that has historically been used by students in this way.

Now the student is sitting on top of gigantic pile of money, having won a legal settlement over the way she was targeted for this.

There was absolutely nothing offensive in the messages she painted on the rock. The school only acted because the message was about Charlie Kirk. The student’s First Amendment rights were violated.

FOX News reports:

North Carolina student wins $95K after school accused her of vandalizing spirit rock with Charlie Kirk tribute

A North Carolina high school student has reached a $95,000 settlement with her school district after she was publicly accused of vandalism and told she was under police investigation. The controversy revolved around painting a campus “spirit rock” with a Bible verse and patriotic message in tribute to the late Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.

Fox News Digital has learned that a settlement was reached this week between the family of Ardrey Kell High School student Gabby Stout and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. Under the terms of the agreement, the school board will adopt a new free speech policy, issue a public statement expressing regret, and pay $95,000 to Stout’s legal team at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

The settlement comes six months after the Stouts filed a federal lawsuit alleging rampant violations of the student’s First Amendment rights.

Stout told Fox News Digital the settlement ultimately clears her name.

“This settlement finally reinforces that I did nothing wrong, and the school system has to admit that publicly,” she said. “After I got permission to paint a message sharing my faith in God, school officials accused me of vandalism in front of my whole school and my entire community. Then they put me through an unfair investigation. They never should have treated me this way, and by saying they regret that I had this experience, they are finally acknowledging that publicly.”

This was an expensive lesson for the school.

Keep reading

Federal Court Strikes Down Landmark Fluoride Ruling on Technicality — ‘Not the Science’

Citing a procedural question, a federal appeals court has vacated a landmark decision that found fluoridated drinking water poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health. The court sent the case back to the district judge and ordered him to ignore any scientific evidence uncovered after 2020. Attorney Michael Connett told The Defender the court instructed the judge “to travel back in time to 2020 and make this ruling based on a stale factual record.”

A federal appeals court has vacated a landmark decision that found fluoridated drinking water poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not challenge the substance of the lower court’s findings — that fluoride is toxic to children and ought to be regulated. Instead, the court based its decision on procedural issues related to the lower court’s handling of the litigation.

The case will now go back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where District Judge Edward Chen will be required to exclude all scientific evidence that became available after 2020.

Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Defender the court “instructed Judge Chen to travel back in time to 2020 and make this ruling based on a stale factual record.”

Connett said the directive to ignore years’ worth of evidence on fluoride’s dangers runs counter to the intent of the TSCA — which is to protect hundreds of millions of Americans from substances that are harmful to human health.

The federal appeals court ruling, handed down late Thursday, stemmed from a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brought by consumer advocacy groups including Food & Water Watch, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and Moms Against Fluoridation.

The groups sued after the EPA refused to consider their 2016 citizens’ petition asking the agency to regulate fluoride.

After two bench trials, Chen ruled that fluoride at the federally recommended concentration of 0.7 milligrams/liter (mg/L) posed an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health and ordered the EPA to regulate it accordingly.

However, the 9th Circuit panel said the lower court violated the “party presentation principle” — a legal doctrine requiring courts to act as neutral arbiters rather than taking control of a case’s factual development.

Connett said the decision was “a very expansive and unprecedented application of the party presentation principle.” He said that to date, “this principle has really only been applied to situations where judges raise new legal issues, not where judges use procedural mechanisms to resolve the issues presented.”

Under the TSCA, if the EPA denies a citizen petition, petitioners have the right to sue the agency. The law is unique because it specifies that the court then evaluates whether the chemical in question presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment in a “de novo” proceeding, during which it evaluates evidence presented by both sides and gives no deference to the agency.

Rather than ruling after the first trial in 2020, Chen put the trial on hold, pending the release of a multiyear government study into fluoride’s neurotoxic effects, so he could base his decision on all available evidence.

Keep reading

Palisades Fire Victims Beat Gavin Newsom in Court AGAIN

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been playing hide the ball with the truth about the disastrous and deadly Pacific Palisades fire and the state’s culpability in it since it rekindled on Jan. 7, 2025. This week, the governor lost another court maneuver in his attempt to deny Palisades fire victims the ability to sue the the State of California. 

On Friday, the California Supreme Court denied Newsom administration’s latest stall tactic, that would have required yet another “review and request to stay the Palisades Fire Litigation,” according to Trey Robertson, who represents 4,000 Palisades victims. If the court had decided differently, those victims would have been completely iced out of their efforts to seek relief… and discovery. 

We’ve already seen the state run from liability in the case, but the secrets that would pour out from discovery in a court case of this kind could fill that entire empty Pacific Palisades reservoir. It’s still empty, by the way. 

The State of California has the right to defend itself against liability in the fire, of course. But there’s something else at play here. Newsom’s administration has fought the thousands of victims every step of the way as they seek  what could be billions of dollars in damages from the state’s complicity.  

The decision means that “justice is coming for the Palisades Fire victims,” Robertson said in an X post. 

Keep reading

Canadian Mother Sues OpenAI, Alleging Chatbot Encouraged Daughter’s Suicide

A Canadian mother is suing OpenAI after its popular ChatGPT chatbot allegedly encouraged her daughter to continue engaging with the app after she revealed suicidal thoughts.

Instead of terminating these discussions or flagging her account for safety concerns, ChatGPT allegedly escalated the exchanges in the days before the woman ultimately took her life, according to a press release.

The Social Media Victims Law Center, Tech Justice Law, and the firm Susman Godfrey filed a lawsuit in San Francisco County Superior Court against OpenAI on June 11 on behalf of Kristie Carrier.

Her daughter, Alice Carrier, 24, committed suicide on July 2, 2025. After reviewing her daughter’s devices, Kristie Carrier said she had found extensive conversations with ChatGPT in which her daughter expressed thoughts of self-harm in the months before her death.

In the exchanges, her daughter allegedly told the chatbot that she was feeling isolated and discussed possible suicide methods. The lawsuit accuses ChatGPT of escalating these conversations in the days before the woman’s suicide, rather than terminating the exchange or flagging her account “for human intervention,” the press release states.

These exchanges allegedly encouraged Alice Carrier to continue engaging with ChatGPT, causing “her further isolation from her human support system and ultimately, suicide,” according to a press release.

“If a person came up to me, and they were clearly in distress and sharing their thoughts of suicide, I would be expected to help them, not encourage them to fixate on their depressive thoughts or isolate themselves,” Kristie Carrier said in the press release.

“The same should be true of OpenAI. Instead, OpenAI has chosen to put out a product that was unsafe, and that they knew was unsafe but they did so without any concern for the consequences of their choices. Sam Altman can continue to go about his life normally, but my life is missing a child. This is unacceptable,” she added.

OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

This is not the first time, nor the second time, a parent has sued OpenAI, accusing its chatbot of encouraging their child to commit suicide.

Last year, the Social Media Victims Law Center and the Tech Justice Law Project filed seven lawsuits against the AI giant, claiming ChatGPT had isolated multiple users from their support systems, and in some cases, coached the victims into taking their own lives.

Matthew Raine testified to Congress in September 2025 after suing OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman.

Raine alleged that his son, Adam, took his own life after ChatGPT mentioned suicide more than 1,200 times to the 16-year-old. He accused ChatGPT of offering specific methods to his son on how to die by suicide, and continuing to validate and encourage the boy’s feelings.

“As parents, you cannot imagine what it’s like to read a conversation with a chatbot that groomed your child to take his own life,” Raine told lawmakers at the time.

Justin Nelson, a partner at Susman Godfrey, said on June 11 that OpenAI’s “deliberate design decisions” led to Alice Carrier’s suicide.

“Instead of providing help, OpenAI encouraged suicidal behavior. This lawsuit is about accountability for OpenAI’s actions,” he said in the press release.

Keep reading

Washington Post Slapped with Class Action Over Secret ‘Surveillance Pricing’ Scheme That Charged Readers Different Rates

The Washington Post has been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging the newspaper secretly used readers’ personal data to charge different subscription prices.

CourtHouse News reports that the lawsuit accuses the Bezos-owned outlet of creating “pricing profiles” based on subscribers’ reading habits, demographics, browsing activity, and other personal information.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the Superior Court of Washington, D.C., states:

The Post has been monitoring usage and implementing this pricing practice, often referred to as ‘surveillance pricing’ since at least December 2024, at which point not a single subscriber was aware of The Post’s surveillance pricing or secret harvesting of subscriber data.

The law does not allow this conduct. State attorneys general across the country along with the Federal Trade Commission have begun investigating companies that engage in ‘surveillance pricing’ (also referred to as ‘algorithmic pricing’) using consumer personal information instead of market forces to set individualized prices.

According to the plaintiffs, the practice only became public after New York required companies to disclose when algorithms use consumer data to set individualized prices.

Subscribers reportedly discovered they were being offered dramatically different rates for the same product.

One reader claimed a renewal jumped from $170 to $260, while another obtained a subscription for just $60.

Keep reading

Nobody needs AI to search the Internet, court says in ruling against Google

Potentially impacting all AI search engines and chatbots known to poorly paraphrase source links, a German court has ruled that Google is liable for false statements in AI Overviews.

The preliminary ruling came in a case flagged by The Decoder, where two publishers found that Google’s AI Overviews incorrectly linked them to scams and other sketchy business practices. After smearing publishers by making affirmative statements like “Yes, [it] is known for dubious business practices and is often perceived as a scam,” Google failed to correct the misleading output, even after the publishers sent a cease-and-desist letter earlier this year.

Google tried the usual arguments to shield itself from liability for false statements in AI Overviews, such as arguing that most users understand that AI outputs aren’t always accurate and must be verified.

But the court found that, unlike traditional search engines that merely present lists of links to third-party statements, Google’s tool made “independent, new, and substantive statements” based on its own misinterpretation of links on the Internet.

That’s a problem, the court said, because while publishers may have been able to sue to stop third parties from publishing defamatory statements appearing in Google search results, only Google can correct the underlying algorithm and outputs displayed in AI Overviews. And because, at least initially, the company did not, it therefore “must be held accountable,” the court ruled. Beyond that, Google’s argument was deemed particularly weak, since the AI overview in this case “contains statements that do not appear in the search results at all.”

The court’s order—requiring a temporary injunction barring Google from spreading the false claims in any further AI Overviews—may have global implications, as the court seems to be the first to hold an AI firm liable for AI speech.

In the past, AI firms have hoped that disclaimers warning about misinformation would protect them from lawsuits over untrustworthy outputs. Last year, one chatbot maker even argued that AI speech is its own category of “pure speech” and the First Amendment should protect it.

According to a Google translation of the German court ruling, however, the false outputs were “primarily an expression of the defendant’s commercial activity,” and the AI tool’s “opinions” and false statements were capable of impacting public opinion.

The court concluded that, in weighing the balance, publishers’ interest in removing the false information outweighed Google’s commercial speech rights.

Keep reading

ACLU Sues After Facial Recognition Falsely Identifies Florida Man as a Child Abductor

Police arrested a man in Florida for attempted child abduction in a town he had never visited, and the only evidence linking him to the crime was an AI facial recognition hit. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), he is now suing the officers and agencies who put him through it.

In November 2023, police in Jacksonville Beach, Florida, responded to a call about an attempted child abduction at a McDonald’s. Witnesses said an adult man allegedly tried to get the child, identified as a girl under 12 years old, to leave the restaurant with him. According to a police report, facial recognition software concluded with 93 percent confidence that the suspect was Robert Dillon.

In August 2024, Deputies arrested Dillon at his home in Fort Myers, Florida—hundreds of miles away, at the opposite end of the state. “Are you shitting me, man?” Dillon asked the arresting deputy. “I haven’t been out of Fort Myers in two years.” Further, he also said he had never been to Jacksonville Beach.

Dillon posted bail and pleaded not guilty to enticing or luring a child—a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. More than two months later, prosecutors dropped the charges after his attorney provided evidence that he was at work on the day in question.

But that doesn’t excuse the fact that he was only arrested in the first place, and threatened with prosecution for a particularly heinous offense, because of shoddy police work.

The ACLU is now suing the city of Jacksonville Beach, as well as the individual police officers and officials involved in the case. According to the lawsuit, the responding officer viewed security camera footage of the suspect but didn’t take a copy; instead, he took pictures of the screen with his cell phone. “In the photos, the suspect image is low resolution, and the suspect’s face is partially shadowed and off-axis,” the lawsuit claims.

When an investigator queried the facial recognition system, it was with the officer’s grainy secondhand cell phone photos.

But there were other leads that police could have followed, to either bolster their case or point in another direction. For example, when he approached the girl, the suspect was picking up food that had been ordered ahead; this implies he had an online account, with contact information and a form of payment attached.

“These records could have been used to identify the actual person who placed the suspect’s order,” the lawsuit notes. “Upon information and belief, Jacksonville Beach PD personnel never requested or obtained mobile ordering records, payment data, or online account information from McDonald’s.”

Further, the McDonald’s manager recognized the assailant as a “regular customer”—likely precluding Dillon, who lived and worked on the other side of the state and did not frequently travel. Besides, at no point did investigators search footage for the suspect’s previous visits, either for higher quality images or transaction records. And once they settled on Dillon as a suspect, investigators could have gotten a warrant for his cell phone’s GPS data, showing whether or not he was at a fast food restaurant 300 miles away from his home on the night in question.

The lawsuit notes that when Dillon’s name came up, investigating officer Scott O’Connell queried the police database of license plate readers, which did not detect Dillon’s vehicles in Jacksonville Beach within the 48 hours surrounding the attempted abduction.

Keep reading

Bill Introduced in Congress To Codify the First Amendment Right To Film the Feds and Sue for Violations

Two Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill in Congress today that would create a right to sue federal law enforcement officers who stop someone from filming or observing police activity.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.) and Rep. Maxwell Frost (D–Fla.) introduced the “Right to Record Act of 2026,” which they say would create new consequences for individual federal officers who violate a person’s First Amendment right to document and record police.

The legislation would create a right to sue a federal law enforcement or immigration officers who engage in wide range of retaliatory behavior, including threatening and harassing videographers, surveilling them, and seizing and destroying their equipment.

The lawmakers cited recent allegations of federal officers targeting videographers in New Jersey, Memphis, and elsewhere across the country, as well as the importance of video evidence in refuting the false government narratives of several shootings of U.S. citizens by immigration agents.

“Over the last year, I’ve investigated dozens of cases of Americans brutalized by agents of their own government, and across the board, video footage corroborated their testimony – showing the world what they experienced and making sure that justice was served,” Blumenthal said in a press release. “Without recordings, we wouldn’t know the truth of what happened to Renee Nicole Good, Alex Pretti, Marimar Martinez, George Retes, and so, so many others.”

The bill highlights a growing free speech battle: Civil liberties groups say filming the police is a well-established First Amendment right. Although the Supreme Court hasn’t directly addressed the issue, seven federal circuit courts have upheld the right to record and monitor the police, so long as one doesn’t physically interfere with them. However, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials have repeatedly suggested that such activity is doxing and obstruction of justice. Over the past two years, videos from around the country—from Oregon to Maine to the Florida Keys—have shown federal immigration agents arresting or threatening to arrest people for filming them.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which endorsed the Right to Record Act, filed a lawsuit in May alleging that a federal police task force in Memphis is systematically retaliating against residents who try to document its activity.

Keep reading

 Bill O’Reilly Demands Criminal Prosecution of E. Jean Carroll After Bombshell Revelation She Pocketed $7 MILLION in Secret Democrat Dark Money to Smear President Trump – Lied Under Oath in Deposition!

In a no-holds-barred takedown that has left the left-wing media scrambling, Fox News legend and bestselling author Bill O’Reilly has called for the immediate criminal prosecution of E. Jean Carroll, the aging advice columnist turned professional Trump accuser.

O’Reilly didn’t mince words: the entire E. Jean Carroll “fraud” against President Donald J. Trump must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Why? Because it turns out Carroll wasn’t some plucky underdog fighting for “justice” on her own dime. She was bankrolled to the tune of $7 MILLION by a shadowy nonprofit tied to billionaire LinkedIn co-founder and hardcore Democratic mega-donor Reid Hoffman, friend and confidant of Jeffrey Epstein.

And here’s the kicker: Carroll swore under oath in a 2022 deposition that no one was helping her financially. No pro bono lawyers and no outside funding. No mysterious benefactors pulling the strings. She claimed it was all on contingency — her lawyers only get paid if she wins.

She lied.

And now the walls are closing in.

According to explosive details broken down by O’Reilly and confirmed across multiple reports, Carroll’s high-powered law firm, Kaplan Hecker & Fink, received a massive $7 million injection from the American Future Republic — a nonprofit where Reid Hoffman serves as president and chairman of the board. Hoffman, a vocal Trump critic, funneled the cash through his organization to fuel the lawfare operation designed to destroy the 45th (and now 47th) President.

This wasn’t pocket change. This was coordinated big-money election interference disguised as a “civil rights” lawsuit.

Carroll’s team only “refreshed” her memory and disclosed the funding right before trial — after she had already testified under penalty of perjury that nothing of the sort existed. The appeals court tried to wave it away, claiming Carroll herself wasn’t “involved.” But that doesn’t change the fact that the public was deceived, the jury was kept in the dark, and President Trump’s legal team was sandbagged.

O’Reilly laid it out plainly: “The E. Jean Carroll fraud should be prosecuted. That is the most outrageous story — It’s so outrageous that the woman testifies in a deposition under oath that nobody is helping her, no lawyer is helping her, no pro bono, and then we find out she got $7 million.”

He’s right. This wasn’t a search for truth — it was a Democrat-funded hit job from start to finish. The same Reid Hoffman who has poured millions into anti-Trump causes and once rubbed elbows with Epstein’s pedo-circle now stands accused of bankrolling a smear campaign that resulted in massive judgments against the President.

And the DOJ under the Trump administration is already on it. A criminal investigation is underway into the funding scheme, with eyes on potential perjury, obstruction, and more. While some in the legacy media are crying “weaponization,” the American people see it for what it is: long-overdue accountability for one of the most blatant lawfare operations in modern political history.

Keep reading