upvote

points

by mystraline20 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby gjsman-100020 hours ago|
next
[-]
There is literally nothing close to illegal about this behavior. You read the terms of service right, which provides a long list of explicit and implicit disclaimers?
reply
upvoteby nickthegreek19 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
What action did the user take that was against the TOS?
reply
upvoteby margalabargala19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You misunderstand. The user didn't take an action that was "against the TOS".

The TOS simply allows Anthropic to decline to fulfill a request at any time for any reason.

reply
upvoteby schubidubiduba19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
TOS are not laws. They often conflict with actual laws, and are then void. So you can't just say "It's in the TOS", you do have to look at actual laws and whether they may be violated (Because it is anticompetitive or whatever else)
reply
upvoteby margalabargala19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sorry, are you claiming that it's illegal (in the US, where Anthropic operates) for Anthropic to decline to operate on a repo that contains commits relating to OpenClaw?

Or just that in your opinion, it should be illegal?

Simply doing something anticompetitive is not inherently illegal, despite a lot of people thinking it is.

reply
upvoteby nickthegreek18 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It doesnt decline if you have API billing enabled, it straight up charges your request to API instead of Quota if setup (see $200 charge example below). This is happening if you have the words HERMES.md or OpenClaw apparently in the commit. In OP's example, it immediately depleted his session quota because of the words. That is not 'declining to operate'. Also, remember, it is the presence of the words. So if the commit was 'we dont do this, we arent openclaw', you are affected.

https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/53262#issue...

reply
upvoteby margalabargala17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
No, you're discussing a different issue. Related, sure, but not the same one.

We're discussing the comment with repro by abdullin:

> Immediate disconnect *and session usage went to 100%*

Emphasis mine.

I ran the commands and did not see session usage go to 100%. I simply got an error message.

I don't have extra usage/API billing enabled. If I did, I wouldn't expect a "hi" to use all of my extra usage. In the link you sent, they genuinely used $200 of credits, they were just billed as credits not as subscription quota.

So we have a couple different behaviors:

- If API/extra usage billing is enabled, it uses that.

- If API/extra usage billing is disabled, abdullin reports session quota going to 100%

- If API/extra usage billing is disabled, margalabargala reports session usage not changing and errors refusing to do anything.

reply
upvoteby Marsymars16 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> (in the US, where Anthropic operates)

Locally, they also need to abide by the local laws and regulations of anywhere that they choose to sell their services.

reply
upvoteby bdangubic17 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
if I had a penny for every time I read on HN that should either "is" or "should be" illegal when it both isn't and shouldn't be... I'd be a very rich man :)
reply
upvoteby Tadpole918120 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
If I have a terms of service for my SaaS where I've snuck in a vague term that I can "charge additional usage fees at my discretion", it doesn't mean I get to actually charge you $100,000 because I found out your favorite color is blue.

There's absolutely an expectation of reasonability and good faith.

Nobody signing up for Claude would be reasonably assuming that they are allowed to arbitrarily decide what magic words suddenly bypass the subscription cost model that was actually purchased into an overcharge model that is significantly more expensive, whose verbiage clearly indicates the intent of the feature being enabled is to allow additional use after the quota has been consumed, not randomly at the behest of Anthropic.

reply
upvoteby cyanydeez20 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
So, in America, just because it's written in a contract does not mean it's enforceable in anyway.

I can make you sign a infinitely generating contract, that doesn't mean it's enforceable/

reply
upvoteby gjsman-100020 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> So, in America, just because it's written in a contract does not mean it's enforceable in anyway.

But the presumption, as any court will show, is that it is fully blooming enforceable. The burden of proof is on showing it isn't. This particular instance, a lawyer would laugh at you in the face over, this is absolutely 100% stone cold enforceable common and expected.

How do you expect Facebook or HN to moderate if certain uses aren't prohibited? The same principle applies. HN bans certain phrases, lots of them.

reply
upvoteby atiedebee19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Does HN randomly charge you money for using these phrases?
reply
upvoteby vel0city20 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> just because it's written in a contract does not mean it's enforceable in anyway

And we continue slipping into lawlessness and a low trust society...

reply
upvoteby insane_dreamer20 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
It's in the TOS, so no, not fraud. You might not like it that Anthropic doesn't want you running OpenClaw (effectively owned by a competitor) on CC, but that doesn't make it fraudulent or criminal.
reply
upvoteby nickthegreek19 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The user did not do anything against the TOS. This isnt about running OpenClaw, its about having the words OpenClaw present in a file.
reply
upvoteby rohansood1520 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
TOS is not an impenetrable immunity shield.
reply
upvoteby jknoepfler20 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Isn't this precisely the pattern of behavior that gets you sued for anti-competitive practices?
reply
upvoteby theshrike7920 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
This is exactly the same what Google does when it tries to prevent alternative Youtube clients by fiddling with the page design on purpose.

Nobody is claiming anticompetitive there

reply
upvoteby gjsman-100020 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
What?

Seriously, not at all. Anti-competitive practices is when you go out of your way to use legal agreements or practices, in an illegal way (i.e. from the starting point of a monopoly), to deliberately restrict the ability to use competition.

Openclaw is not a competitor with Claude. Anti-competitive practices would only occur here if Anthropic used some technique to prevent people from using Claude alternatives (i.e. if you install Claude Code, all other AI agents are forcibly disabled on your system).

reply
upvoteby charcircuit16 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
>Openclaw is not a competitor with Claude

Not Claude, but other Anthropic products such as Claude Cowork.

reply