Claude Account Bans, Suspensions and Appeals

A point-by-point breakdown of odd numbers in Anthropic's S-1, noting that 5–7% of revenue came from customers later banned, arguing bans cut off revenue.

Anthropic's seven founders promise in the S-1 that Claude stays ad-free, arguing ads would distort incentives; the poster would rather see fewer account bans and looser usage limits.

A user laments that Claude consumers are powerless and must always be ready for their account to be banned, with an image attached.

The author checks the filing and explains the 5-7% refers to customers later found violating policies who had paid normally, not banned users being charged without refund.

The author mocks Anthropic for reportedly including revenue from later-banned accounts in its IPO filing and criticizes users who blame themselves after being banned.

A user asks whether using Claude Code on Grok Bot's computer environment risks getting their Claude account banned.

The poster notes Anthropic's prospectus says payments from banned accounts still count as revenue, around 5% to 7%, and asks whether people recovered accounts via appeal or started over.

A reply asks how the RMB 6B banned-account figure was derived — unrefunded balances plus re-registration fees? — and whether the original poster has had a Claude account banned.

A reply says getting Claude accounts banned is frustrating and asks whether there are more stable ways to use it.

A user asks whether Anthropic links multiple Claude accounts used on the same computer, so one ban could take down the others.

A user reports their Claude account was unbanned within a night and shares an appeal structure: who they are, what they did that day (three sessions, 90% of the 5-hour limit), and citing the relevant usage policy.

The post says Anthropic's filing shows 5–7% of first-nine-month revenue came from customers later banned for violations, with 11.4 million accounts banned in H1.