Claude Account Bans, Suspensions and Appeals

A post says government buyers get 40% off Claude with no minimum spend, arguing the IPO focus is government billing and personal account bans are not being relaxed.

Citing Anthropic's IPO filing that 5–7% of revenue comes from rule-violating customers, the author rails against being banned with no appeal and no refund of annual fees.

The poster speculates that thin margins on high-quota subscriptions lead Anthropic to ban China-region users right after purchase without refunds, raising per-user revenue.

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.

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 says Claude bans without refunds are hard to accept, so they have held off subscribing for fear of losing a workflow built around it, and now spread their bets.

Citing Anthropic's $16.8B Q3 revenue and a 5–7% share from violating customers, the post estimates banned Claude users contributed roughly $0.8–1.2B in subscription fees.

Breaks down Anthropic's filing revenue, API share and 900% net retention, while complaining that its account bans are harsh and hurt user experience.

A reseller prices Claude Max 5x at 699 yuan and 20x at 849 yuan, each with a one-time ban replacement guarantee.

The author argues Anthropic's revenue comes mainly from usage-based enterprise clients, so banning individual subscribers barely dents its books.

The poster says Anthropic's S-1 admits 5–7% of revenue came from customers later deemed violating policy, with enforcement stepped up in August and September 2026.

The author questions Claude's IPO filing saying 5-7% of revenue comes from banned accounts, argues no-refund bans may be illegal, and advises paying via App Store rather than Gate Card for easier chargebacks.