Claude Code refuses requests or charges extra if your commits mention "OpenClaw"

Post by echoangle » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 5:59 PM UTC

bachmeier wrote: post #276

StilesCrisis wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think businesses are allowed to just take your money, laugh, and refuse service for no reason? People spend large sums of money for this tool. They can't just delete your balance because they feel like it.

> Do you think businesses are allowed to just take your money, laugh, and refuse service for no reason? > People spend large sums of money for this tool. They can't just delete your balance because they feel like it. Unfortunately, in the US, they can. I'm not a lawyer working in this area, but my understanding is that companies are in general free to stop doing business with any customer at any time (other than reas…

Post by bryanrasmussen » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 6:00 PM UTC

intrasight wrote: post #221

subscribed wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's malicious and I think this is scamming from the literal money (you didn't do anything wrong, you executed one command and they scammed you out of the fair usage you paid for). Please raise the ticket or at least GitHub issue for visibility. Sooner or later some sort of complaint to the relevant trade authority should happen - this is a scam operation at this point.

No. Hanlon's razor applies here.

Post by skywhopper » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 6:00 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #121

subscribed wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's malicious and I think this is scamming from the literal money (you didn't do anything wrong, you executed one command and they scammed you out of the fair usage you paid for). Please raise the ticket or at least GitHub issue for visibility. Sooner or later some sort of complaint to the relevant trade authority should happen - this is a scam operation at this point.

There are many possible explanations for this outcome to have occurred other than malice. If you're an engineer by trade, consider how many bugs you've been responsible for over the course of your career that you didn't intend. Probably a lot. How about we turn down the heat, everyone?

Post by skydhash » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 6:02 PM UTC

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #144

simoncion wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point I'm making is that I don't think Anthropic or OpenAI would have ever gotten significant traction if they didn't have flat-rate plans... That seems likely. If people had to pay their share of the actual all-in cost of the service (rather than having it be subsidized by investors with extremely deep pockets and a small handful of corporate customers), very, very few regular people would use it. The point th…

The crux of my argument is that there is a timeline where people would've paid the all-in cost of the service, with margin, as a flat-rate sub. The $20 rate was not sustainable when factoring in training costs but if not for DeepSeek they could have simply raised the prices rather than gestures broadly whatever the fuck is going on at Anthropic now, with a new PR fumble every three days. If the Chinese models didn't…

Post by otterley » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 6:03 PM UTC

echoangle wrote: post #285

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you signed up, you agreed you understood the line - which is whatever Anthropic decides the line is. Legally, the line hasn't changed at all, nor has your moral position relative to Anthropic. Don't like it, cancel, but it was always the deal. This is, by the way, the same legal principle that the website you are posting on, right now, uses. Some uses are prohibited. Not every line need be explicit. You aren't a…

If you’re paying for it, they can’t just arbitrarily deny you service for made up reasons. I would cancel, but then I would also charge back my payment I’m not getting my promised service for.