8 ms·

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 discla

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?

cyanydeez 5mo ago
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/
- gjsman-1000 5mo ago
  > 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.
  - atiedebee 5mo ago
    Does HN randomly charge you money for using these phrases?
- vel0city 5mo ago
  > 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...
Tadpole9181 5mo ago
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.
nickthegreek 5mo ago
What action did the user take that was against the TOS?
- margalabargala 5mo ago
  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.
  - schubidubiduba 5mo ago
    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)
    - margalabargala 5mo ago
      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.
      - nickthegreek 5mo ago
        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#issuecomment-4320819355 https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/53262#issue...

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?

cyanydeez 5mo ago

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/

gjsman-1000 5mo ago
> 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.
- atiedebee 5mo ago
  Does HN randomly charge you money for using these phrases?
vel0city 5mo ago
> 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...

Tadpole9181 5mo ago

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.

nickthegreek 5mo ago

What action did the user take that was against the TOS?

margalabargala 5mo ago
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.
- schubidubiduba 5mo ago
  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)
  - margalabargala 5mo ago
    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.
    - nickthegreek 5mo ago
      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#issuecomment-4320819355 https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/53262#issue...