But the pattern applies regardless of the validation logic.

At first -- since the email was to me, with a link to a Google Form if I personally wanted to appeal -- I thought it must be an individualized ban (at least after deciding it wasn’t a phishing attempt). I couldn’t figure out why, but it set me searching my mind for possible triggers in my recent activity.

On Slack, though, it quickly became apparent this was actually an organization-wide ban. And none of us had been warned, including our account admins. We submitted the Google Form, but that was just a black hole. We’re waiting to hear back still a day and a half later.

But this is insane for a number of reasons:

1. Banning an organization for the behavior of an individual is a recipe for disaster in a business context. Disgruntled employees, incompetent interns -- anyone could maliciously or accidentally revoke Claude access for the whole business.

2. We didn’t just have a Claude Team plan, we also had an API account, which is paid for separately but had the same admins. The API account continues to allow us to use our API keys and sent us a renewal bill yesterday (after the Team account suspension). But none of our admins can actually view usage or billing, because our email addresses were banned.

3. Banning without warning makes every move dangerous. Was it because we had conversations about fertilizer? GPS satellites? other agriculture-related things? We can’t know and can’t avoid it.

We’ve reached out to Anthropic via a number of channels but have received only radio silence. There was a twitter thread about a similar issue (https://x.com/patomolina/status/2045281665363386504), and we tried DM’ing the Anthropic employee who chimed in there. Also no response. I’m sure if we wait long enough we’ll come to some form of resolution here, but you have to ask yourself if this is a platform you can entrust your daily workflows to as a business.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47853021

Points: 48

# Comments: 20

That said, the reality is that this safety comes at a cost, both monetary and in terms of “gatekeeping.” And many people would be fine (on paper) increasing risk 0.05% in exchange for 20% cut in costs or allowing disruption of established entities. But those 0.05% degradations add up quickly and unexpectedly.

(That’s not to say laws shouldn’t make a better attempt to circumscribe exceptions)

> A conforming JavaScript implementation, even one that does garbage collection, is not required to call cleanup callbacks. When and whether it does so is entirely down to the implementation of the JavaScript engine. When a registered object is reclaimed, any cleanup callbacks for it may be called then, or some time later, or not at all. It's likely that major implementations will call cleanup callbacks at some point during execution, but those calls may be substantially after the related object was reclaimed. Furthermore, if there is an object registered in two registries, there is no guarantee that the two callbacks are called next to each other — one may be called and the other never called, or the other may be called much later. There are also situations where even implementations that normally call cleanup callbacks are unlikely to call them:

The point they were making (rightly or wrongly) seems to be that contract law just isn’t the right way of managing consumer-business relationships. I suspect that actually meshes with the intuitions of a broad swath of the population, who want a reliable, predictable, consistent, and consumer-beneficial set of norms and laws around all consumption so that it is easy to manage and understand when you are departing from the norm and to be able to confidently conduct a public life knowing that your purchases are not subjecting you to any surprising gotchas other than having lost the money and having acquired a product.

You could take this line of thought charitably in another direction to assert that “unusual” agreements are presumed unenforceable but not that there are no legal mechanisms for adding additional clauses.