Anthropic - Remora Repellent Remedy

Round 12 - My continuing appeals for the active engagement of national and EU law enforcement in restoring my consumer rights. This time, I include my 3rd subscriber… exciting times…

Remora repellent, the financial must have in the 21st century.

19 March’26.
cc: Italian law enforcement (AGCM & Garante) and EU law enforcement (CNECT-AIOFFICE) and Bank of Sages

Dear Sir or Madam

I cannot adequately express the relief I feel at finally having reached that stage in my chronicles where I cease lamenting past events and turn, volte face, to the future of developing effective and compelling Remora Repellent Remedies.

Today, I address a matter, I’m sure has you sleepless at night. 

It’s all very well swooping in like angels of vengeance and retribution light years out of time, to penalise the corporate bones of a, by then, senescent transgressor sliding into their coffin, leaving you just enough time to nail it shut…last nail, as well… job done. Cold case closed! Phew!

But, what about prevention? I hear you ask. After all, just as medical science provides remedies, so sanitary services provide that existentially essential balance of prevention, without which the efforts of the former might amount to little more than role of undertaker, and writer of labels saying ‘unclean’.

Indeed, I couldn’t phrase it better myself. What, indeed, about prevention.

Well, as you yourselves, I too have been kept awake nights by this perplexing problem of how best to address 2 of the charges I have repeated ad nauseam; to wit..

1. Illegal charge post-cancellation, a straightforward consumer law violation;
2. Two contracts behind one with obscured terms, classic unfair contract territory under EU Directive 93/13.

Gosh, worded like that it sends cold shivers down one’s spine.

Remora Repellent Remedies

I believe I may have a path to a remedy. However, this is best achieved as a collaborative effort, so, please, feel free to contribute.

As this is all about money, a label we laughingly apply to the 0s and 1s in a spreadsheet hosted by sysadmin with asymmetrically greater power over ‘our’ money, the bank… 

That’s where we start. 

Since they’ve insisted on being daddy to all and make unilateral, sacred POLICY decisions based on possession of said 0s and 1s rather than title, that pesky nebulous abstraction… let’s dump the whole mess in their lap.

Right, Daddy banks, and you know who you are; you want a 1:1 relationship with our private suppliers, fill your boots. 

Just as our account with you comes with a leash, so the solution I propose will harness you as bullock to plough. 

I propose that…

1. Banks are liable for any remora activity behind contracts. This will oblige banks to interrogate T&Cs and be liable for oversights. If you remove my sovereign right to act in my own interests on the basis of possession being 9 points, then I abdicate that responsibility to you.. hoist with your own petard; being daddy makes you responsible. You cannot quote the law at me and then apply policies that contradict my legal sovereign title rights; title, in law, awards the holder the right of disposal, not the agent or agency of its effect.
2. Any post cancellation activity, is equally, the responsibility of daddy bank the minute a cancellation event takes place. If your policy ties my hands or blinds me, then your policy takes the hit. Can’t have it both ways. If the polite fiction of ownership through title is to be maintained, it has to take precedence over your implicit argument that ‘possession is 9 points’. Yes, you own the 0s and 1s, you own the platform; but the data is mine, by title and by law, thus I have the right of disposal, not you..

Our next step is to put some structure around the loopholes being exploited by suppliers.

The Daddy banks, have something thee and me do not; massive leverage as a function of scale. They’re richer than you and me individually, and through that achieve something we can’t, which is forced transparency in vendor contracts.

Daddy banks, so jealous they have to take over our relationships can now cement their marriage with the following pre-nup;

“All subscription products must disclose all subsidiary charging mechanisms in plain language at point of sale, with separate cancellation rights for each. No end runs around wording, or punctuation will prevail over the spirit of the intention of this wording”.

That’s sooo romantic…. Daddy banks and mummy supplier. A marriage made in mammon heaven. So damn keen to take us out of the equation, it’s now all yours, cheat each other out of business. At least you both will be on a level playing field. 

Case Study

I present a product of experience.. the story starts mid stream, but like most B movie plots it’s not hard to pick up the thread;

just keep the remora in mind…

The chronology follows a natural sequence rather than that of counter-intuitive email trails…

Hi 0808,

My name is Puff the magic dragon, and I’m a Complaints Administrator at BoS. Please allow this email to serve as an official acknowledgement of your recent complaint.            

We are currently investigating the matter and consulting with the teams involved, and will provide you with an update as soon as we can. 

 We aim to provide you with a final response regarding your case within 15 calendar days, but given the nature of your case we will try our best to resolve this as soon as possible. 

If you would like information on our complaint procedure in the meantime, you can check our FAQ: (link removed to protect the innocent on thin ice).

Should we need any further information from you during the course of our investigation, we will of course reach out to you. 

Kind regards,

Ptmd

Dear Puff,

Thank you for acknowledging my complaint.

I write to put on formal record an immediate and time-sensitive risk that BoS’s actions have created.

My subscription with Remora renews at or around midnight, xx March 2026. 

I have every reason to believe that Remora operates a secondary charging mechanism, called “Prepaid extra usage” product, which previously attached itself to my account without clear disclosure and continued charging after cancellation. 

I have documented this across eleven (now 12) regulatory submissions to AGCM, Garante, and CNECT-AIOFFICE.

I will be including Bank of Sages in my next (this) submission to law enforcement.

BoS’s decision to remove visibility of my blocked remora transaction has left me unable to:

1. Confirm which of my two cards is exposed to remora’s charging mechanism

2. Verify that the block placed on Y March 2026 remains active and effective

3. Take informed preventive action before the renewal date

4.  Retain my ability to react, in real-time, to unauthorised charges being applied.

I formally require BoS to:

∙ Confirm in writing whether the block placed on the Remora merchant on Y March 2026 remains active

∙ Confirm which card is associated with that block

∙ Automatically block any charge from Anthropic beyond the base subscription of €zz that appears at or around midnight, M March 2026.

BoS was unaware of the Remora situation when this began. 

By this request, you are no longer unaware. Any charges beyond €zz extracted from my account through your platform after this notification will be charges you bear full responsibility and liability for enabling.

I look forward to your urgent response.

Regards 

0808

CONCLUSIONS 

Since I first started reporting to Italian law enforcement (AGCM & Garante) and EU law enforcement (CNECT-AIOFFIC), and now, my new subscriber, from the crime scene, I have kept a ledger of sins, of rubicons crossed, of offences against my digital presence.

I have catalogued 8 aggravating crimes in the past few emails to your offices, they stand at present as: 

(note: in my previous email of 16 March ‘26, I provisionally identified BoS in #8 position. I am giving them time to respond before I name them as crime #8, and move currently proposed 8th to 9th).

1. 130.1 x prepaid markup, basically, price gouging on a service with no guaranteed delivery standard;
2. Illegal charge post-cancellation, a straightforward consumer law violation;
3. Two contracts behind one with obscured terms, classic unfair contract territory under EU Directive 93/13
4. Apple’s timestamp manipulation amounting to third party collusion to defeat cancellation rights.
5. An availability of 62.5%, which is well outside industry standards.
6. 95% degradation as a punitive response.
7. Silent restoration of availability without acknowledgement, explanation, nor apology, which confirms the degradation was deliberate, the restoration was a choice, and Anthropic knew both.
8. Draconian throttling between 0.02% and 5% availability as a punitive response.

[Note: The observant may have noticed the operand 130.1 has replaced 61 in the last 11 reports, I have the maths to back it up as the 61 was in error; however, 61, 130.1, meh! Quibbling about amounts is confession; concern about scale misses the point of the law- it’s not the size of it, it’s the fact of it].

Any single one of these is a complaint worthy of your attention and actions.

Together they describe a system designed to maximise extraction, in maximum bad faith, and with a complete absence of accountability.

Claude’s master has found his voice through deed and offers advice on congress and travel…

BoS is reflecting ‘am I the fairest of them all’. I am patient. The reciprocity mirror tells no lies.

I remain, the ever travelling, ‘reasonable’, sane, reciprocal and patient man.

0808