Anthropic support- Incriminating Answer

Round 32 - My continuing appeals for the active engagement of national and EU law enforcement in protecting my consumer rights. 

Yesterday, 14 April 2026, I received a responsive email from a human being, Hannah, from Anthropic Support to my refund demand made on 7 March 2026…

After a couple of abortive attempts to chase imaginary hares, she final read my demand and responded on point…

I’m not sure, and this is why I think Hannah is human, that she has quite understood the implications of her written responses… time will out…

15 April ’26

cc: Italian law enforcement (AGCM & Garante) and EU law enforcement (CNECT-AIOFFICE) and Bank of Sages

Dear Sir or Madam

This is an update following my last submission #31, which included the first response to my refund demand on 5 March 2026…

At this stage both AI and human(?) agent were speed reading and speed misunderstanding what the issue was… well they had let it fester for over a month… understandable how my points were lost…

I summarise these initial non-responsive responses from Anthropic AI (on left) and my answer (on right) in the graphic below…

9 April 2026 at 19:00 

I received the following response from Anthropic Support’s Larry AI…(shown on left hand side of composite graphic below)

• human, AI bot… couldn’t say…

This is exactly…

1 month and 2 days after my demand for a refund…

My response is shown on the right of the above composite graphic…

During my entire email exchange with Anthropic support I believe I never got past an AI bot to an actual human respondent…

This time I appear to have two different, AI and/or human, support agents chasing 2 different imaginary hares…

The first from Hannah (left hand side) of graphic below accompanied by my 2 responses; the second at the top left is one I also sent to Larry AI who seemed unable to find my account…(shown immediately below this following graphic)…

and I also sent it to Larry AI who seemed unable to find my account…

14 April 2026 at 18:05

Finally, a reply to the actual points I raised and not just a copy and paste from their FAQs list…

Hi Ja,

Thank you for your response and for clarifying the charges you were referring to. I will be more than happy to clarify these for your below: 

- The 7 charges that took place between the 4th and 5th of March and also the charge for €12.20 were charged due to a set up of the setting for 'Auto recharge' for extra usage within your account.
- This is a manually set up setting and not the default within an account.
- Taking a look internally this is still currently active within your account and you can turn it off via the steps here.
- There is a threshold minimum and maximum set within this setting - If your account dips under the minimum threshold amount then it will be recharged X amount to get the account back up to the Maximum set in the account. 
- Example: Threshold minimum is = 5 Euro and Threshold Maximum = to 15 Euro > Extra usage dips to 3.50 (below the threshold minimum) > Autocharge will charge you 12.50 to bring the account back up to 15 Euro worth of extra usage.
- Extra usage is also available for free subscription users - and for this reason the auto-charge did not turn off when your account subscription was cancelled.

We hope this has helped clarify this outcome for you. Do note we are unable to refund extra usage that has already been consumed as per our refund policy. If you would like any additional clarification on the above or have any other questions on this matter do let us know.
 
 Kindest regards,
 
 Hannah

In the confession above, dressed as a clarification, Hannah confirms, in writing, everything I’ve been reporting to your offices for 31 rounds…

She admits:

1. The auto-recharge is still active on my account; 36 days after I demanded a refund, blocked the card, and, more recently, blocked a charge attempt, surely a breach of any contract, including their invisible one… The remora lives on, as evidenced by the blocked attempt on 1 April’26.

2. “Extra usage is also available for free subscription users — and for this reason the auto-charge did not turn off when your account subscription was cancelled.” — this is Crime #2 in their own words. The remora contract survives cancellation by design. They built it this way deliberately.

3. “This is a manually set up setting and not the default”, nice… victim blaming now for pressing the button. My original complaint documented that the default cap showed 2000, no plain language disclosure, no cancellation rights explained. “Manually set up” by me when I clearly didn’t understand what I was enabling. Further, manually setting the cap to €50 made no difference to the amounts being charged. 

4. “We are unable to refund extra usage that has already been consumed”… which is a written refusal to refund. 

This is their final position…

What she failed to address:

• The €12.20 charge AFTER cancellation, which has been lumped in with the other charges instead of addressing the post-cancellation element specifically
  • The lack of disclosure at the point of enabling the extra usage charge…
  • The absence of cancellation rights for the remora contract…
  • The contracting entity switch;Anthropic Ireland with Anthropic PBC…
  • The failure of the default cap changing from €2,000 to €50 I set it to…

I responded as follows;

Dear Hannah

Thank you for your clarification. I note the following:

1. You confirm the auto-recharge is still active on my account despite my subscription being cancelled on 5 March 2026. Please deactivate it immediately.

2. You confirm the auto-recharge survives subscription cancellation by design. This means a consumer who cancels their subscription remains exposed to charges under a separate, undisclosed contract with no independent cancellation mechanism. This is precisely the unfair contract term I identified in my original complaint under EU Directive 93/13.

3. You state this is ‘manually set up and not the default.’ The default cap field displayed 2000. No plain language disclosure explained the consequences of enabling this setting. No separate cancellation rights were provided. A setting that defaults to a €2,000 exposure with one button press is not informed consent.

4. You state you cannot refund consumed usage. I do not accept this. The usage was consumed under a contract entered without informed consent, with no adequate disclosure, and which by your own admission cannot be cancelled by cancelling the subscription. The charges are disputed as unauthorised under EU consumer protection law.

5. You have not addressed the charge of €12.20 applied at 17:58 on 5 March 2026 — 90 minutes after I cancelled my subscription at 16:28. This charge has no contractual basis regardless of the auto-recharge mechanism.

This matter is already before AGCM, Garante, and CNECT-AIOFFICE. 

Your response will be included in my next submission to these authorities.

Regards,

0808

Progress Report

As has been the case for the last few reports, the list of crimes has been aligned with a means of recording achievements for each crime in the list…in order to encourage participation in this collaborative effort at executing the will of the EU…

Notes & Comments 

Note: The observant may have noticed the operand 130.1 has replaced 61 in the first 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.

Bank of Sages 1 April 2026

The Anthropic payment block was in place and denied the attempted €13.91 charge from Anthropic PBC on 1 April 2026…

However, only

• the bank has visibility of the blocked payee…
• I do not have visibility of the blocked payee…

Thus, I have no control over whether the…

• block stays in place, remains effective, expires…
• bank applies policies without my knowledge or consent…

This remains the minor operational clarification pending resolution…

#2 Misleading Omission Art 22/Directive 93/13

The events I described, with receipts, in #26, 2 April 2026, remains evidence of:

• The dual billing structure; Apple + Anthropic PBC via Stripe
  • The remora charges continuing
  • The entity is Anthropic PBC (US parent), not Anthropic Ireland Limited (the EU entity on my contract). 
    • Who exactly is billing me?
      • Why?
      • On what basis?
      • For what?

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

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

I remain, the less patient man.

0808