CursorAI "unlimited" plan rug pull
Cursor AI silently changed their "unlimited" Pro plan to severely rate-limited without notice, locking users out after 3-7 requests & forcing them to upgrade to regain functionality.[1]
Background[edit | edit source]
Cursor AI, a developer-focused AI code assistant, marketed its $20/month Pro plan with "Unlimited Agent Requests,"[2] targeting professional developers who depend on advanced models like Claude 4 Sonnet for coding workflows. The service was sold as a premium development tool that provides reliable access to frontier AI models for professional software development.
After introducing a higher-priced Ultra Plan in June 2025, Cursor quietly changed the Pro plan description from "Unlimited Agent Requests" to "Extended limits on agent" without clarifying actual limits or notifying existing customers.[3] The company implemented a system based on "$20+ of model inference" allowance but provided no tools for users to track consumption against this limit.[4]
Service Degradation and Consumer Exploitation[edit | edit source]
Silent Plan Changes[edit | edit source]
On June 16, 2025, Cursor AI pushed through large changes to their Pro Plan terms without properly notifying customers:[5]
- Changed "Unlimited Agent Requests" to "Extended limits on agent" on pricing page
- Implemented usage limits based on vague "$20+ of model inference" allowance
- Introduced harsh rate limiting with reset periods described only as "5-24 hours"[6]
- Removed transparency features that would allow users to track usage against limits[7]
User Impact[edit | edit source]
Users began experiencing unexpected rate limiting with minimal usage:
- Users reported being rate limited after few requests to Claude 4 Sonnet
- Rate limits lasted 5-24 hours despite documentation claiming "every few hours" reset periods[8]
- No advance warning when approaching limits or specific indication of when the limits would reset
- Dashboard showed usage events but no dollar consumption tracking against monthly allowance
- Sudden transitions from "included in Pro" usage to expensive pay-as-you-go billing without warning.
Suppression of Customer Complaints[edit | edit source]
The company suppressed customer complaints:
- AI moderation system repeatedly hid customer complaint threads from public view[9]
- Professional, well-documented complaints became unsearchable on the forum[10]
- Staff dismissed documented evidence as "conspiracy theories"[11]
- Multiple threads documenting the issues were shadow-banned or made invisible to new users
Cursor's response[edit | edit source]
Initial denial & suppression[edit | edit source]
Cursor AI's initial responses were inadequate & dismissive:
- Customer support provided canned responses that ignored specific questions about timing & usage numbers[12]
- Staff members dismissed user concerns as "conspiracy theories" despite documented evidence[13]
- AI moderation system continued hiding customer complaint threads[14]
Official Damage Control Response[edit | edit source]
On July 5, 2025, facing overwhelming cross-platform pressure, Cursor AI published a blog post acknowledging the issues:
- Admitted that "unlimited usage" was misleading and only applied to inferior Auto mode, not direct model access[15]
- Clarified that Pro plan includes approximately 225 Sonnet 4 requests per month (down from previously advertised unlimited)
- Offered full refunds for unexpected charges between June 16 and July 4, 2025
- Updated documentation to provide more specific limit information, though still vague on reset timing
Continued Problems[edit | edit source]
Even after the official response, fundamental issues remained unresolved:
- Users continued experiencing rate limiting after just 3 prompts despite documentation claiming 225 requests/month
- Reset timing described vaguely as "5-24 hours" with no guarantees ("best-effort basis")
- No real-time usage tracking implementation to help users manage consumption
Value proposition remained significantly worse than competitors (29:1 ratio disadvantage)[16]Forum user doing math to demonstrate how cursor is 29x worse than claude
Consumer response[edit | edit source]
Cross-Platform Documentation[edit | edit source]
The consumer backlash spread to multiple platforms:
- A detailed 51-page forum thread documented user experiences with screenshots, usage data, and technical analysis[17]
Hundreds of complaints across Twitter/X from developers worldwide experiencing identical issues[18]twitter post from disgruntled customer of cursorai - Community-maintained archives created due to forum censorship and thread hiding[19]
- Reddit discussions confirming the same problems across the user base[20]
User Actions[edit | edit source]
Affected consumers took direct action:
- Mass cancellations of annual subscriptions with refund requests[21]
- Migration to transparent alternatives like Claude Code Pro (which offered 29x better value)[22]
- Organized documentation efforts to preserve evidence of service changes[23]
- Cross-platform pressure campaign that ultimately forced the company's official response[24]
- Users sharing workarounds like reverting to "legacy pricing" where available[25]
Consumer Impact[edit | edit source]
CursorAI's actions seriously disrupted pro developer's workflows:
- Developers experienced sudden 26-hour lockouts during critical project work
- Users forced to switch to inferior Auto mode or stop their dev work completely
- Anxiety around usage due to unpredictable enforcement & billing[26]
- Loss of confidence in service reliability for professional development work
- Financial pressure to upgrade to $60+ plans to regain previously advertised functionality
Community Sentiment[edit | edit source]
Documented consumer sentiment included:
- Accusations of "rug-pull" & bait-and-switch tactic.
- Comparisons to "snake oil salesmen" and predatory business practices[27]
- Calls for transparency in billing and usage tracking
- Demands for honest marketing that doesn't rely on technical loopholes
- Recognition that the incident represented broader anti-consumer trends in AI services
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ "Developer Reports Cursor AI Plan Change and Lockouts". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Cursor Pricing Page Archive". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Clarifying June 16 Pro Changes". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Cursor Community Discussion: No Usage Tracking". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Clarifying June 16 Pro Changes". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Cursor Documentation on Rate Limits". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "User Complaints About Lack of Usage Dashboard". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "User Report: 26 Hour Rate Limit". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Reports of Forum Shadowbans". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Forum Thread Hidden By Moderation". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Dismissal of Complaints". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Template Support Responses". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Staff Responses to Rate Limit Complaints". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Ongoing Forum Suppression". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Cursor Clarifies Misleading Unlimited Claims". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Comparison with Competitors". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Pro Plan Rate Limit Transparency Issues - Cursor Forum". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Developer Complaints on Twitter". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Archive of Hidden Threads". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Reddit User Reports on Cursor Rate Limits". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "User Reports Cancellations". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Discussion on Switching to Competitors". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "User Documentation Efforts". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Pressure Leading to Official Response". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Users Reverting to Legacy Pricing". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "User Anxiety Over Enforcement". Retrieved 2025-07-05.
- ↑ "Snake Oil Comparisons". Retrieved 2025-07-05.