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

• Forum user doing math to demonstrate how cursor is 29x worse than claude

  Value proposition remained significantly worse than competitors (29:1 ratio disadvantage)^[16]

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]

• twitter post from disgruntled customer of cursorai

  Hundreds of complaints across Twitter/X from developers worldwide experiencing identical issues^[18]
• 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

[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]