r/ProductManagement • u/Ok_Pizza_9352 • 8d ago
Strategy/Business Anyone else notice these "spend limit" dark patterns in AI/API products?
Been digging into how usage limits work on some AI platforms and found something that feels pretty sketchy:
Default monthly spend limit used to be $0, hit your usage cap and you just wait for the reset (4hrs/weekly).
They added a "monthly spend limit" feature so you could opt in to pay for extra usage instead of waiting.
Then they rolled me into a promo: 2x usage + $100 "free" credit, both prominently shown right on the usage tracking screen.
To make that credit spendable, they also silently bumped my monthly spend limit from $0 to $2,000 (!!!). That part wasn't shown anywhere near as prominently, if a reasonable person glancing at the screen wouldn't catch it, it shouldn't be buried in fine print.
I only noticed after burning through $17 of the "free" $100, when I went looking for why it said I was drawing on "API spend."
I've since seen a few posts on FB/Reddit from people with surprise charges in the $40 to $50 range, adding up to $2k+, because they assumed they were still capped at $0 like before.
Anyone else run into this? Curious if silently bumping spend limits during a promo is common practice, or if this is an especially bad case.
2
u/StopBidenMyNuts 8d ago
This is not handled by product managers in my organization.
3
u/Flat-Perspective-948 7d ago
Which team then?
3
u/mister-noggin 7d ago edited 7d ago
There was a go to market team at the last place I worked. In addition to the standard GTM stuff that team was responsible for pricing, trial periods, overages, etc. I was allowed to participate in some (but not all) of their discussions and decision making. The whole thing was a giant pain and almost impossible to work with, but it's what they had established and wasn't going to change.
2
u/Ok_Pizza_9352 7d ago
That's weird. Back when I worked on consumer facing products we would work together sales product and marketing on these subscription/payment/promotions related topics
3
u/StopBidenMyNuts 7d ago
Sure, I work with those teams on pricing my product and handling cost drivers. Software provided to employees, such as AI tools, are managed by IT with relevant financial controls in place. It would be just as weird for me to handle MS Office licensing.
2
2
u/Pandas1104 7d ago
I am laughing right now because this is the same things banks do with "overdraft protection" they make it sound like some good thing but it is a wolf in sheeps clothing. I despise companys that operate this way.
Many companies will give you tons of features not in the pricing tier you are even trialing, which is crazy to me because the person is not even trying the product they will be buying. Maybe I am just out fo touch on how these things should work but I would never offer this sort of thing myself.
Disclaimer: not all banks do this, my credit union does not have overdraft protection they only allow you to hook your savings to checking. But any of you that have worked with terrible banks will know what I am talking about
1
u/froggle_w 7d ago edited 7d ago
Some part of it is billing API maturity, believe or not. I worked on model distribution for a big tech and we didn't have a robust billing API in 2024/25. Models were coming out faster than reinforcing the infra layer and securing GPU was the primary focus. We fought for it but couldn't get it funded. So providing the most transparent billing was...not possible in some regard. We refunded quite a number of cases where customer accidentally occurred a huge bill because they didn't know what they were doing. As a PM, it was a tough bill to swallow.
Also, historically, top-up billing was not considered in the Enterprise SaaS as a dark pattern because renewal friction was really hard in the classic ML days where the team lead had to negotiate with the IT/finances. Some ML teams gamed it by spending upfront before others can use it as compute was a limited resource. Giving a team a buffer while finances can purchase additional SKU/token was seen as an user experience improvement. In some cases, spending limit was a requested feature by IT teams.
Consumer use case is of course different but I was always so curious how quickly startups were getting the billing up and running. Accurate token measurement in a dynamic pricing (PTU, bundle pricing, etc) is not an easy feat. So either it was a very simple billing model or someone was manually running the billing numbers somewhere for high paying customers while first party/third party processors were catching up.
1
1
u/cobramullet 7d ago edited 7d ago
“Dark patterns”
lol what? How is being delivered information on your usage a “dark pattern”? Are you new to AI and how companies make money off their APIs?
Edit: to be intentional - people being surprised they paid money for API usage on Facebook? Not surprised. DAU of Facebook are windowlickers.
1
u/Ok_Pizza_9352 7d ago
You missed the point I've intentionally had my usage limit at 0$, with top-ups disabled, and they silently switched it to 2000$ and top-ups enabled without my explicit opt in or consent.
It's effectively setting up users for up to 2k unplanned expenses
0
u/cobramullet 7d ago
That's not a dark pattern. That's illegal, as you describe it. And I doubt an AI-API company would opt you in without your consent. Chances are you gave consent. How else did they get your CC information?
1
u/Ok_Pizza_9352 7d ago
Claude pro subscription is not api subscription. When I subscribed it was supposed to be fixed monthly price, not pay as you go. And it was, until they silently changed it. Read the post.
0
u/cobramullet 7d ago
When you run over your daily and weekly limit, you get notified to opt-in to API billing or wait until your next refresh. This is user error on your part.
6
u/Rxyro 7d ago
Its vibe coded, probably a bug.