It's in the TOS, so no, not fraud. You might not like it that Anthropic doesn't want you running OpenClaw (effectively owned by a competitor) on CC, but that doesn't make it fraudulent or criminal.

▲

nickthegreek 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The user did not do anything against the TOS. This isnt about running OpenClaw, its about having the words OpenClaw present in a file.

▲

rohansood15 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

TOS is not an impenetrable immunity shield.

▲

jknoepfler 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Isn't this precisely the pattern of behavior that gets you sued for anti-competitive practices?

	▲	theshrike79 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This is exactly the same what Google does when it tries to prevent alternative Youtube clients by fiddling with the page design on purpose. Nobody is claiming anticompetitive there
	▲	gjsman-1000 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What? Seriously, not at all. Anti-competitive practices is when you go out of your way to use legal agreements or practices, in an illegal way (i.e. from the starting point of a monopoly), to deliberately restrict the ability to use competition. Openclaw is not a competitor with Claude. Anti-competitive practices would only occur here if Anthropic used some technique to prevent people from using Claude alternatives (i.e. if you install Claude Code, all other AI agents are forcibly disabled on your system).