No. There's no restriction of usage in the (A)GPL. Anyone, including big corps, can use AGPL software. Preventing them to use the software is not the point neither. The point is trying to ensure end user freedom.

They just choose avoid agpl software. Their loss. Unfortunately they also spread FUD on this and many commenters here happily convey it.

AGREED! Its sheer insanity to call the AGPL toxic. The license is actually quite simple if a little wordy. They should have accompanied it with a preamble that was super clear and to the point.So here it is in our 170 words for you to read, share, and use:[28]

Copyright (c) [year] [copyright holders]

Permission is hereby granted to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files, to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and sell copies of the software, including for commercial purposes, subject to the following conditions:

If you distribute this software, or any work derived from it, you must release the complete source code under this same licence. If you modify this software and users interact with your version over a network — as a web application, an API, or a hosted service — you must offer those users the complete source code of your version, at no charge. All copies must include this copyright notice and this licence. You may not impose additional licence restrictions beyond this.

These permissions are irrevocable and royalty-free for the term of copyright. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS," WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. This is a plain-language summary. The full legal text of the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3, governs all use for you.

Same rights. Same freedoms only a little more opiniated delivery. Same business card. The only difference: when someone takes your code, tweakes it and builds a service on it, the tweaks, the improvements must come back.