bug Subject: Forced migration to Opus 4.7 in Copilot — unacceptable cost increase without user consent

Preflight Checklist

• [x] I have searched existing issues and this hasn't been reported yet
• [x] This is a single bug report (please file separate reports for different bugs)
• [x] I am using the latest version of Claude Code

What's Wrong?

/bug Subject: Forced migration to Opus 4.7 in Claude Code — unacceptable cost increase without user consent

I am a paying Claude subscriber and a daily Claude Code user.

Until recently, Claude Code offered Opus 4.6 at a 3x premium request multiplier. This model worked well for my needs, and I deliberately chose it for my daily workflow.

Without any prior notice or transition period, Opus 4.6 was removed from Claude Code. The only available Opus model is now Opus 4.7 at a 7.5x multiplier. This means that for the same subscription price, I now get roughly 2.5 times fewer Opus requests than I did a week ago.

I did not ask for this upgrade. I did not consent to the increased cost. I was not offered a choice — keep 4.6 or switch to 4.7. The model I was paying for simply disappeared, replaced by one that burns through my request limit 2.5 times faster.

This is effectively a hidden price increase. The subscription costs the same, but the actual value I receive has been cut by more than half.

I am requesting one of the following:

1. Restore Opus 4.6 in Claude Code as an available model alongside 4.7
2. Reduce the Opus 4.7 multiplier to a level comparable to Opus 4.6 (3x)
3. Increase the subscription request limit to compensate for the higher multiplier

Removing a working tool from paying users — with no warning, no transition period, and no comparable alternative — is disrespectful to customers who trust your product and build their workflows around it.

I look forward to your response.

What Should Happen?

/bug Subject: Forced migration to Opus 4.7 in Claude Code — unacceptable cost increase without user consent

I am a paying Claude subscriber and a daily Claude Code user.

Until recently, Claude Code offered Opus 4.6 at a 3x premium request multiplier. This model worked well for my needs, and I deliberately chose it for my daily workflow.

Without any prior notice or transition period, Opus 4.6 was removed from Claude Code. The only available Opus model is now Opus 4.7 at a 7.5x multiplier. This means that for the same subscription price, I now get roughly 2.5 times fewer Opus requests than I did a week ago.

I did not ask for this upgrade. I did not consent to the increased cost. I was not offered a choice — keep 4.6 or switch to 4.7. The model I was paying for simply disappeared, replaced by one that burns through my request limit 2.5 times faster.

This is effectively a hidden price increase. The subscription costs the same, but the actual value I receive has been cut by more than half.

I am requesting one of the following:

1. Restore Opus 4.6 in Claude Code as an available model alongside 4.7
2. Reduce the Opus 4.7 multiplier to a level comparable to Opus 4.6 (3x)
3. Increase the subscription request limit to compensate for the higher multiplier

Removing a working tool from paying users — with no warning, no transition period, and no comparable alternative — is disrespectful to customers who trust your product and build their workflows around it.

I look forward to your response.

Error Messages/Logs

/bug Subject: Forced migration to Opus 4.7 in Claude Code — unacceptable cost increase without user consent

I am a paying Claude subscriber and a daily Claude Code user.

Until recently, Claude Code offered Opus 4.6 at a 3x premium request multiplier. This model worked well for my needs, and I deliberately chose it for my daily workflow.

Without any prior notice or transition period, Opus 4.6 was removed from Claude Code. The only available Opus model is now Opus 4.7 at a 7.5x multiplier. This means that for the same subscription price, I now get roughly 2.5 times fewer Opus requests than I did a week ago.

I did not ask for this upgrade. I did not consent to the increased cost. I was not offered a choice — keep 4.6 or switch to 4.7. The model I was paying for simply disappeared, replaced by one that burns through my request limit 2.5 times faster.

This is effectively a hidden price increase. The subscription costs the same, but the actual value I receive has been cut by more than half.

I am requesting one of the following:

1. Restore Opus 4.6 in Claude Code as an available model alongside 4.7
2. Reduce the Opus 4.7 multiplier to a level comparable to Opus 4.6 (3x)
3. Increase the subscription request limit to compensate for the higher multiplier

Removing a working tool from paying users — with no warning, no transition period, and no comparable alternative — is disrespectful to customers who trust your product and build their workflows around it.

I look forward to your response.

Steps to Reproduce

/bug Subject: Forced migration to Opus 4.7 in Claude Code — unacceptable cost increase without user consent

I am a paying Claude subscriber and a daily Claude Code user.

Until recently, Claude Code offered Opus 4.6 at a 3x premium request multiplier. This model worked well for my needs, and I deliberately chose it for my daily workflow.

Without any prior notice or transition period, Opus 4.6 was removed from Claude Code. The only available Opus model is now Opus 4.7 at a 7.5x multiplier. This means that for the same subscription price, I now get roughly 2.5 times fewer Opus requests than I did a week ago.

I did not ask for this upgrade. I did not consent to the increased cost. I was not offered a choice — keep 4.6 or switch to 4.7. The model I was paying for simply disappeared, replaced by one that burns through my request limit 2.5 times faster.

This is effectively a hidden price increase. The subscription costs the same, but the actual value I receive has been cut by more than half.

I am requesting one of the following:

1. Restore Opus 4.6 in Claude Code as an available model alongside 4.7
2. Reduce the Opus 4.7 multiplier to a level comparable to Opus 4.6 (3x)
3. Increase the subscription request limit to compensate for the higher multiplier

Removing a working tool from paying users — with no warning, no transition period, and no comparable alternative — is disrespectful to customers who trust your product and build their workflows around it.

I look forward to your response.

Claude Model

None

Is this a regression?

Yes, this worked in a previous version

Last Working Version

_No response_

Claude Code Version

3333

Platform

Anthropic API

Operating System

macOS

Terminal/Shell

Terminal.app (macOS)

Additional Information

/bug Subject: Forced migration to Opus 4.7 in Claude Code — unacceptable cost increase without user consent

I am a paying Claude subscriber and a daily Claude Code user.

Until recently, Claude Code offered Opus 4.6 at a 3x premium request multiplier. This model worked well for my needs, and I deliberately chose it for my daily workflow.

Without any prior notice or transition period, Opus 4.6 was removed from Claude Code. The only available Opus model is now Opus 4.7 at a 7.5x multiplier. This means that for the same subscription price, I now get roughly 2.5 times fewer Opus requests than I did a week ago.

I did not ask for this upgrade. I did not consent to the increased cost. I was not offered a choice — keep 4.6 or switch to 4.7. The model I was paying for simply disappeared, replaced by one that burns through my request limit 2.5 times faster.

This is effectively a hidden price increase. The subscription costs the same, but the actual value I receive has been cut by more than half.

I am requesting one of the following:

1. Restore Opus 4.6 in Claude Code as an available model alongside 4.7
2. Reduce the Opus 4.7 multiplier to a level comparable to Opus 4.6 (3x)
3. Increase the subscription request limit to compensate for the higher multiplier

Removing a working tool from paying users — with no warning, no transition period, and no comparable alternative — is disrespectful to customers who trust your product and build their workflows around it.

I look forward to your response.