Z.ai Pro Users Report Sudden Usage Limit Cuts Amid Lack of Transparency

Z.ai Pro Users Report Sudden Usage Limit Cuts Amid Lack of Transparency

Users of Z.ai’s Pro subscription plan are raising alarms over what appears to be an unannounced reduction in usage allowances across multiple AI models, including GLM-4.6, GLM-4.7, and GLM-5. Many subscribers, who previously consumed less than 10% of their monthly quotas, now report hitting 100% usage within days—sometimes hours—of their typical activity. The sudden shift has sparked widespread concern over potential changes in token accounting, hidden throttling, or undisclosed policy adjustments, all implemented without formal communication from Z.ai.

On Reddit’s r/LocalLLaMA community, user /u/ProgressOnly7336 initiated a thread asking whether others had experienced similar issues. The response was immediate and overwhelming: dozens of users confirmed identical patterns. One user noted that their daily usage, once averaging 15,000 tokens, now consistently exceeds 80,000 tokens under the same workload. Others reported being locked out of services mid-task, with no warning or recourse. The absence of any official changelog, email notification, or in-app alert has led many to suspect intentional obfuscation.

While Z.ai has not issued a public statement, industry analysts suggest that such behavior—though not uncommon in the competitive AI-as-a-service market—is deeply problematic. “When a company changes the rules of engagement without notice, it fundamentally undermines the contract of trust between provider and customer,” says Dr. Elena Márquez, a digital ethics researcher at Stanford’s Center for AI Governance. “Users pay for predictability. When that predictability vanishes, it’s not just a technical issue—it’s a reputational risk.”

Technical speculation centers on whether Z.ai has altered its tokenization methodology. Previously, many users assumed token counts were calculated based on input and output text length in a standardized way. Now, some users suspect that internal metadata, system prompts, or model overhead are being counted as part of usage—a practice that would significantly inflate consumption without altering user behavior. Others point to possible rate-limiting disguised as quota exhaustion, a tactic used by some platforms to encourage upgrades to higher-tier plans.

What makes this situation particularly troubling is the lack of transparency. Unlike competitors such as OpenAI or Anthropic, which routinely publish usage policy updates and usage dashboards with historical breakdowns, Z.ai has maintained a minimal communication footprint. This opacity is especially concerning given that Z.ai markets itself as a “transparent AI platform for professionals.”

Legal experts note that while subscription terms often include clauses permitting service modifications, many jurisdictions require “reasonable notice” for material changes—especially those affecting pricing or usage rights. “If a user’s value proposition is materially diminished without notice, that could constitute a breach of implied contract or even consumer protection violations,” says attorney David Tran, specializing in SaaS agreements.

As of this writing, no official response has been issued by Z.ai. Users are now organizing a petition demanding a full audit of usage calculations and a public explanation. Meanwhile, several affected subscribers have begun migrating to alternative platforms, citing loss of trust as their primary motivator.

For now, the message from the user community is clear: innovation without integrity is unsustainable. In an industry built on trust, silence is not neutrality—it’s complicity.