Cursor Ultra $200 Subscription Complaint: Refund Denied for Unused Time

I upgraded to Cursor’s Ultra plan for $200 per month, relying on the platform’s promise of “20x more usage.” Despite paying this significantly higher subscription fee, however, the performance and value I received were actually worse than what I experienced with the most basic plan.

The platform continually promotes expensive plans with claims of “faster models” and “higher performance,” but the actual user experience does not appear to match these promises because of complicated token calculations that are difficult for users to understand. This creates a system that I find highly misleading and that can leave customers feeling seriously disadvantaged.

As soon as I realized what was happening, I requested a refund for the unused portion of my subscription. Despite this, my refund request was rejected through automated responses containing only generic, template language, without any specific explanation or meaningful justification. Even though I clearly and explicitly requested a refund for the period of the subscription that I had not used, no consideration was given to my request.

I believe this system places users at a disadvantage and prioritizes its payment structure over customer satisfaction and fair business practices. I want to warn anyone considering using this platform about my experience, particularly because the company did not provide a refund even for the portion of the subscription that I had not used.

In response to what I consider unfair treatment, I am preparing to initiate a chargeback through my bank and, if necessary, pursue available legal remedies. I request a refund for the unused portion of my subscription and ask that the company review its processes to help prevent similar customer disputes in the future.