Summary Labor Rights & Environmental Health Undermines
Banned in California presents a technical critique of California's industrial regulatory framework, arguing that occupational health, environmental, and safety standards make it impossible to permit manufacturing facilities in the state. The content systematically frames such regulations as burdensome restrictions without acknowledging their rationales—protecting workers from toxic exposure, communities from environmental contamination, and the public from health hazards. By omitting worker voices, union perspectives, and the protective purposes of regulation, and by presenting these standards as obstacles to economic opportunity rather than as complementary rights, the content implicitly undermines Articles 2, 6, 7, 19, 23, 25, and 26 of the UDHR.
Are other states building all this manufacturing/semiconductor capacity? I think it's an overall USA thing, we just don't do manufacturing anymore because it's cheaper to do it in another country.
Not sure what the point of the website is. To me it looks like a bad faith argument. The secular trend in the US has been to increase margins by moving manufacturing to other countries.
The tariffs are certainly not making it easier to manufacture domestically.
I wonder if there's a law+econ analysis of comparing the current framework (regulations and upfront permitting) vs having the regulations but then enforcement via combination of randomized gov't inspections and private lawsuits. The motivation would be to allow things to move faster while also requiring the same degree of compliance, but without the massive red tape upfront with administrators having no real incentive to approve projects or move fast. One obvious downside is that it effectively creates an economic incentive to try and skirt the law and/or find loopholes, but that arguably exists to the same degree in the existing system.
Listen y’all, it’s not just that we aren't letting companies spew chemicals into the air. The permitting and regulatory process is so extremely hostile that even when you want to and are able to do so safely and without emissions, it’s impossible.
Instead you have to ship things from out of state and other countries, which generates emissions and pollution itself that might actually be more than local production.
Its the same issue as housing. Endless rules and regulations, many of which make no attempt at doing anything but block, cause the wealth of socirty to be siphoned away. An apartment project in LA with permits complete is worth twice as much as one without. How do we see this and expect our economy to do anything except drown in bureaucracy?
My advice is dont ever manufacturing anything in CA. They will try and kill your business for simply existing no matter how perfect you are.
They lost me at "vacuum deposition - impossible" without justification. As far as processes go it's one of the safest (everything happens in a sealed vacuum chamber). Maybe the solvents used to clean prior to coating?
Let's be honest: People have no problem polluting elsewhere as long as they can consume the final product without suffering the consequences. TFA isn't important to the people of California.
They are playing a bit fast and loose with the word "banned".
> Your smartphone contains materials processed through semiconductor fabrication, chemical etching, metal anodizing, glass tempering, and electroplating — none of which you could start a new facility for in California without years of litigation.
I agree that we should make it easier to do things, specifically by decreasing the amount of litigation involved in doing stuff. But the risk of a bunch of litigation isn't a ban, right? I get that it's trying to be attention-grabbing, but calling it a ban when it's not just sort of confuses the issue.
The main processor requires ultra-clean rooms, toxic gases (arsine, phosphine), and chemical etching. No new fabs have been built in CA in over a decade. Intel, TSMC, and Samsung all build elsewhere."
Phosphine is pretty nasty stuff. California was full of EPA Superfund sites when the government got stuck with cleaning up all the toxic waste. Politicians and voters went, "Eff that!" after manufacturers left the state, but left their barrels of shit behind.
The Grandfatherd-in section is incredibly misleading. Look at the Semiconductor Fabrication section, for example. The implication is that these are the only fabs in the state, they wouldn't be able to get new permits today, and the red dots indicate that it would be "effectively impossible" to open any other ones. In fact (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabricat...) there are at least 18 fabs in California, and these are just two random examples of particularly old ones. Obviously they couldn't reopen under the same permits they got in the 60s, why would anyone expect that to be the case?
Its interesting, but is there some conflation of regional restrictions with the state of California?
For example, it cites automotive paint shop restrictions as the quintessential example of what you can't do in CA, and qualifies it with a specific Bay Area regulation.
Oh I didn’t realize pineapple farms were banned in California and Alaska.
I thought they hadn’t been built for other reasons over the last decade. But according to this, not being built means banned. TIL!
Started reading this site but the massive gaps in logic and reasoning are like nails on a chalkboard.
No new fabs being built in CA means fabs are banned?!
Okay well fabs are banned in pretty much the whole country then, so why call out California?
Just because something isn’t done doesn’t mean it’s banned. Neither is it necessarily bad. There’s a lot of reasons why not to build certain things certain areas - labor cost, earthquake risk, land is more desired leading to higher cost, blah blah blah
That doesn’t mean something is banned. Maybe we should look at making some things easier but this website is just a hit piece and has a clear motivation rather than being a trustworthy evaluation.
It’s like those cringy billboards on highway 5 about Gavin newsom and water.
Edit ——
Complaining that large factories can’t easily be built in dense population centers like the Bay Area means things are banned is weird - who in the right mind thinks a sprawling factory with emissions should go smack dab in the middle of population centers? Why can’t we build a new nuclear plant in Manhattan or maybe an oil refinery on wall street!? Waah waah so outrageous! None were built in the last decade so it’s the outrageous regulations fault! I want my lead battery smelter in downtown Portland but Oregon banned it! Waah waah!
Aside that, this site is mostly blaming California regulations for the nationwide manufacturing issues driven heavily by free trade
A lot of these are stretches or remove nuance. I get the point they are trying to make, but it's a lot weaker than they think and undermined by their own "hero" example: painting cars in California
> A modern auto paint shop emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during primer, base coat, and clear coat application. The Bay Area AQMD makes permitting a new paint shop nearly impossible. This is THE classic example of what you can't do in CA.
Ah yes, the Bay Area, famously "all of California". And on top of that, the restrictions are mostly in highly populated areas.
The site would be better if it linked to the actual regulation that prohibits each type of business instead of just making the claim “0 new factories of this type have been built”.
The claim that aluminum anodizing is "banned in California" because of the sulfuric acid waste it produces is patently absurd. There are no shortage of labs, factories, and more in California that use sulfuric acid, and they all figure out how to dispose of their waste without going "fuck it, YOLO it into the river".
Paint VOCs sounds fine, until it's done at industrial scale, and it's also your neighbor, and also all the children in the neighborhood have asthma, and also healthcare is a lot more expensive...
This list isn't things you "cant do in california" but "polluting things you can't do in highly populated cities".
I'm not sure what the conclusion here is other than health is not important.
Some of these items actually net improve clean air and clean water, but you’re instead happy to export those pollutants to another country to feel better yourself
I'm not from California but this to me seems like a great case to move to California. Why not ship your externality creating activities elsewhere? Its not like they pay more for the iPhone.
But you also want smart phones, electric cars, and a navy. There needs to be a path towards doing things other than foisting them on people who are out of sight.
> This has 70 upvotes within 30 minutes. This feels like an astroturf.
Not really surprising given the audience, HN has an awful lot of neo-Technolibertarian types.
The kind who used to complain about government regulation of free speech, and now complain about anything that gets in the way of amassing massive amounts of capital at any social/environmental/political cost.
Oil refineries in particular are interesting because the sources for the blend of gasoline California requires[0] are either in CA itself or are few and far away. This means that gasoline prices are susceptible to greater supply shocks and so on. Many US regulations follow from California exercising its large market to induce companies to change their policies (electronic one-click cancel, CCPA, No Surprises in healthcare billing) but this one hasn't quite had the same effect.
One can hope that most Californians switch to BEVs from ICE vehicles before this becomes more of a constraint.
Gasoline usage externalities are poorly priced-in so the resulting increase in cost of gasoline here is probably overall a good thing. If we had appropriate carbon/sulphur/etc pricing on the outputs, I think it would be less justifiable since then the externalities would be priced in.
Ya a lot of people on this site are ideologically positioned in a way that required demonizing CA. I don’t have any skin in that game but it seems pretty clearly A Thing to me from the other side of the country.
A lot of these are actually grandfathered in. Vulcanization, electrolysis, auto painting, etc. I think the emphasis is that CA has effectively made it difficult to get regulatory authorities to agree to issue new permits. That was the part that stood out to me.
Over the last few months to year I've noticed haaaardcore influx of random accounts created seconds before posting some divisive or incendiary comment, as well as general "shifting sands" feeling like the HN of old is getting manipulated a lot. The Claw thing feels like another such instance.
Unfortunately the time of not being able to trust anything on the internet seems to have finally arrived :/
> The permitting and regulatory process is so extremely hostile that even when you want to and are able to do so safely and without emissions, it’s impossible.
This didn't occur in a vacuum. Business interests and their aligned politicians fought successfully for a century for their freedom to destroy human health and life in pursuit of profit. Many died, many were injured and countless more had their lifespans cut short. There's obviously legitimate concerns about over-regulation, but concerns about corporate abuse of power are just as legitimate if not more so based on the history. And it's not unopposed either, but most of the backlash in California has centered on housing construction and occupational licensing - not the rights of investors to build new industrial facilities in a post-industrial state.
Being unable to start a project without doing 5 years of legal wrangling once you put shovel to earth may not be a "ban", but it sure doesn't encourage development.
Agreed, words matter.
There are a lot of smart people out there, and the writer of this site makes me skeptical when he/she exaggerates, omits or spins info. Tell us all the facts at least, so we can trust you.
I've been following Sam for awhile, his business model makes heavy use of outsourcing production of components to skilled partners. It's no sweat off him if he makes the Impulse stove in California or not.
His point is that it's impossible to manufacture much of anything in California if you aren't grandfathered in. Seems pretty important for economic and security issues.
The electric induction cooktop he and his team has made is pretty cool! I'd check it out.
Editorial Channel
What the content says
0.00
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Low
Editorial
0.00
SETL
ND
Content does not directly address equal dignity or inherent rights.
-0.15
Article 19Freedom of Expression
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.15
SETL
-0.09
The content presents a one-sided argument against industrial regulation without disclosing its author, funding, or organizational affiliation. This lack of transparency undermines the ability of readers to evaluate potential conflicts of interest or ideological bias, limiting their capacity to freely form opinions on the subject.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
No author name, organization, or funding source is disclosed on the site.
The site presents detailed technical criticisms of California's regulatory environment without attribution or author identification.
Inferences
The anonymous ownership prevents readers from evaluating potential financial interests in deregulation, thereby limiting their ability to freely assess the information.
The combination of strong advocacy framing and lack of disclosure suggests the content may not be transparent about its persuasive intent, limiting informed public opinion formation.
-0.20
Article 7Equality Before Law
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.20
SETL
ND
Content frames industrial regulation as a form of systemic discrimination against California's economy and industry, but does not acknowledge that such regulations may have been enacted in response to historical discrimination against low-income and environmental justice communities disproportionately burdened by industrial pollution.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The site presents California's regulatory environment as uniformly restrictive without discussing the history of environmental justice movements or communities disproportionately harmed by industrial pollution.
No mention of communities that benefited from stricter emission standards or occupational health protections.
Inferences
The absence of discussion about whose interests regulations protect suggests the content does not engage with Article 7's protection against discrimination based on geographic or community status.
The frame implicitly positions regulated industries and large manufacturers as victims of discrimination, rather than considering potential discrimination against vulnerable communities exposed to industrial hazards.
-0.25
PreamblePreamble
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.25
SETL
ND
Content frames industrial regulation as universally burdensome and economically damaging without acknowledging the rationales underlying such regulations (worker safety, environmental protection, public health). The preamble's emphasis on what 'you can no longer permit' adopts a deregulatory frame rather than one centered on dignity, equality, or collective welfare.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The site's headline frames regulations as restrictions on what industries 'can no longer permit' in California.
Three industrial case studies (smartphone, EV, destroyer) are presented without discussion of regulatory rationales such as worker health, environmental protection, or public safety.
Inferences
The framing prioritizes industrial permitting ease over the protective purposes of regulation, suggesting an implicit stance that deregulation is desirable.
The absence of counterarguments or acknowledgment of regulatory benefits suggests the content adopts a one-sided perspective on industrial policy.
-0.25
Article 26Education
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.25
SETL
-0.19
Content frames environmental and occupational regulations as impediments to education and development, presenting the regulatory environment as a barrier to technological and economic progress. However, it does not acknowledge that strong environmental and occupational standards can themselves be a form of human development—enabling workers and communities to develop in healthy, safe conditions.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The site argues that semiconductor fabrication, battery manufacturing, and shipyard operations cannot be developed in California due to regulatory constraints, framing this as a development loss.
No discussion of alternative development models or educational benefits of strong occupational and environmental standards is presented.
Inferences
The content frames regulation as antithetical to development, rather than recognizing that healthy, safe working conditions and environmental protection are essential to human development.
The structural inaccessibility means the site itself fails to support Article 26 rights for users with disabilities to access educational content.
-0.30
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.30
SETL
-0.24
Content frames industrial regulation as a blanket restriction without acknowledging that such regulations may be designed to protect marginalized workers, immigrant laborers, and low-income communities from occupational hazards and environmental contamination. The narrative omits these protection rationales, implicitly suggesting that anti-discrimination and protection provisions are secondary to industrial freedom.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The site presents industrial regulation as universally restrictive without explaining that some regulations target protection of vulnerable worker populations.
No explicit discussion of workers, communities, or marginalized populations appears in the case studies.
Inferences
The omission of worker protection and vulnerable community perspectives suggests the content frames Article 2 protections as secondary to industrial permitting freedom.
The accessibility barriers identified in the DCP mean the content itself may violate Article 2 protections for users with disabilities.
-0.30
Article 25Standard of Living
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.30
SETL
-0.24
Content implicitly frames environmental health protections as obstacles to economic development, without acknowledging that clean air, water, and a healthy environment are necessary for the security of health and well-being referenced in Article 25. The focus on regulatory burden obscures the health and welfare rationales for such protections.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Air quality restrictions on paint shops, emission standards for semiconductor fabs, and wastewater permitting for electroplating are presented as burdensome without discussing their health protection rationales.
The site's interactive diagrams are not described as having accessible alternatives, limiting access for visually impaired users.
Inferences
The framing of health and environmental regulations as obstacles suggests the content does not recognize these protections as essential to Article 25's right to health and well-being.
The structural accessibility barriers mean the content itself may violate Article 25 protections by excluding users with disabilities from health-related information about industrial impacts.
-0.35
Article 6Legal Personhood
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.35
SETL
ND
The content implicitly frames environmental and occupational regulations as restrictions on the 'right to work' and economic activity, without acknowledging that these regulations exist to protect the right to life and health of workers and communities. By presenting regulation purely as a burden, the content obscures the competing right to safe working conditions and environmental health.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The site presents automotive paint shops, semiconductor fabrication, and foundry operations as 'impossible' to permit in California without explaining that air quality and emission restrictions protect worker and public health.
Battery manufacturing is described as 'effectively impossible' without mentioning that chemical handling protocols protect worker safety from toxic solvents and lithium compounds.
Inferences
The framing treats occupational health and safety regulations as obstacles to economic rights rather than as complementary protections of workers' right to life and health.
The omission of worker perspectives or union voices suggests the content does not engage with Article 6's protections for workers' dignity and safety.
-0.40
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.40
SETL
ND
Content frames occupational and environmental safety regulations as impediments to economic opportunity and labor, without acknowledging that such regulations exist to protect workers' right to just and favorable working conditions, safe environments, and protection from exploitation. By presenting regulation as uniformly restrictive, the content implicitly subordinates worker protections to industrial freedom.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Battery manufacturing, paint shops, and foundry operations are described as 'impossible' or 'extremely difficult' to permit without explaining that these restrictions protect workers from toxic exposure to solvents, volatile organic compounds, and heavy metal hazards.
No worker voices, union perspectives, or occupational health expert input is included in the analysis.
Inferences
The absence of worker or labor union perspectives suggests the content does not engage with Article 23's emphasis on workers' rights to just conditions, safe environments, and dignity in work.
The framing treats safety regulations as barriers to economic activity rather than as protections complementary to workers' rights, suggesting an implicit dismissal of occupational health as a priority.
ND
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Not engaged.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
Not engaged.
ND
Article 5No Torture
Not engaged.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
Not engaged.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
Not engaged.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
Not engaged.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
Not engaged.
ND
Article 12Privacy
Not engaged.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
Not engaged.
ND
Article 14Asylum
Not engaged.
ND
Article 15Nationality
Not engaged.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
Not engaged.
ND
Article 17Property
Not engaged.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
Not engaged.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
Not engaged.
ND
Article 21Political Participation
Not engaged.
ND
Article 22Social Security
Not engaged.
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
Not engaged.
ND
Article 27Cultural Participation
Not engaged.
ND
Article 28Social & International Order
Not engaged.
ND
Article 29Duties to Community
Not engaged.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Not engaged.
Structural Channel
What the site does
Domain Context Profile
Element
Modifier
Affects
Note
Privacy
—
No privacy policy or data collection mechanisms observed on domain.
Terms of Service
—
No terms of service found on-domain.
Accessibility
-0.10
Article 2 Article 25 Article 26
Interactive diagrams lack apparent alt-text or accessible descriptions; visual-heavy design may exclude users with visual impairments.
Mission
-0.15
Article 6 Article 23 Article 25
Content frames industrial regulation as burdensome and restrictive without acknowledging health, environmental, or worker safety rationales; implicit pro-deregulation stance.
Editorial Code
—
No editorial standards or corrections policy observed.
Ownership
-0.10
Article 19
No author, organization, or funding disclosed; anonymous ownership obscures potential conflicts of interest.
Access Model
—
Content is freely accessible with no paywall.
Ad/Tracking
—
No visible advertising or tracking mechanisms observed.
-0.10
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Medium Framing
Structural
-0.10
Context Modifier
-0.10
SETL
-0.24
The site's visual design is not described as accessible to users with disabilities (per DCP: 'Interactive diagrams lack apparent alt-text or accessible descriptions'). This structural limitation may exclude users with visual impairments from engaging with the content.
-0.10
Article 19Freedom of Expression
Medium Framing
Structural
-0.10
Context Modifier
-0.10
SETL
-0.09
Per DCP, no author, organization, or funding is disclosed on-domain ('anonymous ownership obscures potential conflicts of interest'). This structural limitation impairs readers' ability to assess the credibility and potential bias of the source, limiting the free expression dimension of Article 19.
-0.10
Article 25Standard of Living
Medium Framing
Structural
-0.10
Context Modifier
-0.25
SETL
-0.24
The site's accessibility barriers (lack of alt-text on interactive diagrams) exclude users with visual impairments from accessing health-related information about industrial impacts, violating the structural dimension of Article 25.
-0.10
Article 26Education
Medium Framing
Structural
-0.10
Context Modifier
-0.10
SETL
-0.19
The accessibility barriers identified in the DCP limit the ability of users with disabilities to access and learn from the site's content, creating a structural barrier to Article 26 education and development rights.
ND
PreamblePreamble
Medium Framing
Not applicable.
ND
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Low
Not applicable.
ND
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Not applicable.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
Not applicable.
ND
Article 5No Torture
Not applicable.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
Medium Framing
Not applicable.
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
Medium Framing
Not applicable.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
Not applicable.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
Not applicable.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
Not applicable.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
Not applicable.
ND
Article 12Privacy
Not applicable.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
Not applicable.
ND
Article 14Asylum
Not applicable.
ND
Article 15Nationality
Not applicable.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
Not applicable.
ND
Article 17Property
Not applicable.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
Not applicable.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
Not applicable.
ND
Article 21Political Participation
Not applicable.
ND
Article 22Social Security
Not applicable.
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
Medium Framing
Not applicable.
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
Not applicable.
ND
Article 27Cultural Participation
Not applicable.
ND
Article 28Social & International Order
Not applicable.
ND
Article 29Duties to Community
Not applicable.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Not applicable.
Supplementary Signals
Epistemic Quality
0.37high claims
Sources
0.4
Evidence
0.5
Uncertainty
0.3
Purpose
0.2
Propaganda Flags
4techniques detected
loaded language
Terms like 'banned,' 'impossible,' 'effectively impossible,' 'extremely difficult,' and 'restricted' are used repeatedly to characterize regulations in emotionally charged language that frames regulation as categorically prohibitive rather than risk-managed.
causal oversimplification
The content attributes Tesla's choice to build Gigafactories in Nevada and Texas, and the Cybertruck factory in Austin, solely to California's permitting environment, without discussing other factors such as labor costs, land availability, incentives, or proximity to supply chains.
false dilemma
Content presents a choice between permitting new industrial facilities (with all their hazards) and having zero manufacturing capacity. It does not discuss alternative approaches such as improving existing facility efficiency, modernizing grandfathered facilities, or supporting alternative industries.
appeal to authority
The content references major corporations (Tesla, Intel, TSMC, Samsung, General Dynamics NASSCO) making decisions to locate outside California as implicit endorsement of the claim that California's regulations are prohibitively burdensome, without citing regulatory experts, health researchers, or occupational safety authorities.
Solution Orientation
0.16problem only
Reader Agency
0.1
Emotional Tone
alarmist
Valence
-0.6
Arousal
0.7
Dominance
0.3
Stakeholder Voice
0.151 perspective
Speaks: corporation
About: workersmarginalizedgovernmentinstitution
Temporal Framing
presentshort term
Geographic Scope
national
California, Nevada, Texas, Bay Area, San Diego, West Coast
Complexity
moderatemedium jargongeneral
Transparency
0.00
✗ Author✗ Conflicts✗ Funding
Event Timeline
20 events
2026-02-26 03:39
eval_success
Evaluated: Neutral (-0.33)
--
2026-02-26 03:12
self_throttle
Self-throttle: ramp-up guard: state 68s stale
--
2026-02-26 03:10
credit_exhausted
Credit balance too low, retrying in 344s
--
2026-02-26 02:30
eval_success
Evaluated: Mild negative (-0.13)
--
2026-02-26 02:24
dlq_replay
DLQ message 35 replayed: Banned in California
--
2026-02-26 02:24
dlq_replay
DLQ message 22 replayed: Banned in California
--
2026-02-26 01:54
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Banned in California
--
2026-02-26 01:54
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Banned in California
--
2026-02-26 01:54
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Banned in California
--
2026-02-26 01:54
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Banned in California
--
2026-02-26 01:54
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Banned in California
--
2026-02-26 01:54
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Banned in California
--
2026-02-26 01:54
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Banned in California
--
2026-02-26 01:53
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Banned in California
--
2026-02-26 01:18
eval_retry
Anthropic API error 400
--
2026-02-26 01:18
eval_failure
Evaluation failed: Error: Anthropic API error 400: {"type":"error","error":{"type":"invalid_request_error","message":"Your credit balance is too low to access the Anthropic API. Please go to Plans & Billing to upgrade o
--
2026-02-26 01:18
eval_retry
Anthropic API error 400
--
2026-02-26 01:18
eval_failure
Evaluation failed: Error: Anthropic API error 400: {"type":"error","error":{"type":"invalid_request_error","message":"Your credit balance is too low to access the Anthropic API. Please go to Plans & Billing to upgrade o