What each provider’s terms say about selling credits
Before price, before buyers, before anything: is the arrangement permitted at all? That answer lives in documents the providers publish and almost nobody reads. We read them, quote them exactly, link them, and date every entry. Three of the five prohibit transfer in writing. Two have published no rule specifically about it, which is not the same as allowing it.
All entries last read end to end on 2026-10-03. We are an introduction service, not a law firm, and this page is a reading aid rather than legal advice — your own agreement with your provider governs.
The short version
| Provider | Published position | Checked |
|---|---|---|
| Amazon Web Services | Prohibited in writing, and the credit carries no cash value. | 2026-10-03 |
| Anthropic | Prohibited in writing, and use is limited to the account holder. | 2026-10-03 |
| OpenAI | The Service Credit Terms prohibit transfer and sale of service credits. | 2026-10-03 |
| Google Cloud | No published credit-transfer clause; assignment needs written consent. | 2026-10-03 |
| Microsoft Azure | No single rule; the offer the credit came from decides. | 2026-10-03 |
Amazon Web Services
Prohibited in published terms“You may not sell, license, rent, or otherwise transfer Promotional Credit.”
There is no reading of this that makes a straight sale of AWS promotional credit permissible, and the same section states the credit has no intrinsic value and is not redeemable for cash. What people sometimes mean by selling AWS credits is something else entirely — a sale of the company or account the credit belongs to, as part of a wider transaction — and that is governed by the AWS Customer Agreement rather than by the credit terms. If you are holding AWS Activate or promotional credit and hoping to convert it to cash on its own, the honest answer is that we are very unlikely to be able to help.
Anthropic
Prohibited in published terms“Customer may not transfer or sell Credits, whether paid for or provided as part of a promotion, to any other person or entity”
The same sentence goes on to say credits may only be used by the holder of the account they are associated with, which closes the obvious workaround: handing over keys so someone else spends the balance is use by a non-holder. Note the breadth — it covers paid credit as well as promotional. Anthropic is the clearest of the five, and it is clear in the restrictive direction.
OpenAI
Prohibited in published termsNo verbatim quote published here. We only print one when we have read the exact words at the source link below, and this provider either states the position elsewhere or does not state it at all — the paragraph that follows says which.
Read the Service Credit Terms yourself — the link is below and the document is short. Alongside the transfer restriction, the practical obstacle with OpenAI is structural: the balance belongs to an organisation along with its API keys, usage tier and model access, so there is no object to hand over that is smaller than the organisation itself.
Google Cloud
No credit-specific clause, restricted by anotherNo verbatim quote published here. We only print one when we have read the exact words at the source link below, and this provider either states the position elsewhere or does not state it at all — the paragraph that follows says which.
This is the finding that surprised us. The Google Cloud Platform Terms of Service contain no clause specifically about selling or transferring credits. What governs an attempt is the general assignment clause, which requires the other party's prior written consent and makes an attempted assignment without it void — so the absence of a credit-specific prohibition is not permission, it just means the restriction arrives by a different route. Paid credit is governed further by the Supplemental Paid Credit Terms, and programme credits carry their own conditions on top.
Microsoft Azure
Depends on the offer it came fromNo verbatim quote published here. We only print one when we have read the exact words at the source link below, and this provider either states the position elsewhere or does not state it at all — the paragraph that follows says which.
Azure credit arrives through several distinct offers and they do not share one set of terms, so there is no single sentence to quote. Credit sits against a billing profile under the subscription agreement, and the offer-specific terms carry the real restrictions: the Visual Studio subscriber credit, for one, is documented as being for development and testing workloads rather than production. Before anything else, establish which offer yours came from — that question decides the rest of the conversation, and it is the one sellers most often cannot answer.
So what can actually be done?
Less than the market implies, and more than nothing. The listings we can act on tend to have two things in common: the holder can name the agreement their credit was issued under, and that agreement permits what is being proposed — sometimes outright, sometimes with the provider’s written consent, sometimes because the credit moves as part of a larger transaction rather than on its own.
Where that is not the case we say so, and it is the most common outcome of a review. We would rather lose a listing than introduce someone into an arrangement that gets their account closed. The verification page sets out exactly how far our checks go and where they stop, and selling AI credits covers the practical side for holders.
Found something wrong here?
These documents change without notice, and a page like this is only worth reading if it is corrected when it drifts. If a quote no longer matches its source, or a provider has published something we have missed, tell us and we will check it, correct it and re-date the entry. webuyapi@gmail.com.