ACCC Sues Microsoft Australia Over Copilot Pricing in 2.7 Million Subscriptions

Australia’s competition regulator has launched Federal Court proceedings accusing Microsoft Australia and its U.S. parent of misleading roughly 2.7 million Microsoft 365 subscribers by bundling its Copilot generative-AI assistant into consumer Microsoft 365 Personal and Family plans, raising renewal prices and — the regulator says — obscuring a lower‑cost “Classic” option until customers began the cancellation flow.

Background​

Microsoft began integrating Copilot into consumer Microsoft 365 plans in late 2024 and completed a broader rollout in January 2025; the company framed the move as a productivity enhancement that justified higher subscription pricing. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) says the integration went live for consumer Personal and Family plans in Australia on 31 October 2024, with public communications and targeted emails following as the company migrated subscribers to the new tiers.
The ACCC’s complaint centers on three communications — two targeted emails sent to auto‑renewing subscribers and a public blog post — that the regulator says created a misleading binary choice: either accept the Copilot‑integrated higher price or cancel. The regulator alleges Microsoft omitted a contemporaneous disclosure that a Microsoft 365 “Personal Classic” and “Family Classic” plan (which retained prior features and price without Copilot) was available — an option the ACCC says only appeared late in the cancellation workflow.
The key numeric claims in the ACCC’s initiating materials are clear and consequential: the Personal annual plan rose from A$109 to A$159 (≈45%) and the Family annual plan rose from A$139 to A$179 (≈29%), and the regulator contends roughly 2.7 million Australian subscribers were affected. Those headline numbers form the backbone of the ACCC’s harm narrative.

---

What the ACCC alleges — the legal core​

The factual complaint​

The ACCC frames its case as one of misleading or deceptive conduct by omission under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The regulator alleges Microsoft:

• Told auto‑renewing subscribers they could either accept Copilot (and the higher renewal price) or cancel their subscription; and
• Failed to properly disclose, at the same time and in the same customer-facing notices, that an alternative Classic SKU — retaining the prior feature set and the lower price — was available to existing subscribers.

The ACCC has published a concise statement and screenshots drawn from its initiating court documents that it says show the Classic option surfacing only when subscribers had already begun the cancellation process. Those screenshots are central to the regulator’s claim that the communication design created a materially misleading impression at the moment of renewal.

Remedies sought​

The ACCC is seeking a suite of remedies available under the ACL:

• Civil penalties (the maximum is the greater of A$50 million, three times the benefits derived from the conduct, or 30% of adjusted turnover for the relevant period per contravention);
• Declarations and injunctions requiring corrective conduct;
• Consumer redress (refunds, credits or other forms of compensation for affected subscribers); and
• Reimbursement of legal costs.

Those remedies are standard for large-scale consumer protection litigation, and they highlight the potential scale of financial exposure even for well-capitalized tech firms.

---

Timeline: key dates and public record​

• October 31, 2024 — ACCC says Copilot integration began for consumer Microsoft 365 Personal and Family plans in Australia.
• January 2025 — Microsoft expanded the consumer rollout with public announcements and pricing updates.
• Throughout 2025 — Microsoft published product posts and support articles that discussed Copilot and the availability of Classic SKUs as migration paths. The ACCC’s complaint targets specific subscriber-facing emails and a blog post sent or published in the run-up to renewals.
• October 27, 2025 — The ACCC commenced Federal Court proceedings against Microsoft Australia Pty Ltd and Microsoft Corporation.

Cross‑checking independent reporting confirms these dates and the broad factual outline of the complaint: contemporaneous corporate materials show Classic SKUs and opt‑out pathways existed, while the regulator’s initiating documents allege those options were not sufficiently visible in the notices that mattered to auto‑renewing subscribers.

---

Verifiable facts vs. allegations — what’s proven and what isn’t​

• Verifiable: The ACCC filed court documents on 27 October 2025 and published a media release and concise statement that articulate its allegations and attach screenshots from the user journey; the headline price increases and the approximate affected cohort appear consistently across the ACCC record and independent reporting.
• Allegation, not proof: The claim that Microsoft deliberately concealed the Classic option to push customers onto pricier Copilot tiers is an allegation of intent. Intent is legally significant but requires discovery to substantiate; until internal documents or witness testimony are produced in court, statements about motive remain unproven and should be treated as such. The ACCC itself frames certain statements as allegations the Court must decide.
• Partially verifiable: Microsoft’s public product and support pages do document the existence of Classic plans and migration paths, but the ACCC’s complaint pivots on which communications were sent to which subscribers and when — matters of timing, placement, and UX design that are determinable from the documentary record but which must be tested in discovery. Independent reporting and Microsoft’s own pages corroborate the existence of alternatives, but they do not resolve the ACCC’s central claim about what a reasonable auto‑renewing consumer would have understood from the specific emails and blog post.

---

Microsoft’s foreseeable defensive lines​

Based on the public record and prior regulatory encounters with platform companies, Microsoft is likely to mount a defense with several core elements:

• Public disclosure: Pointing to published blog posts, support pages, and help articles that described Copilot, the new pricing, and the alternative Classic SKUs as contemporaneous public disclosures. Microsoft has previously described Classic SKUs and migration paths in consumer-facing materials.
• Reasonable consumer standard: Arguing that the communications, read in their entirety and considered against the typical consumer’s expectations, did not mislead; Microsoft will contest the ACCC’s characterization of what the “reasonable consumer” would have understood. This is a common battleground in consumer law disputes.
• Causation and uptake: Challenging the causal link between any alleged omission and actual economic harm; Microsoft may show that a large share of subscribers knowingly accepted Copilot or that the Classic SKU was accessible through account settings or support channels. The company can also contest the ACCC’s estimate of how many users renewed at a higher price because they were misled.
• Regulatory cooperation and compliance: Emphasizing willingness to cooperate with regulators and to adjust communications or offer remediation if the Court finds deficiencies. Microsoft’s public posture in other regulatory contexts has leaned on collaboration and corrective steps where appropriate.

---

Why this case matters beyond Australia​

This litigation is a bellwether for how regulators worldwide will treat the monetization of AI features within large, subscription-based ecosystems.

• Subscription UX and consumer protection: Modern subscription systems rely on default settings, auto‑renew mechanics, and multi‑step account flows. Regulators are increasingly scrutinizing not just the text of notices, but the timing and placement of disclosures in user experiences. If the ACCC prevails, it could require companies to disclose downgrade or legacy options with the same prominence as upgraded bundles.
• Monetising AI at scale: Tech giants are integrating paid AI features into existing products to fund compute costs and to create differentiated tiers. Courts and regulators will now test whether those product and pricing decisions meet consumer‑protection norms, particularly where millions of recurring consumers are involved.
• Global regulatory imitation: A finding against Microsoft could encourage other competition and consumer authorities — in the EU, UK, US states and elsewhere — to scrutinize similar rollouts. Conversely, a win for Microsoft would give product teams more latitude to use UX and targeted communications to steer opt‑in/opt‑out behavior. Either outcome will shape product rollout playbooks for years.

---

Practical implications for WindowsForum readers and consumers​

Short-term, every subscription user should treat this litigation as both a warning and an opportunity:

• Check your SKU: Visit account.microsoft.com (or the Microsoft 365 subscription page in the account portal) and confirm whether you’re on a Copilot-enabled SKU or a Classic/legacy SKU. If you’re on auto‑renew, note the renewal date and the price that will apply.
• Preserve records: If you believe you were misled, save emails, screenshots of the renewal notices and the cancellation flow, and any chat transcripts with support. These artifacts are precisely the sort of evidence regulators and courts rely on in consumer cases.
• Evaluate real value: Assess how much you actually use Copilot features. Heavy users may find the price delta reasonable; light users might prefer a Classic SKU, alternatives like Google Workspace, or standalone Office license models. Consider the function‑for‑price equation, especially for family plans.
• Consider support remediation: If charged unexpectedly or without clear notice, contact Microsoft support and raise the issue; if unsatisfied, file a formal complaint and preserve the complaint reference number. Regulatory complaints can be pivotal in attracting official scrutiny.

---

Technical and product-team takeaways​

For developers, product managers and UX designers, the ACCC action underlines three operational imperatives when altering subscription products:

• Make downgrade/legacy options equally discoverable: When a new paid feature is included in a previously standing plan, legacy alternatives must be as visible and actionable as the upgraded path — especially for users on auto‑renew. Burying alternatives deep in cancellation flows risks regulatory intervention.
• Document the disclosure path: Maintain auditable records of what communications were sent, to whom, and when. If a regulator questions whether an option was disclosed contemporaneously, timestamped evidence from automated systems becomes decisive.
• Reassess dark‑pattern risks: Interface designs that nudge users toward a provider-favored choice — even if technically legal — may run afoul of consumer-protection standards. Product teams must balance commercial objectives with compliance and reputational risk.

---

Potential penalties and commercial exposure​

Australian law provides significant penalty tools: per contravention fines can be the greater of A$50 million, three times the benefit derived, or 30% of adjusted turnover for the relevant period if benefits are hard to calculate. Given the scale (millions of users) and Microsoft’s revenue base, the ACCC’s request for direct penalties and consumer redress could result in material financial exposure depending on the Court’s findings and the number of contraventions proven. However, any final sum will depend on court determinations about the frequency of contraventions, causation of harm, and whether conduct was deliberate.
Beyond fines, reputational damage and mandated changes to communication practices or default settings could be commercially consequential. The cost of remediation — refunds, redesign of user flows, and enhanced compliance processes — can be non‑trivial even if monetary penalties are moderate.

---

Broader regulatory and policy context​

Regulators globally are rapidly developing frameworks and enforcement approaches for digital markets, subscriptions, and AI. The ACCC case sits at the intersection of:

• Consumer protection law — focused on misleading conduct and material omissions;
• Competition policy — attentive to dominant platforms using integrated services to extract rents; and
• AI governance debates — about transparency, value attribution, and consumer consent for AI features that materially change product propositions.

The outcome will likely be cited by other authorities as precedent for how subscription changes — especially when tied to monetized AI features — must be presented to existing customers. Corporations that previously treated consumer notices as a low‑risk operational exercise may need to rethink disclosure design and legal clearances.

---

Risks and open questions​

• The precise number of subscribers who in fact paid the higher price because they were misled — as opposed to those who knowingly accepted Copilot — is not yet public and will be contested. The ACCC’s 2.7 million figure identifies the affected cohort but not the causal split. Treat the 2.7 million number as the population exposed to the communications in question rather than proof of universal harm.
• Internal Microsoft deliberations and A/B testing data that could show intent or demonstrate UX choices are not public. Those materials are only discoverable through litigation and will be decisive on questions of design intent versus inadvertent omission. Any statements about deliberate concealment remain allegations until supported by documentation produced in discovery.
• The case’s outcome may hinge on nuanced legal standards about omission and reasonable consumer interpretation; a factually similar set of communications could be judged differently in another jurisdiction with distinct consumer-law doctrines. International implications are likely, but not mechanically deterministic.

---

Practical checklist: steps for concerned subscribers​

• Log into your Microsoft account and confirm your subscription SKU and next renewal date.
• Take screenshots of any renewal emails and the account subscription page. Preserve them if you dispute a charge.
• If you were auto‑renewed and believe you were misled, contact Microsoft support, ask for an account escalation and record the support reference.
• File a formal complaint with your local consumer‑protection agency if unsatisfied; regulators often act after aggregating many consumer reports.
• Consider switching to alternative productivity suites or perpetual-license options if you want to avoid subscription-based AI charges.

---

Conclusion​

The ACCC’s lawsuit against Microsoft is the most visible early test of how consumer law will adapt to an economy where AI becomes both a product feature and a separate monetization lever inside ubiquitous subscription services. At stake are not merely potential fines, but the legal standards that will govern how companies announce, design and implement paid AI features in mass-market software.
For consumers, the litigation is a timely reminder to scrutinize renewal notices and to document interactions; for product teams, it is a clear signal that transparency and discoverability must be baked into subscriptions when material changes affect price or core functionality. The Federal Court’s handling of the documentary record and the evidentiary proof of consumer harm will produce a precedent that shapes whether and how AI is monetized within packaged‑software subscriptions going forward.

---

Source: The Economic Times Australia sues Microsoft over 'misleading' AI offer - The Economic Times