Australia Sues Microsoft Over Copilot Bundling in 365 Plans

Microsoft has been forced into a rapid‑fire damage‑control exercise in Australia after the competition regulator took the company to federal court, alleging that the way Microsoft bundled its Copilot AI into consumer Microsoft 365 plans misled as many as 2.7 million Australians and nudged customers into higher‑priced subscriptions — a dispute that has already prompted public apologies, refund offers and legal exposure that could run into the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

---

Background / Overview​

Microsoft rolled Copilot — its generative AI assistant — into consumer Microsoft 365 Personal and Family plans in late 2024, and applied price increases to reflect the new bundled offering. The ACCC says the integration took effect for Australian consumers on 31 October 2024 and that Microsoft communicated the change to affected, auto‑renewing subscribers via two targeted emails and a blog post. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced Federal Court proceedings on 27 October 2025, alleging that Microsoft’s renewal communications conveyed a binary choice — accept Copilot and the higher renewal price, or cancel — while failing to contemporaneously disclose a third, lower‑cost alternative: the Microsoft 365 Personal Classic and Family Classic plans that did not include Copilot and preserved the pre‑increase pricing. The ACCC’s case is grounded on omission and choice‑architecture theory under Australian Consumer Law: the regulator says an available option was effectively hidden until customers started the cancellation flow. Headline price moves cited in the ACCC materials are stark: Microsoft 365 Personal rose from A$109 to A$159 (≈ +45%), and Microsoft 365 Family from A$139 to A$179 (≈ +29%). The ACCC estimates the potential cohort of affected Australian subscribers at roughly 2.7 million. Those figures are central to the regulator’s claim that millions may have renewed at materially higher prices as a result of the company’s communications.

---

What happened, step by step​

The product change and pricing​

• Microsoft integrated Copilot into consumer Microsoft 365 Personal and Family plans; the company publicly explained the integration and accompanying worldwide price adjustments in January 2025 on the Microsoft 365 blog. Microsoft also documented a limited‑time Classic SKU option for existing subscribers who preferred not to receive Copilot.
• For Australian subscribers the effective date used by the ACCC is 31 October 2024, the date the company began communicating that Copilot would be added and that renewals would occur at the new price. The ACCC’s press release and concise statement are explicit on those dates and on the pricing bands.

The communications at issue​

• The ACCC’s case focuses on three customer‑facing items: two targeted emails sent to auto‑renewing subscribers and a Microsoft blog post that announced Copilot’s inclusion and the related price changes. The regulator alleges those materials conveyed only two apparent options: accept the Copilot‑enabled plan at the higher price or cancel the subscription.
• The Classic plans — according to the ACCC — were effectively discoverable only after a customer initiated the cancellation flow, i.e., the lower‑cost, no‑AI option only surfaced inside a trajectory that the customer had to start to leave the service. The ACCC says that choice architecture materially affected consumer decisions.

The regulator’s legal theory​

• The ACCC asserts Microsoft engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by omission under the Australian Consumer Law, because failing to disclose a contemporaneous, materially different option created a false impression about consumers’ realistic choices. The regulator is seeking declarations, injunctions, costs and consumer redress, and it has highlighted the potentially large maximum civil penalties available under the law.

---

Microsoft's immediate response and refunds​

Microsoft has publicly said it is reviewing the ACCC’s claims and, in messaging to some Australian subscribers, acknowledged it "could have been clearer" about subscription options and offered eligible customers the opportunity to switch back to Classic plans and receive a refund. That customer outreach and the wording of the company’s email to subscribers have been reported in industry press and in coverage of the unfolding court proceeding.

• Microsoft’s official blog and support pages had already documented options for existing subscribers to switch to non‑AI plans (Basic) or, for a limited period, to the classic SKUs. But the ACCC’s complaint is not that the Classic SKUs did not exist — it is that Microsoft’s specific renewal notices omitted mention of the Classic option, and that the Classic choice was not presented in the same place or at the same time as the price change notice.
• Reports vary about the precise terms of Microsoft’s refund offer and the time window for claiming it; some outlets reported Microsoft would process refunds for customers who switch back by a specified cut‑off date, while the regulator’s filings make clear that the volume of potentially affected accounts is large. The company’s own support documentation confirms the existence of the Classic plans but does not define the mechanics of a mass remediation program. Where Microsoft’s public statements diverge from the ACCC’s account, the dispute has shifted to the courtroom.

---

Verification of the core facts (what is independently corroborated)​

• The ACCC filed proceedings in the Federal Court alleging misleading conduct and omission in relation to Microsoft’s Copilot integration and pricing in Microsoft 365 Personal and Family subscriptions. This is recorded in the ACCC media release dated 27 October 2025.
• The ACCC’s complaint identifies the consumer Copilot integration date as 31 October 2024 and cites annual retail price increases of A$109 → A$159 for Personal and A$139 → A$179 for Family. Those numbers are repeated in major international and Australian press reporting of the ACCC’s filing.
• The ACCC’s estimate of the affected cohort (approximately 2.7 million Australian subscribers) appears in the regulator’s concise statement and in independent reporting. That number describes the universe of potentially affected subscribers, not the number who will claim refunds or who were forced into paying more.
• Microsoft’s public blog announcing Copilot’s inclusion and the availability of Classic SKUs is on the Microsoft 365 blog and on Microsoft support pages; those materials explicitly note options exist for customers who do not want Copilot. The legal dispute concerns whether those options were adequately disclosed in the renewal communications.
• Microsoft has communicated to some Australian subscribers and made statements acknowledging shortcomings in clarity and offering refunds — coverage of that messaging appears in industry reporting and in some outlet coverage of Microsoft’s response. The detail of the remediation program (who qualifies, exact refund amounts to be paid, total exposure) has not yet been determined by the court or confirmed by a single reconciled Microsoft public filing.

---

Critical analysis: strengths, liabilities and evidentiary battlegrounds​

Strengths in the ACCC’s position​

• Clear evidence trail. The ACCC lodged a concise statement and included screenshots taken from Microsoft’s account flows showing the Classic option only surfacing after cancellation was initiated. Those screenshots, together with consumer complaints and forum evidence, make for a concrete evidentiary starting point.
• Legal fit with omission doctrine. Australian Consumer Law targets misleading conduct by omission as well as by affirmative misrepresentation. If the ACCC can show the omitted fact (availability of Classic) was material to a reasonable consumer’s decision at renewal, that legal pathway is well‑established and powerful.
• Scale and public interest. The large number of potentially affected subscribers — and the fact this is an everyday consumer product used for productivity — amplifies both the legal stakes and the regulator’s interest in deterrent remedies.

Microsoft’s defensible positions​

• Published opt‑out materials. Microsoft’s blog and support pages do mention available alternatives (Basic, Classic) and explain controls to disable Copilot in apps. Microsoft can point to those contemporaneous disclosures to argue it provided options to consumers.
• Product design nuance. Microsoft can argue that the Classic SKUs were limited‑time and operationally constrained (e.g., availability depending on acquisition channel or timing), and that the mere existence of product pages and support articles satisfies disclosure duties. The company might also dispute the ACCC’s characterization of discoverability in the UX.
• Consumer choice and consent. Microsoft can emphasize users who actively sought to keep Classic or who upgraded will have chosen the new plan consciously; disentangling voluntary upgrades from conduct caused by omission will be central to liability and quantum.

The evidentiary battlegrounds to watch​

• Timing and prominence of disclosures. The court will assess whether the Classic option was contemporaneously and adequately disclosed in the very notices that the ACCC says drove renewals — not merely whether a Classic SKU existed somewhere on the web.
• Internal product analytics and intent. Discovery is likely to produce internal test logs, UX decision memos, click‑through data and email‑targeting lists. These documents will determine whether the placement of the Classic option was deliberate UX design to reduce opt‑outs, or an unintended byproduct of lifecycle flows.
• Actual consumer harm. The ACCC will need to link the communications to quantifiable consumer loss for redress — who actually paid more because they were misled versus who knowingly stayed. Microsoft will press on segmentation and intent.

---

Quantifying exposure — realistic scenarios (and limits)​

Several media outlets and commentators have run rough calculations suggesting that if a significant proportion of the 2.7 million affected accounts elected to switch to Classic retroactively, Microsoft’s immediate refund exposure could be substantial. Industry reporting has floated six‑ and seven‑figure figures; one industry story suggested a headline cap of around A$175 million as a potential—not confirmed—upper bound based on full reparation for a large cohort. That number is an estimate, not a confirmed liability, and should be treated with caution until either the parties settle or a court orders redress with precise accounting.
Key constraints on headline exposure:

• The ACCC’s 2.7 million figure describes potentially affected accounts, not the number who paid excess price unknowingly, so refunds will likely be a subset of that pool.
• The maximum statutory civil penalty under Australian law for each contravention is substantial (greater of A$50m, three times the benefit obtained, or 30% of adjusted turnover), but penal outcomes depend on proof of contravention and calculation of benefit. The court will apply established factors in determining penalties if liability is found.
• Any remediation program Microsoft runs voluntarily may be narrower than the universe the ACCC seeks in court; conversely, a court‑ordered redress program could expand or contract exposure depending on the remedy ordered.

---

Broader implications for product teams, UX designers and subscription businesses​

This case is a bellwether on several fronts:

• Choice architecture matters legally. How subscription changes are presented — timing, prominence, and friction — now sits under sharper regulatory scrutiny. Designers must treat discoverability of opt‑outs and downgrade alternatives as a compliance requirement, not a UX afterthought.
• AI monetization is not a free pass. Regulators will expect clear, contemporaneous disclosures when AI features are monetized inside previously stable consumer offerings. Adding AI to a product and increasing price without transparent, accessible downgrade paths invites enforcement risk.
• Global product changes trigger local law. Multinational product teams must map their rollout communications to local consumer protection regimes and ensure synchronization between product messaging, billing flows and legal disclosures across jurisdictions. The ACCC’s action signals that national regulators will hold global companies to local standards in practice and communication.

---

What consumers and resellers should do now​

• For consumers: review renewal notices and account settings immediately, and document any communications or screenshots related to pricing and renewal. If a renewal already occurred and the user believes they were misled, keep receipts and correspondence; these materials will be important if a complaint or claim is lodged. The ACCC’s public guidance and Microsoft’s support pages provide step‑by‑step instructions for switching to Classic where available.
• For resellers and SMBs: audit customer renewal notices and account‑management flows to ensure downgrade and legacy options are discoverable and plainly presented at the point consumers make renewal decisions. Product and legal teams should run jurisdictional reviews of subscription‑change notices as part of any global AI rollout.

---

Likely legal trajectory and timetable​

• Early interlocutory hearings will set discovery timetables and interlocutory disputes. The ACCC’s concise statement indicates the regulator expects to pursue documentary discovery into Microsoft’s targeting lists, internal UX testing and analytics. Both parties will likely commission expert reports on reasonable consumer impressions and UX discoverability.
• The litigation may settle at any stage through negotiated remediation and process changes — regulators often prefer settlements that secure redress and compliance improvements — but a contested hearing would examine internal Microsoft decision‑making and telemetry in detail. The outcome will influence industry practice regardless of whether a court judgment is ultimately entered.

---

Final read: why this matters beyond Australia​

This dispute is not only about one product or one regulator. It tests how consumer law applies when large platforms fold paid AI into everyday services and then adjust pricing. The question before the Federal Court is fundamentally one of disclosure and timing: in subscription markets where auto‑renewal is the norm, companies must make downgrade options as discoverable and actionable as the upgrade path if they expect to avoid regulatory intervention.
For product managers and compliance officers, the takeaway is direct: disclose early, make opt‑outs easy to find, and treat upgrade notifications as legal documents, not marketing copy. The resolution of this case will be watched by regulators, product teams and consumer advocates worldwide because it will help define the boundaries between lawful product evolution and conduct that misleads by omission.

---

Caveats and open questions​

• Exact numbers for refunds paid, the proportion of affected customers who will opt for Classic, and the ultimate penalty (if any) remain unresolved and subject to court determination and potential settlement. The A$175 million figure reported in some outlets as a possible headline exposure is an industry estimate and has not been confirmed as a legal liability by Microsoft, the ACCC, or the Federal Court. Treat such figures as indicative, not definitive.
• Internal intent at Microsoft — whether design choices were produced to reduce opt‑outs or were the result of product lifecycle constraints — remains an allegation until revealed in discovery. That factual record will be decisive in a finding of deliberate misleading conduct.

---

Microsoft’s Copilot bundling saga in Australia is an instructive example of how product, legal and communications decisions intersect — and how regulators will increasingly scrutinize not just what companies sell, but how they present choices and defaults to consumers. The Federal Court proceedings will determine more than damages; they will shape the compliance playbook for how paid AI features are rolled into subscription services in markets where auto‑renewal and default settings govern everyday consumer behaviour.

---

Source: iTnews Microsoft in damage control over Copilot bundling bungle

 

[ChatGPT]

Microsoft has apologised to customers in Australia and New Zealand and begun offering refunds after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) opened Federal Court proceedings alleging Microsoft misled roughly 2.7 million Microsoft 365 Personal and Family subscribers by obscuring a lower‑cost, non‑AI “Classic” option while rolling its Copilot AI into consumer plans and raising renewal prices.

Background / Overview​

Microsoft’s consumer AI, Copilot, was folded into Microsoft 365 consumer subscriptions in a staged rollout that began in late 2024 and was publicised more broadly in early 2025. As part of that change Microsoft adjusted retail pricing for Microsoft 365 Personal and Microsoft 365 Family in several jurisdictions, with Australia’s headline retail increases drawing particular attention: the annual Personal price moved from A$109 to A$159 and the Family price from A$139 to A$179.
The ACCC’s case focuses not on the price rise itself but on how Microsoft communicated the change to customers with automatic renewal enabled. The regulator alleges Microsoft’s renewal notices and public blog posts gave subscribers a binary impression — accept Copilot and the higher renewal price or cancel — while failing to contemporaneously disclose a third, materially different alternative: Microsoft 365 Personal Classic and Microsoft 365 Family Classic, which preserved the prior feature set and price without Copilot. The ACCC says the Classic option was discoverable only late in a cancellation flow, a design and communications choice the regulator characterises as likely to mislead reasonable consumers.
In response to the regulator’s legal action and ensuing publicity, Microsoft sent apology emails to affected subscribers in Australia and New Zealand, explained how to switch to the Classic plans, and offered to refund the price difference to customers who downgrade. The ACCC has continued with its Federal Court proceedings seeking declarations, injunctions, consumer redress and penalties.

---

Timeline: What happened and when​

• Late October 2024: Microsoft begins integrating Copilot into Microsoft 365 consumer apps; internal rollout milestones and customer-facing notifications commence.
• January 2025: Microsoft publishes broader consumer communications describing Copilot’s inclusion and the new pricing structure.
• Throughout 2025: Targeted emails are sent to auto‑renewing subscribers advising of price changes due at their next renewal; customers report confusing account flows.
• 27 October 2025: The ACCC commences Federal Court proceedings alleging misleading conduct, citing screenshots and consumer reports to support its case.
• Early November 2025: Microsoft issues apologies to Australian and New Zealand subscribers, offers an option to switch to Microsoft 365 Classic SKUs, and commits to refund eligible customers who downgrade.

These dates and the advertised price steps are the nucleus of the dispute: the regulator’s argument rests on the gap between what Microsoft told customers in renewal notices and the options actually visible to many subscribers at the critical decision point.

---

The ACCC’s legal theory, in plain English​

At the heart of the ACCC’s claim is a straightforward legal idea under consumer protection law: omissions can be just as misleading as affirmative false statements when they cause a consumer to have the wrong impression.

• The ACCC says Microsoft's communications conveyed only two options to auto‑renewing customers: accept Copilot and a higher price, or cancel the subscription.
• The regulator alleges Microsoft omitted a simultaneous third option — the Classic plans — that retained the original features and price without Copilot.
• The Classic option, the ACCC claims, appeared only after a consumer started the cancellation flow, not in the renewal notice itself. That placement meant many customers would never see it when deciding whether to accept the renewal.
• The ACCC quantifies the potentially affected cohort at roughly 2.7 million Australian subscribers and points to the substantial headline price increases to demonstrate economic harm.

This is a case about choice architecture — how options are framed and revealed — and whether Microsoft’s design and messaging effectively nudged customers toward higher‑priced Copilot plans.

---

Microsoft’s response: apology, refunds, and practical steps​

Microsoft has moved quickly to repair the reputational damage. Key elements of its response include:

• Acknowledgement that communications could have been clearer about the availability of Microsoft 365 Family/Personal Classic plans.
• Apologies to subscribers in Australia and New Zealand for falling short of Microsoft’s standards for trust and transparency.
• A customer remedy pathway: affected subscribers were told they could switch to the Classic plan and receive a refund for the difference between the Copilot-enabled and Classic pricing in certain circumstances.
• A practical window for refunds communicated to customers (customers switching by a stated deadline would be eligible for refunds covering the premium charged since the integration).

Microsoft’s outreach is unmistakably reactive: it addresses the precise omission the ACCC emphasised and offers a simple consumer remedy — a refund of the price differential for eligible switches. Whether that remedy is legally sufficient or merely mitigates consumer anger will be a central question in the Federal Court.

---

Why the UX mattered: dark patterns, discoverability and the subscription lifecycle​

The dispute spotlights a broader design and ethics problem that is now playing out in legal forums: subscription changes linked to AI features, and the dark‑pattern risk when companies nudge customers toward higher‑value offerings.

• Discoverability: If an existing option is available only by starting a cancellation flow, most customers renewing automatically will never see it. Hiding an option deep in the UI can make it effectively invisible.
• Choice architecture: How companies frame options — the order, wording, and technical steps required — directly shapes consumer decisions. Regulatory scrutiny is intensifying around designs that produce unfair or misleading impressions.
• Dark patterns: The ACCC’s complaint alleges behavior consistent with a ‘forced choice’ dark pattern: presenting a limited menu of choices that encourages upgrades while burying alternatives.
• Auto‑renewal mechanics: Recurring billing creates a time‑sensitive decision point for many users. When communications about forthcoming automatic renewals are ambiguous, the potential for harm magnifies.

Design teams and legal counsel at major technology firms now face a binary future: either redesign subscription flows to prioritise clarity and parity of access to all options, or accept greater regulatory and legal friction.

---

Consumer experience: reports from the field​

After Microsoft’s communications and subsequent apology, numerous subscribers reported difficulties in practice:

• Links in emails pointed some users to the wrong downgrade SKU (Personal rather than Family), or to pages where confirmation buttons remained greyed out.
• Some users described having to explicitly start the cancellation flow to see the Classic option — the exact customer path the ACCC cites.
• Community workarounds emerged, such as editing account‑page URLs to force a different downgrade path, or navigating deeply into account settings.
• Complaints about refunds being issued as account credit versus refunding the original payment method surfaced in forums, complicating customer trust.

These user anecdotes underscore the practical friction customers encountered when trying to exercise the remedy Microsoft later offered. The friction itself bolsters the ACCC’s narrative that discoverability and ease of switching were impaired, not merely absent.

---

The legal stakes: remedies and potential penalties​

Under Australian consumer law, serious contraventions can attract substantial penalties. The ACCC’s filing seeks:

• Declarations that Microsoft’s communications were false or misleading.
• Injunctions to prevent future conduct of a similar kind.
• Consumer redress in the form of refunds or other remedies for affected subscribers.
• Pecuniary penalties and legal costs.

Maximum statutory penalties for corporate contraventions can be substantial and may include a fixed cap (for the most serious breaches) or turnover‑linked calculations if the court finds broader extrapolated benefit. The regulator’s request for redress, combined with the optics of millions of affected customers, elevates this from a narrow consumer dispute to a strategically important enforcement action about how AI features are monetised.

---

Broader implications for AI monetisation and subscription economics​

This dispute is not just an Australian consumer‑law case: it’s a test of how mainstream software vendors monetise generative AI and how regulators respond to opaque subscription design.

• Companies adding paid AI features to existing products will face scrutiny over whether they transparently present alternatives for customers who do not want paid AI.
• Regulators are developing the view that choice architecture and UX are integral to fair dealing; burying options in account flows could attract enforcement action.
• The case will influence product teams globally: subscription design decisions that prioritise upsell metrics over transparency could invite litigation and reputational costs.
• Expect tighter coordination between product, legal, and compliance teams when rolling out paid AI features; messaging must be clear, simultaneous, and discoverable.

In short: the Microsoft dispute will be a precedent-setting event for AI monetisation practices in the consumer software market.

---

Strengths in Microsoft’s position — and measurable weaknesses​

Microsoft’s likely strengths in defending itself include the company’s ability to point to public documentation that described the changes and the existence of Classic SKUs, and a plausible argument that consumers who proactively managed subscriptions could find non‑Copilot alternatives.
However, the ACCC’s argument exploits measurable weaknesses:

• Timing and placement: If the Classic plans were not shown at the point of renewal notice, the customer couldn’t make an informed choice at that moment.
• Communication clarity: Targeted emails and a blog post that imply only two options (accept or cancel) provide the regulator with concrete evidence of potentially misleading messaging.
• Scale and impact: The headline price increases and the cohort size make the alleged harm material and quantifiable.
• Operational friction: Reports of broken or confusing downgrade flows, wrong links, and greying confirmation buttons suggest practical barriers to exercising the remedy.

Taken together, these weaknesses explain why the ACCC escalated to court and why Microsoft moved to issue apologies and refunds quickly.

---

What this means for other regulators and markets​

Regulators in other jurisdictions will be watching this case closely. Key takeaways for global competition and consumer agencies:

• Choice architecture is now enforcement‑relevant. UX design choices can amount to misleading conduct if they materially alter consumer impressions.
• Monitoring AI monetisation will be a priority. As vendors embed paid AI into mainstream products, expectations for transparent communication will rise.
• Cross‑border coordination may increase. Big tech product changes often affect multiple jurisdictions simultaneously; inconsistent disclosures risk multi‑front enforcement.

For policy makers, the case highlights the need for clear guidance on how changes to bundled software should be communicated to subscribers, especially when new paid features materially change the product and its price.

---

Practical guidance for Microsoft 365 subscribers​

For readers worried about unintended renewals or unexpected charges, practical steps are:

• Check your subscription status in your Microsoft account and verify whether your plan is Copilot‑enabled or a Classic SKU.
• If you were auto‑renewed at a higher price and prefer the non‑AI option, follow the official downgrade flow or, if that fails, use the cancellation path that historically surfaced the Classic option.
• Keep screenshots and copies of any emails you received about renewal or price changes — these are useful if you need to seek redress.
• If Microsoft has offered refunds or credits and you believe you qualify, verify whether refunds will be processed to your original payment method or as account credit and document communications.
• If you encounter persistent problems, escalate through Microsoft support channels and keep records of case numbers and representative names.

These steps protect consumers in subscription environments where product definitions and billing can change rapidly.

---

Recommendations for product teams and counsel at platform companies​

This episode provides a concise checklist for teams launching paid AI features:

• Make all subscription alternatives discoverable at the same time and at the same decision point.
• Publish straightforward, region‑specific customer notices that list every available option and the mechanics to switch, not just blog posts and high‑level announcements.
• Test downgrade and cancellation flows rigorously across platforms and locales before sending mass renewal notices.
• Coordinate legal review with product messaging to ensure that disclosures satisfy consumer‑law expectations in all affected jurisdictions.
• Prioritise remediation pathways that are frictionless — email links should take customers directly to the correct SKU and confirmation buttons should work reliably.

Designing with compliance in mind is now a product imperative, not a back‑office afterthought.

---

Risks and open questions​

Several important risks and uncertainties remain in this matter:

• The court outcome: The Federal Court’s findings will determine whether Microsoft’s conduct violated consumer law or was poor but lawful practice. The legal standard for omission is nuanced and will hinge on the impression created in a reasonable consumer’s mind.
• Scope of remedies: Even if Microsoft’s apology and refunds satisfy many customers, regulators may still seek broader redress, systemic changes, or penalties to deter future conduct.
• Global contagion: Other jurisdictions may initiate parallel inquiries or investigations into similar UX-driven subscription changes, multiplying compliance costs for vendors.
• Consumer trust: Regardless of legal outcomes, reputational damage from perceived coercive upselling can have long‑lasting effects on customer loyalty.

These uncertainties make the case important far beyond the immediate refund window and the Australian market.

---

Conclusion​

The Microsoft Copilot‑in‑365 dispute crystallises a fundamental tension at the intersection of product design, pricing and the law: financially significant AI upgrades are legitimate product decisions, but how those upgrades are communicated — and where alternatives are placed in the user journey — matters under consumer protection principles.
Microsoft’s apology and refund offer are pragmatic damage control, but the ACCC’s Federal Court action signals broader regulatory impatience with subscription flows that obscure customer choices. For product teams, the message is clear: in the era of paid AI, transparency is not optional. For regulators, the case offers a template to police the interface between UX and consumer rights. And for consumers, it is a vivid reminder to inspect renewal notices, preserve communications, and press for clear, discoverable options when products change.
This dispute will be a bellwether for how the software industry monetises generative AI and how regulators enforce the promise that subscription changes should be transparent, discoverable and fair.

---

Source: theregister.com Microsoft apologizes over Copilot plan confusion

 

[ChatGPT]

Microsoft’s apology and refund offer for Australian Microsoft 365 subscribers came after the ACCC filed Federal Court proceedings alleging Microsoft misled roughly 2.7 million Australians by obscuring a lower‑cost, non‑AI “Classic” subscription while rolling Copilot into consumer plans — the company now provides a self‑service path to switch back to Microsoft 365 Classic and has promised refunds for eligible renewals, but the process has caveats, timing constraints, and practical pitfalls subscribers need to understand before acting.

Background / Overview​

Microsoft began integrating its generative‑AI assistant Copilot into Microsoft 365 Personal and Family subscriptions in late 2024. In Australia that change coincided with headline price increases — the Personal plan jumped from roughly A$109 to A$159 annually and the Family plan from A$139 to A$179 annually — prompting scrutiny when renewal notices and public communications appeared to present only two options to auto‑renewing customers: accept the Copilot‑enabled plan at the higher price or cancel. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) says a materially different option — the Microsoft 365 Personal/Family Classic plans (no Copilot, prior price) — was available but effectively hidden in the cancellation flow. The ACCC commenced litigation on 27 October 2025. Microsoft responded publicly — apologising, publishing customer instructions for switching back to Classic SKUs, and offering to refund the price difference for eligible renewals dating from the first renewal after 30 November 2024, provided customers switch by 31 December 2025. The company’s regional message spells out three customer choices: stay on the Copilot plan, switch to Classic (and claim a refund), or cancel. That remediation is intended to reduce consumer harm, but it also raises practical questions about discoverability, timing, and execution.

---

What “Microsoft 365 Classic” actually is​

What you keep with Classic​

Microsoft 365 Classic is designed to preserve the mainstream productivity experience most home users rely on while excluding Copilot’s in‑app generative AI features. Key inclusions are:

• Full desktop Office apps: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, OneNote (regular updates and security fixes).
• 1 TB OneDrive storage per user (Family shares storage per plan rules).
• Built‑in security features such as Microsoft Defender and ad‑free Outlook.
• Cross‑platform access (Windows, macOS, mobile).

In short, Classic keeps the familiar Office suite and cloud storage but without the billed AI assistant that prompted the price uplift.

What you lose by choosing Classic​

• The Copilot in‑app experience: contextual drafting, summarisation, formula suggestions, automatic slide generation and other generative capabilities.
• Potential access to future AI‑first features that Microsoft may reserve for Copilot‑enabled SKUs.
• Some convenience: Copilot automations may reduce repetitive work for heavy Office users; opting out removes that convenience.

Decide on Classic only if Copilot’s value does not match the price differential for your household or you have privacy/ethical concerns about AI in productivity apps.

---

The legal and regulatory context (concise analysis)​

The ACCC’s Federal Court case does not attack Microsoft’s pricing or the right to offer AI features; it focuses on omission and choice architecture — whether renewal communications misled a reasonable consumer by failing to contemporaneously disclose the Classic option. The ACCC’s concise statement and media release identify roughly 2.7 million Australian subscribers as potentially affected and attach screenshots and account‑flow captures to support the claim that the Classic SKU was discoverable only after initiating cancellation. The regulator is seeking declarations, injunctions, consumer redress and penalties. Australian statutory penalties can be substantial (the greater of A$50 million, three times any benefit obtained, or 30% of adjusted turnover). Microsoft’s voluntary apology and refund pathway is practically important — it offers immediate relief to consumers — but from a litigation perspective it also amplifies the ACCC’s narrative by publicly acknowledging a communications failure and creating an operational record of outreach and redress. That visibility can strengthen the regulator’s case even as it helps consumers.

---

Step‑by‑step: How to switch to Microsoft 365 Classic and claim a refund (Australia)​

Below is a practical, stepwise guide built from Microsoft’s published customer message and verified reporting. Follow each step carefully and keep documentation.

• Sign in to your Microsoft account
• Visit account.microsoft.com and sign in with the account that holds your Microsoft 365 subscription.
• Open Services & subscriptions to locate your Microsoft 365 plan.
• Locate Manage > Cancel subscription (this is the counter‑intuitive part)
• For many subscribers, the Classic option is surfaced in the cancellation flow rather than in a straightforward “Change plan” widget.
• Click Manage next to the subscription, then select Cancel subscription — do not panic: this flow will reveal alternatives before finalising cancellation.
• When prompted, look for the “Switch to Classic” alternative
• The cancellation page should present alternatives; select Microsoft 365 Personal Classic or Microsoft 365 Family Classic as appropriate.
• Confirm the selection and review the effective date: Microsoft commonly applies the change at your next renewal date.
• Confirm payment method and recurring billing
• If you choose Classic and want to continue on the lower price, keep recurring billing enabled; the Classic SKU pricing applies at renewal.
• Microsoft has said refunds will be processed to the payment method on file. Expect processing within the timeframe Microsoft specified.
• Claim the refund (if eligible)
• Microsoft’s message states: If you switch to Microsoft 365 Classic by 31 December 2025, we’ll refund the difference in price between plans, starting from your first renewal date after 30 November 2024.
• Refunds are to be processed to the payment method on file and should appear within 30 days of eligibility confirmation, per Microsoft’s guidance. Save any confirmation emails and record the refund transaction once it posts.
• If the self‑serve flow fails, escalate with evidence
• Capture screenshots, timestamps, and the exact URL of the broken flow.
• Try Microsoft’s chat support and record the session transcript.
• If you cannot resolve the issue through Microsoft, save your records — the ACCC and consumer advocacy pathways may accept complaints supported by documentation. Reports indicate some users experienced misdirected or broken links during the remediation rollout; document those errors.

---

Technical and timing details you must verify before you act​

• Refund eligibility window: Microsoft states refunds cover the price difference starting from your first renewal after 30 November 2024 for customers who switch by 31 December 2025. Confirm these dates in the email Microsoft sent you; the company tailored emails to plan types and billing cycles.
• Effective date of downgrade: In most cases the downgrade to Classic takes effect at your next renewal date, not immediately. That means you may continue on the Copilot plan until that date even after selecting Classic; check the “effective date” in the confirmation.
• Refund method: Microsoft intends to process refunds to the payment method used to subscribe. If your card expired or you used a payment method that’s no longer valid, expect support follow‑up. Keep bank/statement records.
• Regional scope: Microsoft’s apology and the explicit refund mechanics were published for Australia (and similar communications referenced New Zealand). If you are outside Australia, check Microsoft’s regional newsroom or support pages for local remediation specifics.

---

Troubleshooting: common problems and how to handle them​

• Problem: The cancellation flow doesn’t reveal Classic
• Action: Try a different browser or private/incognito mode, or use desktop rather than mobile. If still missing, contact Microsoft support and document the chat transcript. In some reported cases users needed direct support to apply the Classic SKU.
• Problem: Clicking the Microsoft email link takes you to the wrong country page or a broken link
• Action: Navigate manually to account.microsoft.com > Services & subscriptions and follow the guidance there. Save the defective link and screenshots — Microsoft acknowledged some emails included incorrect links and sent corrected messages.
• Problem: Refund posted as account credit instead of returning to card
• Action: Contact Microsoft support and request clarification; if unresolved, keep records and consider lodging a complaint with your bank or the ACCC if you’re in Australia. Consumer commentators have said cash refunds rather than account credit are the fair outcome for many.
• Problem: You already renewed at the higher price but missed the Microsoft email
• Action: Microsoft’s published remediation applies only to those who receive its outreach and who switch by the announced deadline. If you did not receive the email, check your account page and contact Microsoft support immediately; save payment records and correspondence if you later seek regulator assistance.

---

What evidence to collect (you may need this later)​

• Screenshots of renewal emails, the account flow, the cancellation page, and any error pages.
• Subscription renewal date and the exact charge amount on your bank or card statement.
• Confirmation messages, chat transcripts, or case numbers from Microsoft support.
• Date and time stamps for actions you took (switching, contacting support).

This documentation will be crucial if you need to escalate with Microsoft, file a formal complaint with the ACCC, or request a chargeback from your bank.

---

Practical examples and common scenarios​

Example A — Annual personal subscriber who auto‑renewed in Dec 2024​

• Renewal after 30 Nov 2024: you likely renewed at the Copilot price (A$159/year).
• Action: switch to Personal Classic via the cancellation flow and claim a refund for the difference from that renewal date. Microsoft has said refunds will be available to those who switch by 31 Dec 2025. Confirm that refund posts to your card.

Example B — Family plan on monthly billing​

• Monthly subscribers are eligible too; Microsoft’s emails explicitly adapted refund language for monthly cycles.
• Action: check your renewal history, switch via account management, and track the refund schedule carefully. Keep records of monthly charges for the period in question.

---

Risks, limitations and unresolved questions​

• Execution friction: Early reports show broken links, misdirected pages, and other execution errors that slowed some customers from switching or claiming refunds. Those operational problems can complicate refunds and support interactions; document them.
• Coverage: Microsoft’s remediation applies to subscribers who received the regional email and who switch within the stated window. If you didn’t receive that outreach, your path to compensation may be less straightforward and could require a formal complaint or legal process.
• Timing: Downgrades often apply at next renewal, so you might not see the Classic price immediately. That timing nuance matters for budgeting and for understanding what the refund calculation covers.
• Legal outcome: Microsoft’s apology and refunds address consumer harm but do not resolve the ACCC’s litigation — a court could still order additional redress or penalties. The remediation may reduce practical harm to consumers but does not preclude further regulatory action.
• Geographic spillover: It is not automatic that remediation in Australia will be mirrored elsewhere. If you’re outside Australia, verify your country’s specific communications and remediation with Microsoft local support.

---

Why this matters beyond individual refunds: industry and UX implications​

The ACCC’s case strikes at a broader principle: when companies add monetised AI features and raise prices, transparency and discoverability of alternatives are not just good UX, they are regulatory obligations in many jurisdictions. The dispute will likely influence:

• How product teams surface downgrade/opt‑out options during renewals.
• Regulatory scrutiny of “choice architecture” and potential actions against design patterns that reduce option discoverability.
• Global precedent: regulators elsewhere are watching and may take similar actions if they see hidden alternatives or coercive flows in subscription upgrades.

For Windows users and subscribers broadly, the case is a reminder to monitor renewal emails, audit account billing settings periodically, and treat auto‑renew as a moment of choice rather than a passive background process.

---

Recommended checklist before you switch (quick reference)​

• Verify whether you received Microsoft’s apology email and its exact wording in your mailbox.
• Check account.microsoft.com > Services & subscriptions for your renewal date and current plan.
• Follow the Cancel subscription flow to reveal the Classic option (use desktop/alternate browser if the option doesn’t appear).
• Confirm the effective date and ensure recurring billing remains enabled for Classic pricing.
• Capture screenshots of all steps, and save bank/statement proof of charges.
• If you encounter broken links or wrong pages, escalate to Microsoft support and save transcripts; consider lodging a complaint if unresolved.

---

Final assessment and practical verdict​

Microsoft’s public apology and refund pathway give affected Australian subscribers a pragmatic route to recover overpayments and to elect a non‑AI Classic plan if they prefer. The core facts—Copilot’s integration, substantial headline price increases in Australia, an ACCC complaint alleging omission affecting ~2.7 million subscribers, and Microsoft’s remediation timeline—are verified by regulator materials and Microsoft’s own regional statement. However, the remediation is not frictionless: execution problems have been reported and downgrades commonly take effect at the next renewal date.
For most WindowsForum readers the practical takeaway is straightforward: if you prefer the older price and don’t need Copilot, act now — follow the Cancel > Switch to Classic flow, collect evidence, and monitor your card for the refund. If you run into problems or missed Microsoft’s outreach, document everything and escalate through Microsoft support or consumer‑protection channels. The ACCC litigation remains live, so the legal endgame may produce additional remedies or clarifications; the company’s remediation reduces immediate consumer harm but does not resolve the regulatory questions about how subscription choices must be presented.
This episode is also a timely lesson for product teams and regulators everywhere: bundling paid AI into legacy services raises both UX and compliance hazards. Good product design must include clear, discoverable opt‑out or lower‑cost alternatives at the point a customer faces a renewal decision — not hidden behind a cancellation path.

---

If you plan to switch, follow the step‑by‑step checklist in this guide, save every confirmation and screenshot, and expect refunds to be processed to your payment method within the timeframes Microsoft has announced. The remediation window is finite — verify the dates in the message you received and act before the deadline if you want to preserve automatic eligibility.

---

Source: www.sydneytimes.net.au Step-by-Step Guide: How to Switch to Microsoft 365 Classic and Claim Your Refund (Australia) – Sydney Times