The latest chapter in the protracted antitrust saga between Microsoft and European regulators signals a possible end to one of the software industry’s most closely watched competition cases. As the European Commission seeks public comment on Microsoft’s latest set of proposed commitments regarding Teams, the business communications app, the case stands as a landmark example of the evolving rules for digital market power. This resolution could reverberate widely—affecting not just enterprise customers and rivals, but also the wider landscape of how big tech is regulated worldwide.
The fuse for this legal confrontation was lit in 2020, when Slack Technologies, then an independent force in workplace communications, filed an official complaint with the European Union. Their claim: Microsoft had leveraged its near-ubiquitous position in business productivity software to unfairly promote Teams, its messaging and videoconferencing service, at the expense of rivals. By bundling Teams directly into the Office suite—which includes staples like Word, Excel, and Outlook—Microsoft was, according to Slack and its new parent Salesforce, enacting a strategy reminiscent of its infamous 1990s “browser wars.”
Such allegations resonated strongly in Brussels. The EU has for decades acted as a check on tech giants: forcing unbundling, influencing privacy standards, and often imposing billion-euro fines for anticompetitive missteps. The Teams investigation marked another assertion of regulatory muscle, centering on the perennial tension between software integration and competition.
Furthermore, the technical hurdles to removing Teams, switching to alternatives, or porting data between collaboration platforms became key talking points. Slack argued that such obstacles were not mere oversights, but intentional parts of an exclusionary strategy. The 27-nation European bloc took notice.
Yet these measures did not end the investigation. The European Commission accused Microsoft last year of “potentially abusive behavior,” signaling that the company’s proposed remedies fell short of addressing both the letter and spirit of EU competition law. The implication was that merely detaching Teams from Office, particularly if done in a way that did not encourage fair competition, would not satisfy regulatory concerns.
Likewise, the inclusion of detailed technical commitments—such as interoperability and data portability—is particularly significant for the broader digital marketplace. Past cases, such as those involving Microsoft’s Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer, have sometimes resulted in regulatory victories that proved hollow when technical barriers persisted. This time, the explicit pledge to facilitate integration and data movement raises the stakes.
From an industry perspective, the proposed decade-long timeframe for these obligations brings a welcome level of certainty. Providers can invest, plan, and innovate on the assumption that Microsoft will be held to these standards for years to come.
Salesforce President Sabastian Niles’s response—promising to “scrutinize Microsoft’s proposed commitments”—captures this wariness. Rivals are likely to monitor how pricing and technical modifications are implemented in practice, wary of subtle mechanisms that might continue to stifle competition.
Technical interoperability and data portability are especially fraught areas; even minor compatibility issues can hamper real-world switching. Moreover, big players often enjoy economies of scale in compliance and technical resources that smaller rivals lack. If Microsoft’s APIs and data-export tools are insufficiently robust or poorly documented, competitors may still struggle to offer seamless alternatives.
Other tech conglomerates, from Google to Apple, will be watching keenly. The precise contours of the deal may influence ongoing negotiations around bundled services, app store rules, and proprietary messaging ecosystems. The specter of 10%-of-revenue fines is not easily ignored, even by the world’s largest companies.
Microsoft, too, is likely to publicize its cooperation as evidence that self-regulation and constructive engagement can work—lessening calls for more draconian interventions. The company’s vice president for European government affairs, Nanna-Louise Linde, has already expressed hope that a final, positive decision is imminent.
But when integration crosses the line to coercion or exclusion—when it prevents users from selecting the best-of-breed tools, or when alternative providers cannot effectively reach customers—the line between smart product strategy and anticompetitive practice blurs. The EU’s challenge is to protect both innovation and consumer choice, without unduly penalizing success.
Slack’s initial complaint crystallized many of these concerns. The company claimed that Microsoft’s bundling “force-installed Teams for millions, blocked its removal, and hid the true cost to enterprise customers,” effectively cutting off opportunities for rival innovation. Enforcement, then, is not just about theoretical access; it is about practical realities on the ground for IT managers, procurement departments, and end-users.
If adopted, scrutiny will shift to how the reforms are implemented in practice. Transparency and regular reporting—which the EU often demands as part of settlement agreements—will play a crucial role. It is possible that third-party audits will be required to verify that interoperability and data mobility meet mandated standards.
The European Commission, for its part, appears determined to extract substantive, enforceable benefits from the investigation, not mere gestures. Whether these latest commitments will deliver on that promise depends in no small measure on the diligence of regulators, vigilance of rivals, and engagement of customers.
For Microsoft and the broader business software market, the approaching end to the Teams probe will close one contentious chapter—yet the lessons drawn will persist. In an age when digital services are increasingly bundled, data is king, and network effects define the battlefield, the outcome here will shape strategies, law, and, most importantly, the daily reality for millions of workplaces around the world.
As the process enters this crucial phase of public consultation, all eyes remain on Brussels. The next steps taken could define not just Microsoft’s route forward, but the standards for the entire tech industry for years to come.
Source: WHEC.com Long-running EU antitrust case of Microsoft Teams appears to be nearing an end
The fuse for this legal confrontation was lit in 2020, when Slack Technologies, then an independent force in workplace communications, filed an official complaint with the European Union. Their claim: Microsoft had leveraged its near-ubiquitous position in business productivity software to unfairly promote Teams, its messaging and videoconferencing service, at the expense of rivals. By bundling Teams directly into the Office suite—which includes staples like Word, Excel, and Outlook—Microsoft was, according to Slack and its new parent Salesforce, enacting a strategy reminiscent of its infamous 1990s “browser wars.”Such allegations resonated strongly in Brussels. The EU has for decades acted as a check on tech giants: forcing unbundling, influencing privacy standards, and often imposing billion-euro fines for anticompetitive missteps. The Teams investigation marked another assertion of regulatory muscle, centering on the perennial tension between software integration and competition.
Inside the Antitrust Allegations
At the heart of the complaint was the way Microsoft integrated Teams with its widely used Office 365 and Microsoft 365 subscriptions. Instead of offering Teams as an optional add-on, Microsoft positioned it as a default feature within its workplace packages. For customers, Teams would be installed and updated automatically, with deep integration into Outlook and other Office products. Slack and like-minded firms claimed this gave Microsoft a significant, arguably insurmountable leg up in the fiercely contested enterprise communications market.Furthermore, the technical hurdles to removing Teams, switching to alternatives, or porting data between collaboration platforms became key talking points. Slack argued that such obstacles were not mere oversights, but intentional parts of an exclusionary strategy. The 27-nation European bloc took notice.
Microsoft’s Response: Modifications, Unbundling, and Fresh Commitments
Microsoft’s initial attempts to placate regulators centered on what looked, on the surface, like a significant concession: unbundling Teams from Office within the European Economic Area. This move, announced in 2023, marked a departure from the “all-in-one” philosophy typical of Microsoft’s enterprise offerings. Teams would no longer be included by default; organizations could purchase Office suites with or without it.Yet these measures did not end the investigation. The European Commission accused Microsoft last year of “potentially abusive behavior,” signaling that the company’s proposed remedies fell short of addressing both the letter and spirit of EU competition law. The implication was that merely detaching Teams from Office, particularly if done in a way that did not encourage fair competition, would not satisfy regulatory concerns.
The Latest Offer: Discounts, Data Mobility, and Openness for Rivals
The tone of the negotiations shifted with Microsoft’s most recent proposal, which the Commission is now putting out for public comment. For the first time, Microsoft is explicitly committing to several long-term measures:- Discounted Office Packages Without Teams: Enterprises can purchase Office 365 and Microsoft 365 at a reduced price if they forgo Teams. This move directly addresses criticisms that unbundling was only offered at the same—as opposed to a lower—cost, thus discouraging defections.
- Flexible Switching Between Packages: Customers will have the ability to move freely between bundled and unbundled versions. In theory, this lowers the “switching costs” frequently cited as a barrier to competition.
- Interoperability Commitments: Microsoft is pledging to make it easier for rival software makers to integrate their solutions with Teams. Technical interoperability was a recurring grievance in previous EU antitrust probes involving Microsoft’s operating system and browser businesses.
- Data Portability: Users will be better able to transfer their own data out of Teams and into competing services, reducing “vendor lock-in”—another factor cited by Slack as anticompetitive.
Analysis: Strengths, Risks, and Repercussions
Strengths of the Commission’s Approach
The European Commission’s willingness to reject Microsoft’s earlier, more superficial remedies is a notable show of resolve. Rather than accepting a symbolic unbundling, the EU has insisted on measures that change the actual economics of the market. Discounting unbundled packages directly incentivizes customers to consider alternatives to Teams, while ease of switching addresses the “stickiness” that makes dominant platforms hard to dislodge.Likewise, the inclusion of detailed technical commitments—such as interoperability and data portability—is particularly significant for the broader digital marketplace. Past cases, such as those involving Microsoft’s Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer, have sometimes resulted in regulatory victories that proved hollow when technical barriers persisted. This time, the explicit pledge to facilitate integration and data movement raises the stakes.
From an industry perspective, the proposed decade-long timeframe for these obligations brings a welcome level of certainty. Providers can invest, plan, and innovate on the assumption that Microsoft will be held to these standards for years to come.
Risks and Lingering Doubts
However, some observers remain skeptical about enforcement. The history of EU antitrust cases contains ample examples where sanctioned firms complied in form but not in substance, finding creative ways to maintain their market advantages. It remains to be seen whether Microsoft’s changes will genuinely level the playing field or merely repackage old strategies under regulatory oversight.Salesforce President Sabastian Niles’s response—promising to “scrutinize Microsoft’s proposed commitments”—captures this wariness. Rivals are likely to monitor how pricing and technical modifications are implemented in practice, wary of subtle mechanisms that might continue to stifle competition.
Technical interoperability and data portability are especially fraught areas; even minor compatibility issues can hamper real-world switching. Moreover, big players often enjoy economies of scale in compliance and technical resources that smaller rivals lack. If Microsoft’s APIs and data-export tools are insufficiently robust or poorly documented, competitors may still struggle to offer seamless alternatives.
Potential Global Implications
The ramifications of this case stretch well beyond Europe’s borders. The EU has historically set global norms for tech regulation, from the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to recent Digital Markets Act (DMA) measures. If these commitments are indeed adopted—and prove effective—a new template will be established for overseeing “gatekeeper” behavior in digital platforms.Other tech conglomerates, from Google to Apple, will be watching keenly. The precise contours of the deal may influence ongoing negotiations around bundled services, app store rules, and proprietary messaging ecosystems. The specter of 10%-of-revenue fines is not easily ignored, even by the world’s largest companies.
Microsoft, too, is likely to publicize its cooperation as evidence that self-regulation and constructive engagement can work—lessening calls for more draconian interventions. The company’s vice president for European government affairs, Nanna-Louise Linde, has already expressed hope that a final, positive decision is imminent.
The Broader Context: Integration, User Experience, and Competitive Harm
The case poses fundamental questions about the nature of competitive harm in digitized markets. Integration of related services can simplify user experience, boost productivity, and lower costs—a benefit that Microsoft and its defenders are quick to highlight. Indeed, end-users generally appreciate products that “just work together,” which was a major selling point for both Office and Teams during the pandemic-driven remote work surge.But when integration crosses the line to coercion or exclusion—when it prevents users from selecting the best-of-breed tools, or when alternative providers cannot effectively reach customers—the line between smart product strategy and anticompetitive practice blurs. The EU’s challenge is to protect both innovation and consumer choice, without unduly penalizing success.
Slack’s initial complaint crystallized many of these concerns. The company claimed that Microsoft’s bundling “force-installed Teams for millions, blocked its removal, and hid the true cost to enterprise customers,” effectively cutting off opportunities for rival innovation. Enforcement, then, is not just about theoretical access; it is about practical realities on the ground for IT managers, procurement departments, and end-users.
What Happens Next?
The European Commission’s call for public comment marks a pivotal, though not final, juncture. Stakeholders from across the tech sector—rivals, customers, trade groups, and consumer advocates—will weigh in on whether the new commitments go far enough. Should consensus emerge, the commitments become enforceable. Disagreement or evidence of loopholes could send the process back to the negotiating table.If adopted, scrutiny will shift to how the reforms are implemented in practice. Transparency and regular reporting—which the EU often demands as part of settlement agreements—will play a crucial role. It is possible that third-party audits will be required to verify that interoperability and data mobility meet mandated standards.
Conclusion: A Test Case for the Future of Tech Regulation
The Microsoft Teams antitrust case encapsulates many of the dilemmas facing global regulators as software giants consolidate essential business infrastructure. At issue is not simply past conduct, but the ongoing shape of digital competition—how openness, innovation, and customer choice are maintained in markets dominated by a handful of ever-larger platforms.The European Commission, for its part, appears determined to extract substantive, enforceable benefits from the investigation, not mere gestures. Whether these latest commitments will deliver on that promise depends in no small measure on the diligence of regulators, vigilance of rivals, and engagement of customers.
For Microsoft and the broader business software market, the approaching end to the Teams probe will close one contentious chapter—yet the lessons drawn will persist. In an age when digital services are increasingly bundled, data is king, and network effects define the battlefield, the outcome here will shape strategies, law, and, most importantly, the daily reality for millions of workplaces around the world.
As the process enters this crucial phase of public consultation, all eyes remain on Brussels. The next steps taken could define not just Microsoft’s route forward, but the standards for the entire tech industry for years to come.
Source: WHEC.com Long-running EU antitrust case of Microsoft Teams appears to be nearing an end