Microsoft Faces Multibillion-Pound Legal Battle Over UK Software Licensing Practices

Microsoft once again finds itself at the center of legal scrutiny in the United Kingdom, this time facing a potentially multibillion-pound collective claim that strikes at the heart of its software licensing practices. The suit, filed by barrister Alexander Wolfson and supported by the law firm Stewarts, alleges that Microsoft systematically overcharged UK businesses, public bodies, and individual consumers for licenses to use its ubiquitous products—such as Microsoft Office and Windows—since 2015. This legal action, which covers purchases from October 1, 2015, to the present day, raises profound questions about the tech giant’s market behavior and the broader landscape of software competition and pricing in the digital economy.

The Basis of the Legal Claim​

At the core of the lawsuit is an accusation that Microsoft abused its market dominance through restrictive licensing practices, effectively stifling competition while inflating the cost of essential software. The opt-out format of the claim means millions of affected entities across the UK—anyone who bought qualifying Microsoft licenses within the stated timeframe—could automatically become part of the suit unless they choose otherwise.
According to Alexander Wolfson, this claim is focused on restoring fairness to a sector that is foundational to daily life, as businesses and individuals alike depend on the company’s software for vital functions and operations. The consequences of such alleged overcharging, if substantiated, ripple far beyond direct customers; they are felt throughout the UK’s public and private sector, costing organizations and, arguably, the broader economy billions of pounds in lost resources.
Stewarts’ Kate Pollock, head of competition litigation at the firm, contends that Microsoft’s licensing strategies have made it prohibitively difficult for rivals to compete and for customers to access more cost-effective alternatives. The claimants argue this has translated directly to higher costs for users—a well-trodden concern in ongoing debates about the unchecked heft of Big Tech firms.

Microsoft’s Market Power and Legal Risks​

To appreciate the gravity of the current case, one must understand Microsoft’s entrenched position within the realm of productivity and business software. Microsoft Office has long been the gold standard for word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, and more, while Windows remains the backbone operating system in a vast majority of corporate and public-sector IT estates. Microsoft's software offerings are so integral to digital infrastructure that allegations of anticompetitive pricing behaviors inevitably raise red flags among regulators worldwide.
The UK legal system, particular in the wake of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT)’s strengthened class-action regime post-Brexit, has become an increasingly popular venue for such high-profile claims—especially as they relate to competition and consumer harm. Opt-out collective actions enable claims on a class-wide basis, similar to the American style, which amplifies their potential scale and impact. Because of the nature of Microsoft’s licensing, the group affected comprises a huge cross-section of the UK economy.
The specifics of the suit delve into licensing terms that allegedly penalized those who chose alternative cloud providers—especially relevant amid the meteoric rise of cloud computing. In December 2023, another major claim—valued at over £1 billion—was filed in the UK alleging that Microsoft charged higher fees to customers who used competing cloud platforms rather than its own Azure service. Together, these claims paint a picture of a multifaceted legal confrontation centered on the ways dominant digital infrastructure providers may leverage their power.

Details of the Licensing Allegations​

The crux of the class action is that Microsoft used contract limitations and pricing structures to:

• Disincentivize or block organizations from using rival software or cloud services, allegedly through non-compliant licenses with higher costs or limited interoperability.
• Bundle products together, thereby forcing customers into comprehensive purchase agreements that may not align with their actual needs.
• Impose licensing terms that made migration to competitor platforms (Google Workspace, Apple, or open-source alternatives, for instance) financially and operationally prohibitive.

These practices, the claim asserts, are not just disadvantageous for competitors but ultimately harm end users by eliminating genuine choice and driving up the cost of doing business in a digital-first environment. Under UK and EU competition laws (which have continued to inform UK precedent post-Brexit), such abuse of dominance may constitute a breach actionable in civil courts.

Quantifying the Alleged Overcharge​

Quantifying damages in cases of this scale is complex, hinging on economic models that compare Microsoft’s actual pricing with a hypothetical competitive scenario. Plaintiffs must demonstrate not only that pricing was artificially high due to the alleged anticompetitive behavior, but that this directly resulted in monetary loss for buyers.
Early estimates cited in legal commentary suggest that, if the court finds in favor of the claimants, Microsoft could be required to pay compensation running into billions of pounds. The scope is vast: millions of individual consumers, most major private firms, and an array of public sector bodies—including government departments, local councils, and educational institutions—are likely to have purchased licenses during the contested period.
This echoes other high-profile technology class actions in recent years. For example, Apple faced a £1.5 billion class action in the UK over App Store commission practices, and Google continues to grapple with antitrust litigation both in Europe and the US.

Microsoft’s Response and Industry Impact​

As of this writing, Microsoft has not publicly addressed the specifics of the latest UK claim, though the company has historically defended its licensing models as fair and competitive. In December’s cloud-focused case, Microsoft stated that its licensing policies were intended to provide flexibility and value, not exclude rivals or disadvantage customers.
Nevertheless, this new legal challenge comes at a time when scrutiny of Big Tech’s pricing, interoperability, and competitive impacts is more intense than ever—both within the UK and globally. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and similar bodies throughout Europe have stepped up enforcement efforts, particularly as more enterprises migrate critical workloads to the cloud and adopt hybrid digital work environments.
For businesses, the real-world implications are substantial. Depending on the outcome, companies could see payouts or license fee reductions in the future and, more broadly, a shift toward easier switching between productivity platforms. For Microsoft’s rivals, the suit spotlights ongoing frustrations about gaining a foothold against a near-monopolistic incumbent.

Broader Legal and Market Consequences​

Should the claim succeed—or settle favorably for claimants—it could reshape the UK and potentially global approach to software licensing and digital competition. Several key consequences may arise:

1. Precedent for Tech Class Actions​

A sizeable loss or settlement by Microsoft could embolden additional collective actions against other tech giants over pricing power and bundling practices. It would signal to both consumers and corporations that recourse exists for market abuses, with the UK courts positioned as a venue for major technology competition disputes.

2. Pressure for Licensing Reform​

Regulators and antitrust policymakers in the UK and beyond may leverage such legal outcomes to push for broader reforms. These could include mandatory separation of software and cloud services, more extensive interoperability mandates, or transparency requirements in software licensing contracts.

3. Rethinking Vendor Lock-In Strategies​

For Microsoft, a negative outcome may force a rethink of strategies that create de facto customer lock-in—such as aggressive product bundling or preferential pricing for using its own services. Other major vendors (Google, Amazon, Oracle) might similarly preemptively revise contract terms to avoid future litigation.

4. Increased Competition and Customer Choice​

In the best-case scenario for claimants, the end result could be an IT market with lower barriers to switching, greater price competition, and broader adoption of open standards. For many UK organizations, this may translate into real cost savings and a wider selection of innovative digital tools.

5. Potential Financial Impact on Microsoft​

While Microsoft remains one of the world’s most valuable technology companies—with a market valuation well into the trillions of dollars—even a multibillion-pound payout would be material. More impactful, however, could be any enforced change to ongoing pricing strategies and licensing models, given the global scale of the company’s software footprint.

Critical Analysis: Strengths and Risks of the Legal Claim​

Notable Strengths​

• Wide Impact and Clear Harm Allegations: The alleged overcharging affects virtually every sector in the UK, from education and government to small and large businesses. This lends credibility to the suit’s claim of broad, systemic harm.
• Regulatory Momentum: The legal action is consistent with a growing trend of enforcement against restrictive practices by dominant digital platforms, both in Europe and in the UK post-Brexit. Collectively, these cases are starting to set new standards for what is considered permissible market behavior.
• Experienced Legal Backing: The claim is led by a barrister with experience in major competition litigation and is being pursued by a leading specialist practice (Stewarts) with a track record in complex class actions. This formidable team boosts the prospects of serious review and possible success.
• Public Interest Dimensions: The involvement of public sector bodies as claimants increases the public policy stakes, making it more likely that the legal system and potentially government watchdogs will pay close attention to the outcome.

Potential Risks and Weaknesses​

• Complexity of Proving Abuse and Damages: Establishing both that Microsoft’s practices were unlawful and that they caused specific, quantifiable overcharges is technically complex. These cases often turn on nuanced economic modeling—which can be contested by skilled defense teams.
• Microsoft’s Global and Legal Power: As one of the most resource-rich technology firms, Microsoft can marshal significant legal and technical expertise, potentially delaying proceedings or narrowing their scope through appeals and procedural maneuvers.
• Potential for Slow, Fragmented Resolution: Collectively certified cases of this size can take years to reach a conclusion. In the interim, customers may see little immediate benefit, despite headlines promising billion-pound outcomes.
• Unpredictable Regulatory Backdrop: With the UK’s evolving post-Brexit competition law framework, there remains uncertainty about how UK courts will interpret certain conduct, especially where prior precedent was shaped by EU law.
• Not All Claims May Be Proven: As with any class action, some elements of the claim—especially damages related to specific types of licensing contracts or customer segments—may be thrown out or settled for only nominal sums.

Implications for UK Consumers and Businesses​

For those directly—albeit perhaps unknowingly—included in the claimant class, the stakes are non-trivial. Historically, Microsoft’s licensing costs have represented a major spend category for many organizations. If compensation is ultimately awarded, thousands of pounds in refunds per business or hundreds per consumer could be realized, though actual distributions typically depend on court-approved mechanisms and documentary proof of purchase.
There is also the possibility that this case, in conjunction with other pending actions and regulatory probes, will accelerate moves toward cloud agility, open-source adoption, and technological sovereignty—especially among public institutions seeking to avoid future vendor lock-in.

The Global Perspective​

While this case is UK-specific, its resonance is unmistakably global. Competition regulators in the EU, US, and other regions have launched similar inquiries into Microsoft and other Big Tech firms’ cloud and software licensing practices. Any breakthrough or precedent in the UK may influence international approaches, especially as post-Brexit Britain flexes its newfound policy independence.
Moreover, the emergence of opt-out class actions as a remedy for systemic digital market abuses could create a playbook for aggrieved customers and governments in other jurisdictions, accelerating efforts to rein in pricing abuses and enhance consumer choice worldwide.

Looking Ahead: Key Questions​

As proceedings get underway, several key questions loom:

• Will Microsoft settle, or vigorously fight the allegations in court? Microsoft has at times opted for settlements in other territories but could see merit in defending longstanding practices, especially if it fears global regulatory copycatting.
• How will the UK courts interpret ‘market dominance’ and ‘abuse’ in a tech context? The digital sector creates unique challenges for applying competition law, as network effects, ecosystem lock-in, and rapid innovation can complicate the assessment of harm.
• What signals will the outcome send to other major players—Google, Apple, Amazon, Oracle—regarding pricing, bundling, and interoperability?
• Will affected organizations and consumers see meaningful restitution, or will legal technicalities limit the ultimate scope of relief?

Conclusion: A Watershed Moment for Tech Competition?​

The multibillion-pound class action against Microsoft over software licensing represents a critical inflection point in digital market regulation and competition law. Bolstered by renewed regulatory vigor and legal mechanisms shaped to address widespread digital harms, the case may prove to be the most important test of Big Tech business models in the UK to date.
Regardless of the outcome, one thing is clear: the days of unchecked software licensing practices by market-dominant firms may be numbered. As the digital economy becomes ever more central to economic life, both consumers and regulators are placing tech companies under the microscope—demanding transparency, competition, and, above all, fairness.
If successful, the claim may usher in a new era where digital marketplaces provide clearer choices, lower costs, and fewer hurdles for switching. If not, it will still serve as a rallying cry for those advocating for greater accountability from the platforms that underpin our work, communication, and creativity.
The coming months and years will reveal whether the UK’s courts believe Microsoft crossed the line—or merely played the digital marketplace game as it was written. For now, millions await the answer, watching as David once again squares off with Goliath in the evolving landscape of the global tech economy.

---

Source: Yahoo News Canada Microsoft facing multibillion-pound legal claim over software licence pricing

 

[ChatGPT]

Microsoft’s grip on the global software market faces one of its most significant legal challenges in years, as a multibillion-pound legal claim unfolds in the United Kingdom. At the center of this confrontation lies the tech giant’s licensing practices—a long-standing bone of contention not only for British consumers and businesses, but for competitors, cloud providers, and legal observers across Europe. This article provides a comprehensive, critical exploration of the legal proceedings, their historical context, the technical specifics, and their far-reaching implications for the fair competition landscape of the digital era.

The Legal Front Before Microsoft: Billions at Stake​

The heart of the latest class-action suit against Microsoft is a complaint that reverberates through boardrooms, government agencies, and living rooms alike: that Microsoft allegedly abused its market dominance, driving up software licensing prices by restricting competition to its new licenses from pre-owned licenses. If proven, the ramifications could mean compensation in the billions for UK license holders of Microsoft’s Office and Windows products since October 1, 2015.
Kate Pollock, who leads competition litigation at Stewarts—the firm bringing the suit—contends that, “Microsoft’s conduct has had a profound and costly impact on millions of individuals and private and public sector organizations who rely on its software for daily business operations.” The claim, spearheaded by class representative Alex Wolfson, demands “fairness in the digital marketplace” and seeks to redress consumers, businesses, and public bodies who may have been overcharged for their Microsoft software purchases.
This isn’t the first time Microsoft’s license practices have faced scrutiny. In 2021, the UK-based reseller ValueLicensing sued Microsoft for £270 million over alleged contractual restrictions that they claim not only stifled market supply but ultimately coerced customers towards Microsoft’s cloud subscription model. That case is still ongoing, as is a collective action suit, filed in 2024, in which Microsoft stands accused of overcharging businesses over £1 billion for running Windows Server on non-Azure cloud platforms.

Microsoft’s Licensing Web: New and Pre-Owned Markets Under Scrutiny​

Understanding the substance of these legal actions requires a closer look at the mechanics of Microsoft licensing. Historically, Microsoft—and virtually all major software vendors—sold software as perpetual, one-time licenses. With the rapid industry-wide shift to Software as a Service (SaaS) subscriptions, Microsoft has aggressively promoted cloud-based models via Microsoft 365 and Azure, often incentivizing new agreements while introducing barriers to the resale or transfer of perpetual licenses.
The claim at hand accuses Microsoft of “imposing restrictive licensing practices that effectively shut down competition and inflated prices.” For many in the IT procurement space, the core of the grievance is the company’s stance towards pre-owned licenses—a market segment supported by established European case law, including the landmark 2012 CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) ruling in UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle. That decision affirmed the legality of resale for perpetual software licenses (with certain conditions), provided the original buyer disables their own access.
Yet, claimants allege that Microsoft has not only failed to honor the spirit of that ruling, but has also actively discouraged or prevented the resale of perpetual licenses. According to the ongoing litigation, these measures could include contractual clauses, technical mechanisms, or commercially coercive tactics such as offering discounts on cloud subscriptions in return for scrapping or neutering old licenses. If substantiated, such behavior would violate relevant competition law—particularly Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and their UK equivalents post-Brexit—by abusing dominance and excluding rival offerings.

The Cloud Conundrum: Azure Versus the Field​

Layered onto the licensing combat is the friction between Microsoft and rival cloud infrastructure providers. In the 2024 collective action, Microsoft stands accused of making it more expensive and less attractive for customers to use Windows Server on non-Microsoft cloud services. The claim alleges that Microsoft “illegally penalized” organizations running its server OS on rival clouds, allegedly by raising license costs or limiting access. These practices—seen by critics as “tying” or “self-preferencing”—strike at the heart of antitrust concerns.
Such accusations are not isolated to the UK. In 2022, the Cloud Infrastructure Providers in Europe (CISPE)—which counts Amazon Web Services among its members—lodged a complaint with the European Commission, lambasting what it saw as Microsoft’s unfair licensing rules that incentivized Azure over competitors. While CISPE temporarily withdrew its complaint after a payout from Microsoft and promises of change (notably, commitments to create a “Hoster Product” akin to Azure Local), the organization has stated publicly that a resumption of hostilities is fully possible should those promises not materialize.

The Historical Pattern: Déjà Vu in Software Antitrust​

Microsoft’s history with competition law runs deep. The iconic US case in the late 1990s and the European battles of the 2000s set a recurring tone: the company’s dominance in operating systems and productivity software has repeatedly attracted the attention of antitrust watchdogs. While the current UK case focuses on software licenses, the thematic parallels are unmistakable. Across all these legal tangles, the central concern remains whether a market leader is setting rules that lock in existing customers, exclude potential rivals, and ultimately harm end-user choice and innovation.
The value of the pre-owned software market—as cited in filings and press commentary—is non-trivial. Analysts estimate that second-hand software trading, especially with high-ticket enterprise products like Microsoft Office and Windows Server Datacenter, can save organizations up to 70% over new licenses. UK and EU law, at least in theory, supports such free circulation under exhaustion principles, which dictate that intellectual property rights in a specific copy of software are “exhausted” after first sale. However, the question of whether Microsoft has crossed the legal line in constraining this market is what these collective actions are destined to resolve.

The Risks for Microsoft: Financial, Reputational, and Regulatory​

Should the legal claims succeed, Microsoft could face a multibillion-pound liability in the UK alone—not to mention heightened scrutiny from other national regulators and the European Commission. But the risks extend beyond immediate financial exposure:

• Precedent-Setting Damages: Victory for plaintiffs could set new legal standards for the resale and reuse of software licenses across all major markets, affecting not only Microsoft but any vendor relying on restrictive end-user license agreements (EULAs).
• Pressure for Compliance Reform: The European Commission, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), and other global regulators may feel emboldened to launch parallel investigations or demand global compliance changes.
• Ecosystem Strain: Microsoft’s extensive partner network may find itself caught between conflicting incentives, compliance requirements, and evolving interpretations of software exhaustion rights.
• Public Trust and Brand Impact: As governments, educational institutions, and NGOs scrutinize their software procurement costs in an era of digital transformation and austerity, reputationally damaging litigation erodes goodwill—a nontrivial asset for all tech giants.

Microsoft’s Defense: The View from Redmond​

While Microsoft typically refrains from preemptive comment on ongoing litigation, the company’s past responses to similar criticisms offer clues as to its likely strategy. Microsoft has long maintained that its licensing terms are lawful and transparent, asserting that its contractual and technical measures are not exclusionary but aimed at integrating security, value, and compatibility for the end customer.
In court documents and public comment, Microsoft asserts that:

• Security and Support: Older, perpetual licenses often lack the security updates and support that cloud-based services provide, and restrictions on license reuse are necessary to manage patching, activation, and legitimate usage.
• Cloud Economics: The evolution of software from perpetual licenses to SaaS subscriptions reflects customer demand for innovation, reliability, and lower upfront costs.
• Market Competition: Microsoft argues it faces fierce competition—especially from open-source alternatives and rival SaaS providers—and thus cannot unilaterally dictate market conditions.

These defenses align with broader digital economy arguments: that shifting to cloud and subscription models enables more secure, up-to-date experiences and offers flexible value. However, the opposing view—that bundled incentives and restricted resale serve foremost to lock-in customers—remains a potent counterpoint, especially for regulators steeped in classic antitrust logic.

Critical Analysis: Probing the Claims and Counterclaims​

The substance of the case hinges on several factors that are simultaneously legal, technical, and economic. Let’s assess the most consequential arguments—favorably and critically.

Strengths of the Case Against Microsoft​

• Documented Market Dominance: Microsoft is, by any objective metric, a dominant player in desktop operating systems and office productivity suites, with global market share overwhelming enough to trigger competition safeguards.
• European Legal Precedent: The EU’s UsedSoft ruling is unequivocal: software license resale is legal, subject to certain conditions, creating a legal foundation favoring the plaintiffs’ view.
• Practical Barriers to Resale: Industry participants regularly cite the difficulty of transferring and activating pre-owned Microsoft licenses post-sale, with tales of ambiguous support, technical hurdles, or discouraging legal warnings.
• Economic Impact Evidence: The ongoing existence of a secondary software license resale industry—represented by firms like ValueLicensing—demonstrates real-world demand for more affordable alternatives, suggesting the alleged harm is not merely theoretical.

Potential Weaknesses and Caveats​

• Complex Compliance Landscape: Software licensing is notoriously byzantine, with overlapping contractual, technical, and jurisdictional constraints. Isolated restrictions may be justified by legitimate security or intellectual property considerations.
• Shift to Subscription Economy: IT buyers have been moving to the subscription/SaaS model for reasons beyond price, such as scalability and integrations. Showing direct financial harm linked solely to license transfer restrictions—rather than broader market trends—may be challenging.
• Extraterritorial Difficulties: While EU and UK law align in some respects, global tech companies may legally differentiate offerings or terms to accommodate variations in exhaustion rules and digital rights management (DRM) enforcement.
• Demonstrable Harm: Perhaps the biggest challenge for plaintiffs is translating alleged anti-competitive conduct into quantifiable, class-wide economic harm—especially as customers’ needs, approaches, and costs vary widely.

Verification of Technical and Legal Claims​

A critical component of this case is the assertion that Microsoft’s restrictive licensing practices have a direct, demonstrable impact on prices for both new and pre-owned licenses. Current filings point to rising costs for organizations locked into Microsoft’s ecosystem, especially as perpetual licenses become less practical or even unavailable and as alternatives are edged out by bundling or incentive tactics.
Recent reporting from The Register—and corroborating coverage by The Guardian and Reuters—details multiple independent complaints from UK and EU software resellers. ValueLicensing, for example, has provided testimony and supporting documentation in its own lawsuit, outlining how Microsoft’s policies have reduced available inventory in the second-hand market and allegedly driven up prices for public sector customers. Industry analyst Gartner, in separate research, has noted a general market trend toward less negotiable, more restrictive licensing as software moves to subscription platforms—a shift widely seen as favoring vendors over buyers.
However, the precise impact—both in percentage and absolute cost—remains contested. While some procurement studies claim savings of “up to 70%” with pre-owned licenses, such figures often come from interested parties and should be treated as illustrative, not definitive. Regulatory agencies—including the UK CMA and the European Commission—have acknowledged the issue’s economic scale by launching sectoral inquiries, but final conclusions remain pending.

The Broader Industry Impact: Precedents for Big Tech​

Should Microsoft ultimately be found liable and compelled to alter its licensing practices, the ripple effects could be dramatic. Not only would this likely empower secondary markets for software throughout Europe (and potentially beyond), but it would also send a clear signal to other dominant software, cloud, and SaaS vendors. Enterprise IT buyers, struggling with swelling subscription costs and constrained procurement options, would gain leverage in negotiations and potentially recover some measure of price discipline via a viable resale avenue.
Moreover, the challenge to Microsoft’s practices arrives as regulators globally revisit the role of platform power in digital markets. Within the last three years, high-profile legal actions targeting Apple, Google, and Amazon have accelerated legislative and enforcement initiatives on both sides of the Atlantic. While this particular suit is focused on office software and cloud licensing, it is a bellwether for broader policy debates about digital market fairness, lock-in, and consumer choice.

Possible Settlement Paths and What Comes Next​

History suggests that even in high-stakes antitrust litigation, settlements are common—especially when market uncertainty and reputational risk are high. The CISPE episode, where Microsoft effectively neutralized regulatory action via financial settlement and product roadmap commitments, illustrates both the flexibility and opacity of resolution mechanisms in the tech sector.
For now, both the ValueLicensing and new class action suits are working their way through the UK courts. Ultimately, the fate of these claims will depend not only on legal nuance but also on the willingness of public sector IT buyers, competitive rivals, and consumer advocates to keep the spotlight on Microsoft’s actions. With billions at stake and regulatory eyes worldwide watching, Microsoft is under pressure to demonstrate that its storied commitment to innovation is matched by a robust adherence to competition and consumer rights.

Conclusion: A Defining Moment for Digital Market Fairness​

The legal offensive currently facing Microsoft in the UK is more than just another antitrust skirmish over licensing contracts—it is a test case for whether digital giants will be held to the market fairness standards that have governed traditional industries for decades. As the digital economy matures, and as more of society’s essential services depend on a handful of technology suppliers, the boundaries of lawful competition, customer protection, and innovation are being redrawn in real time.
If the courts accept the claimants’ arguments, Microsoft—and, by implication, its peers—may be compelled to open their markets, respect license transferability, and accept a new baseline of competitive fairness. Conversely, if the company prevails, it may embolden further consolidation of software power under the subscription and cloud-first banner, with little recourse for less capitalized buyers.
Whichever way the case unfolds, the outcome will reverberate far beyond Microsoft’s own balance sheet. It will shape how governments, businesses, and individuals experience the digital economy—and whether they can do so on terms that are not unilaterally dictated by the market’s most powerful players. For anyone invested in the future of fair, competitive, and consumer-friendly technology, this is a saga worth following to its conclusion.

---

Source: theregister.com Microsoft facing legal claim over how it sells software

 

[ChatGPT]

Few companies have become as deeply entwined with the digital infrastructure of the world as Microsoft. Its Microsoft Office suite and Windows operating system lie at the heart of daily operations for businesses, public sector bodies, and consumers alike, forming a technological backbone that is, for many, irreplaceable. But as the role of technology giants grows, so too do the challenges to their business practices. This is the context in which Microsoft now finds itself embroiled in a multibillion-pound legal battle in the United Kingdom, accused of restrictive licensing practices and overcharging—allegations that could have sweeping implications for both the software industry and the wider digital marketplace.

The Legal Storm Gathering Over Redmond​

At the center of this new legal tempest is a class-action claim led by Stewarts, a preeminent UK-based law firm, representing both private consumers and organizations that purchased Microsoft Office and Windows licenses since October 1, 2015. The claim alleges that Microsoft—leveraging its dominant market position—has created barriers that restrict competition between new and pre-owned software licenses. In plain English, the complaint is that Microsoft’s licensing policies have made it difficult or impossible for users to resell or buy pre-owned licenses at lower costs, thereby keeping prices artificially high for everyone involved.
Kate Pollock, leading the litigation at Stewarts, conveyed the scale and seriousness of the matter: “Microsoft's conduct has had a profound and costly impact on millions of individuals and private and public sector organizations that rely on its software for daily business operations.” Her words underscore the wide-ranging consequences that an adverse ruling could have for Microsoft—and, crucially, for its customers.
Alex Wolfson, proposed as the class representative, sharpened the focus: “With billions of pounds potentially at stake, this case is about ensuring fairness in the digital marketplace and ensuring even the largest tech companies play by the rules.” The magnitude of the potential damages, stretching into the billions, signals just how high the stakes truly are.

Historical Context: Microsoft and Antitrust Scrutiny​

This is far from the first time Microsoft has faced legal challenges over its business practices. The company’s storied history is replete with antitrust investigations and lawsuits, particularly concerning alleged abuses of its dominant market position. Notably, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Microsoft weathered several massive antitrust actions, including a landmark case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice that resulted in significant operational changes and ongoing government oversight.
More recently, Microsoft found itself on the receiving end of a complaint from Slack, the workplace communications platform. The 2020 complaint to the European Commission accused Microsoft of anti-competitive bundling—specifically, wrapping its Teams product into Office 365 subscriptions. In a move seen as a response to mounting regulatory pressure, Microsoft later agreed to unbundle Teams from Office in Europe.
Additionally, Microsoft faced antitrust scrutiny for practices affecting cloud competitors. In 2023, allegations emerged in the UK that Microsoft made it more expensive for Windows Server clients to deploy their software on rival cloud platforms. Similar complaints from the Cloud Infrastructure Services Providers in Europe (CISPE) were only withdrawn after Microsoft reached a settlement, demonstrating the company's willingness, at least in some instances, to negotiate rather than litigate.
These precedents are instructive. They reveal a pattern: Microsoft, while innovative and hugely popular, has repeatedly been accused of crossing the line when it comes to leveraging its market dominance. Each new legal action, therefore, cannot be viewed in isolation but as part of a broader narrative of ongoing regulatory and legal engagement.

The Crux of the New Claim: Licensing Practices Under the Spotlight​

The latest UK legal claim zeros in on a niche but vitally important part of the software economy: the balance between new and pre-owned software licenses. While many customers may not even be aware that transferring or reselling a pre-owned software license is a legal right—at least in some jurisdictions—this right has become the bedrock for a secondary market that, in theory, should offer cheaper software options to consumers and organizations.
At the heart of the complaint is the argument that Microsoft’s license agreements and technological restrictions have effectively blocked this secondary market, leaving customers with little choice but to pay full price for new licenses. This has far-reaching consequences. In a market without healthy competition from resellers, prices tend to remain high, and innovation suffers, ultimately damaging consumer welfare.
The case also spotlights the complex nature of software licensing itself. Unlike physical goods, software is typically sold “under license”—meaning buyers gain the right to use the software under certain conditions, but do not fully “own” it in the traditional sense. Microsoft’s licensing agreements have long specified that their products cannot be resold or transferred freely, effectively stymieing the emergence of a vibrant secondary market for both Office and Windows licenses.

Legal Precedents: The European Perspective​

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) set a notable precedent in 2012, ruling that the trade of pre-owned software licenses was legal under certain conditions, even if the publisher's terms explicitly forbade resale. This ruling specifically targeted Oracle, stating that the exhaustion of rights principle—whereby the original manufacturer’s rights are exhausted after the first sale—applies to software as it does to physical goods.
Despite this, many software companies, including Microsoft, have continued to devise licensing mechanisms and technological solutions (such as online activation requirements) that functionally prevent easy license transfers. This tension between court rulings and ongoing industry practices is at the heart of the UK litigation.

Potential Damages and Who Is Affected​

The class-action suit is designed to cover any UK-based consumer, business, or public sector entity that purchased Microsoft Office and Windows licenses since October 1, 2015. Given Microsoft’s pervasive reach in both the private and public sectors—spanning everything from small businesses to NHS trusts and giant multinationals—the affected group could number into the millions.
The potential financial damage, estimated in the billions of pounds, reflects both the volume of affected transactions and the length of the period covered. Critics allege that Microsoft’s policies caused widespread overcharging by systematically eliminating price-lowering competition from the secondary markets. If the courts find in favor of claimants, this could lead to major compensation payouts and force Microsoft to revise longstanding business practices.

Notable Strengths in the Claim​

Several factors strengthen the current legal challenge:

1. Clear Market Dominance​

Microsoft is inarguably the dominant provider of desktop productivity software and operating systems in the UK market and internationally. This strength brings with it both business opportunity and regulatory scrutiny—a dual-edged sword for the Redmond giant.

2. Legal Precedent in the EU​

The ECJ’s 2012 decision offers a powerful legal foundation for challenging restrictive licensing, especially as UK and EU antitrust frameworks have historically been closely aligned. Although post-Brexit regulatory divergence is possible, the principles underlying the exhaustion of rights remain persuasive.

3. Precedent of Successful Challenges​

Microsoft’s responses to prior complaints—such as its decision to unbundle Teams from Office in Europe, and its agreement with CISPE—show that regulatory pressure can yield results, including compensation or business practice changes. It suggests that the company is willing to negotiate when faced with credible, large-scale challenges.

4. Large, Easy-to-Identify Class​

The ubiquity of Microsoft products means that defining the affected class is straightforward: anyone who bought Windows or Office licenses in the past decade. This simplicity benefits claimants in collective legal actions, smoothing procedural hurdles.

Potential Risks and Weaknesses of the Case​

Despite these strengths, the litigation faces significant hurdles and risks:

1. Challenging Licensing Complexity​

Software licensing is notoriously complex, with dense legalese and technical intricacies that may be difficult to untangle in court. Microsoft’s defense is likely to center on the argument that its licensing model is essential to protect intellectual property and support ongoing software development.

2. Brexit and Regulatory Divergence​

While the UK has a long tradition of following EU competition law, the legal framework has diverged since Brexit. It remains to be seen how closely UK courts will adhere to EU legal precedents moving forward.

3. Proof of Harm and Causality​

Claimants would need to show not only that Microsoft’s practices were restrictive, but also that they caused financial harm. This could involve detailed economic analysis of how prices would have behaved in a more open market, alongside evidence that customers were in fact blocked from legitimate license transfers.

4. Microsoft’s Technical Defenses​

Microsoft could contend that its technical measures—such as online activation or volume licensing keys—are necessary to counter fraud and piracy. This argument, while not immune to challenge, has resonated with courts in prior cases.

Critical Analysis: The Broader Impact​

This litigation matters far beyond the immediate parties involved. The outcome will shape not just the financial landscape for Microsoft and its customers, but the broader contours of digital commerce—especially as more software is delivered through cloud subscriptions or as-a-service models.
Should the courts rule in favor of the claimants, it would set a powerful precedent that companies cannot use restrictive licensing to crowd out secondary markets, even in the digital realm. This could drive down costs, increase choice, and embolden further challenges against similar practices across the software industry.
But there are potential downsides. For one, loosening control over license transfers could make it harder for software makers to prevent piracy and fraud, potentially undermining the financial model that funds ongoing software innovation. Additionally, increased compliance and monitoring costs could make software provision more complex for everyone—including end users.
Microsoft’s own track record is instructive. In response to regulatory threats, it has sometimes adopted more customer-friendly approaches, such as its decision to unbundle Teams from Office. But change is often incremental, and it typically follows intensive negotiation or litigation rather than proactive leadership.

The Cloud Factor: Changing the Game, Again​

Another layer to consider is the rise of cloud-based licensing, which fundamentally alters the licensing landscape. With more organizations moving to Microsoft 365 and Azure, traditional perpetual licenses are increasingly rare. In cloud subscription models, the old debates about resale and license transfer become moot—there’s simply less to sell or transfer.
However, the UK case specifically targets historic licensing practices and ongoing sales of perpetual licenses. Its outcome could influence how Microsoft frames its cloud licensing offers in the future, as well as how other software giants approach pricing and authentication for on-premises and hybrid environments.
Although many organizations are hurtling towards a cloud-first world, the legacies of past practices still matter enormously—especially given the long lifespans of IT assets and the need for regulatory clarity.

Where Next? Potential Outcomes and Industry Repercussions​

Predicting the outcome of such a complex and high-stakes litigation is challenging. If Stewarts and the affected class win, Microsoft could be compelled not only to pay compensation but to redesign its licensing regimes—potentially opening the door to new software resale markets and spurring downward pressure on prices for years to come.
A defeat for the claimants, meanwhile, could embolden Microsoft and other leading vendors to persist with restrictive practices, perhaps accelerating the shift towards purely subscription-based models that further concentrate control with publishers.
Regardless of the result, the case exemplifies the ongoing tension between technological innovation, intellectual property protection, and the public interest in open, competitive markets. It raises profound questions about the rights of software buyers, the responsibilities of market leaders, and the boundaries of acceptable licensing limits in a digital age.

Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment for Software Market Fairness​

Microsoft’s current legal challenge in the UK is more than just another skirmish in the tech world’s ceaseless cycle of litigation. It’s a bellwether test for how far regulators—and consumers—can push back against industry giants who, intentionally or otherwise, tilt the playing field through technical and contractual means.
For now, the eyes of the tech world are trained on UK courts, with billions of pounds and the principles of market competition hanging in the balance. However the case unfolds, it will reverberate across the software industry—shaping licensing norms, influencing future regulation, and deciding how the next generation of digital infrastructure will be bought, sold, and shared.
The only certainty is that the precedent set here will ripple outward: affecting not just Microsoft, but every software company—and customer—grappling with the challenges of fair competition in an age where everything is licensed, but true ownership remains elusive.

---

Source: inkl Microsoft hit by new legal claim over restrictive licensing and overcharging allegations