For more than two decades, the web browser market has been marked by fierce competition, regulatory scrutiny, and recurring debates over fair play—ultimately shaping how billions interact with the internet. The latest development in this long-running saga is the recent complaint filed by Opera, the veteran Norwegian browser company, against Microsoft with Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE). At the heart of the grievance are allegations that Microsoft is leveraging its Windows operating system to unfairly favor its own Edge browser, using bundling arrangements and “dark pattern” tactics that Opera claims stifle fair competition and reduce user choice.
According to Opera’s official complaint, Microsoft’s Windows platform deploys “all-or-nothing” bundled rebates for PC manufacturers, essentially incentivizing or pressuring vendors to make Edge the exclusive pre-installed default browser. This kind of arrangement, Opera argues, restricts manufacturers’ freedom to offer alternative browsers out of the box, thereby narrowing consumer choice at the point of purchase.
Such bundling tactics have a long history in the tech sector and have previously come under regulatory fire. Most notably, Microsoft’s bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows in the late 1990s led to antitrust proceedings in both the United States and Europe. The outcome of these cases was, among other remedies, the requirement that Microsoft present users with a “browser choice screen,” allowing them to select from competing browsers during the initial setup—a measure that was widely regarded as a win for competition.
Opera, in its submission to CADE, draws a direct parallel to these historical precedents, calling for a similar browser choice mechanism to be implemented for users in Brazil and, by extension, globally. Aaron McParlan, General Counsel at Opera, underscored this demand in a statement to press, emphasizing the need for a “user-friendly and unbiased” choice screen that gives visibility to “the main available PC browsers in Brazil” [The Register].
Windows S mode is a locked-down configuration of Windows, available exclusively in the Home edition of Windows 11, that restricts all app installations to those sourced from the Microsoft Store and locks the system’s default browser to Edge. While Microsoft insists that switching out of S mode is always a user-initiated, one-way process, the necessity of doing so to gain full browser choice introduces complexity and potential apprehension for many users. Furthermore, in organizational deployments, IT administrators can block switching out of S mode altogether, sealing off the possibility of default browser change for managed devices.
McParlan’s comments reinforce Opera’s position: “Opera believes that Microsoft should, among other things, show a browser choice screen, just as it has done in previous years in the European Union.” The implication is clear—Opera sees today’s tactics as a digital echo of the dominance strategies that once catapulted Internet Explorer to the forefront, at the expense of competing browsers and open competition.
Despite this, Opera’s argument is that Microsoft’s market power stems from the ubiquity of Windows OS, not necessarily Edge’s current popularity, and that leveraging this OS dominance to boost Edge’s market share—regardless of intrinsic browser quality—constitutes an unfair advantage. As McParlan told The Register, “This case is not about Chrome. It is about ensuring free and fair competition on Windows PCs. We believe that, with its Windows OS, Microsoft is clearly dominant and that it is using that commercial power to award an unfair advantage to Edge.”
The browser choice screen had measurable impacts: a Study by the European Commission noted upticks in alternative browser downloads following its introduction, although precise causality remains debated among industry observers. Nonetheless, the principle—that a dominant platform provider should not unduly favor its own integrated offerings, but rather foster open competition—remains a cornerstone of antitrust approaches in the digital sector.
While Edge lacks the market supremacy that Internet Explorer once enjoyed, its growing share—especially among new Windows devices—raises concerns that Microsoft could incrementally reclaim influence in the browser market through platform-level steerage, even as Chrome dominates globally. Opera, in its complaint, suggests that unless checked, Edge’s share “will continue to increase for reasons disconnected from product quality and user preferences.”
The case is emblematic of a growing international trend, with tech giants facing regulatory pushback in numerous jurisdictions. While Opera’s market share may not grant it the clout of Google or Apple, its persistent advocacy on browser choice issues has historically punched above its weight—sometimes influencing broader market dynamics and regulatory actions.
Opera’s General Counsel, McParlan, hinted that grievances over platform algorithmic nudging and bundling extend beyond Windows: “Mobile and other platforms raise separate issues that may call for different solutions.” This subtle reference suggests that future regulatory skirmishes may broaden to encompass Google’s handling of Chrome on Android or Apple’s cooperation with Safari on iOS—platforms that have themselves been the subject of regulatory scrutiny and fines in recent years.
Yet, mounting evidence suggests that switching browsers on modern Windows devices can be a less than frictionless affair. Users and reviewers alike have reported frequent pop-ups and notifications urging web surfers to give Edge another try or warning of “reduced security” when accessing certain web content with rival browsers—tactics often described as digital nagging or, less charitably, “pleading.”
Such experiences are hardly unique to Microsoft. Google’s Chrome, for example, frequently encourages users to set it as the default and highlights supposed integration benefits via popups and banners. However, Opera insists that their case is not about Chrome or relative browser aggressiveness, but rather about ensuring “free and fair competition on Windows PCs.”
If Opera’s complaint prevails in Brazil, it could set a precedent for similar demands elsewhere, potentially reverberating across Latin America and beyond. Moreover, a successful appeal in the EU under the DMA could force Microsoft—not just in Europe, but under mounting global pressure—to adopt a more neutral stance in Windows onboarding, at least for browser selection.
Conversely, a failure to secure regulatory relief could be interpreted as a sign that browser market competition has matured, with user preference (rather than OEM or OS default) as the primary determinant of browser success. This, in turn, could embolden platform providers—not only Microsoft, but also Google and Apple—to further leverage integration as a competitive differentiator.
For OEMs and device manufacturers, bundled rebate structures and default deals remain both a source of revenue and a potential liability if they run afoul of changing competition laws. The risk for Microsoft is not only financial—regulatory fines and oversight—but also reputational, as it strives to position Windows as user-friendly and universally accessible in a cloud-first world.
Ultimately, Opera’s challenge to Microsoft’s tactics is a test case for the next chapter in digital market regulation. It will help determine how far dominant platforms can go in pushing their own services—and whether historical lessons about the perils of bundling and default manipulation will be heeded by today’s tech giants.
What is clear is that the question of browser choice is not a relic of the past, but a live issue with significant implications for market fairness, consumer autonomy, and the future of open digital ecosystems. As regulators in Brazil, the EU, and elsewhere weigh Opera’s arguments, the outcome could reshape how billions of future Windows users encounter—and evaluate—their first (and potentially last) web browser.
In this dynamic landscape, vigilance from both users and watchdogs remains crucial. Only time will tell whether history repeats itself or whether a new equilibrium, balancing platform integration with genuine user choice, finally emerges.
Source: theregister.com Opera complains over Microsoft Edge persuasion tactics
Allegations of Bundled Rebates and Exclusivity
According to Opera’s official complaint, Microsoft’s Windows platform deploys “all-or-nothing” bundled rebates for PC manufacturers, essentially incentivizing or pressuring vendors to make Edge the exclusive pre-installed default browser. This kind of arrangement, Opera argues, restricts manufacturers’ freedom to offer alternative browsers out of the box, thereby narrowing consumer choice at the point of purchase.Such bundling tactics have a long history in the tech sector and have previously come under regulatory fire. Most notably, Microsoft’s bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows in the late 1990s led to antitrust proceedings in both the United States and Europe. The outcome of these cases was, among other remedies, the requirement that Microsoft present users with a “browser choice screen,” allowing them to select from competing browsers during the initial setup—a measure that was widely regarded as a win for competition.
Opera, in its submission to CADE, draws a direct parallel to these historical precedents, calling for a similar browser choice mechanism to be implemented for users in Brazil and, by extension, globally. Aaron McParlan, General Counsel at Opera, underscored this demand in a statement to press, emphasizing the need for a “user-friendly and unbiased” choice screen that gives visibility to “the main available PC browsers in Brazil” [The Register].
The Role of “Dark Patterns” and Microsoft Edge
Complementing the allegations of anti-competitive bundling, Opera’s complaint also accuses Microsoft of using so-called “dark patterns”—a term for user interface designs that subtly coerce, manipulate, or nudge users toward unwanted actions. Specifically, Opera highlights scenarios in which Windows either ignores the user’s chosen default browser or adds friction to the process of switching away from Edge. In some cases, such as on devices running Windows S mode, users are entirely prevented from changing the default browser without leaving S mode—a move that, according to critics, can be confusing or irreversible for less technical users.Windows S mode is a locked-down configuration of Windows, available exclusively in the Home edition of Windows 11, that restricts all app installations to those sourced from the Microsoft Store and locks the system’s default browser to Edge. While Microsoft insists that switching out of S mode is always a user-initiated, one-way process, the necessity of doing so to gain full browser choice introduces complexity and potential apprehension for many users. Furthermore, in organizational deployments, IT administrators can block switching out of S mode altogether, sealing off the possibility of default browser change for managed devices.
McParlan’s comments reinforce Opera’s position: “Opera believes that Microsoft should, among other things, show a browser choice screen, just as it has done in previous years in the European Union.” The implication is clear—Opera sees today’s tactics as a digital echo of the dominance strategies that once catapulted Internet Explorer to the forefront, at the expense of competing browsers and open competition.
Market Share Dynamics: Brazil and Beyond
The timing and location of Opera’s complaint are noteworthy. While Opera’s global market share hovers at 2.65% according to StatCounter, the browser’s position in Brazil is considerably stronger, measured at 6.78%—not insignificant, but still trailing Microsoft Edge at 11.52% and far behind Google Chrome’s staggering 74.95%. These numbers not only highlight the entrenched dominance of Chrome worldwide but also cast Microsoft’s alleged tactics in a different light compared to the Internet Explorer era, when Microsoft's browser enjoyed market shares exceeding 90% in certain regions.Despite this, Opera’s argument is that Microsoft’s market power stems from the ubiquity of Windows OS, not necessarily Edge’s current popularity, and that leveraging this OS dominance to boost Edge’s market share—regardless of intrinsic browser quality—constitutes an unfair advantage. As McParlan told The Register, “This case is not about Chrome. It is about ensuring free and fair competition on Windows PCs. We believe that, with its Windows OS, Microsoft is clearly dominant and that it is using that commercial power to award an unfair advantage to Edge.”
Are Browser Choice Screens the Answer?
Opera’s demand for a browser choice screen is rooted in both historical precedent and contemporary regulatory approaches. In response to competition complaints in the late 2000s, Microsoft was compelled by European regulators to present new Windows users with a randomized browser choice screen—a move credited with boosting market share for minority browsers like Opera, Firefox, and Chrome at the time.The browser choice screen had measurable impacts: a Study by the European Commission noted upticks in alternative browser downloads following its introduction, although precise causality remains debated among industry observers. Nonetheless, the principle—that a dominant platform provider should not unduly favor its own integrated offerings, but rather foster open competition—remains a cornerstone of antitrust approaches in the digital sector.
While Edge lacks the market supremacy that Internet Explorer once enjoyed, its growing share—especially among new Windows devices—raises concerns that Microsoft could incrementally reclaim influence in the browser market through platform-level steerage, even as Chrome dominates globally. Opera, in its complaint, suggests that unless checked, Edge’s share “will continue to increase for reasons disconnected from product quality and user preferences.”
International Echoes and EU Litigation
Opera’s fight is not limited to Brazil. In July 2024, the company filed an appeal with the EU General Court, contesting the European Commission’s decision not to designate Microsoft Edge as a “gatekeeper” under the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Under new digital competition rules, a gatekeeper status would obligate Microsoft to display a browser choice screen to all Windows users in the EU—an outcome with potential ripple effects for global Windows policy.The case is emblematic of a growing international trend, with tech giants facing regulatory pushback in numerous jurisdictions. While Opera’s market share may not grant it the clout of Google or Apple, its persistent advocacy on browser choice issues has historically punched above its weight—sometimes influencing broader market dynamics and regulatory actions.
Opera’s General Counsel, McParlan, hinted that grievances over platform algorithmic nudging and bundling extend beyond Windows: “Mobile and other platforms raise separate issues that may call for different solutions.” This subtle reference suggests that future regulatory skirmishes may broaden to encompass Google’s handling of Chrome on Android or Apple’s cooperation with Safari on iOS—platforms that have themselves been the subject of regulatory scrutiny and fines in recent years.
The Microsoft View: Silence and Precedents
As of the time of the complaint’s filing, Microsoft declined to comment directly. This silence has not gone unnoticed—nor has the company’s history of defending its right to bundle and promote in-house technologies on its platforms. Historically, Microsoft has argued that such integration benefits users by providing a seamless, out-of-the-box experience and that competitive browsers remain just a few clicks away.Yet, mounting evidence suggests that switching browsers on modern Windows devices can be a less than frictionless affair. Users and reviewers alike have reported frequent pop-ups and notifications urging web surfers to give Edge another try or warning of “reduced security” when accessing certain web content with rival browsers—tactics often described as digital nagging or, less charitably, “pleading.”
Such experiences are hardly unique to Microsoft. Google’s Chrome, for example, frequently encourages users to set it as the default and highlights supposed integration benefits via popups and banners. However, Opera insists that their case is not about Chrome or relative browser aggressiveness, but rather about ensuring “free and fair competition on Windows PCs.”
Critical Analysis: Assessing the Merits and Risks
From a legal and policy perspective, Opera’s complaint raises important questions about the nature of competition in platform-dominated markets. Windows, by virtue of its commanding global presence—still deployed on more than a billion devices worldwide—remains a gatekeeper between end-users and the vast array of software available on the modern web.Strengths of Opera’s Complaint
- Historical Precedent: Opera’s call for a browser choice screen reflects successful remedies from past regulatory interventions, which demonstrably increased user awareness and choice.
- Dark Patterns Scrutiny: The identification of subtle defaults and nudges as sources of anti-competitive harm aligns with contemporary regulatory attention to deceptive or manipulative UI/UX practices.
- Market Impact: By focusing the complaint on the point of initial user experience (the OEM-installed default), Opera is targeting a key determinant of market share, particularly among less technical users who may never change defaults post-setup.
- Global Resonance: By tying the Brazilian complaint to broader international regulation (especially the EU’s DMA), Opera is positioning the issue not as parochial grievance but as a global competition and user rights matter.
Potential Weaknesses and Risks
- Evolving Market Dynamics: Unlike the Internet Explorer era, Windows is no longer the sole dominant digital platform. Mobile devices—especially Android and iOS—now account for a large share of web usage, and Edge is dwarfed globally by Chrome and, on mobile, by Safari.
- User Agency: Both Microsoft and some critics of regulatory intervention argue that modern users are sufficiently informed and motivated to download alternative browsers, especially as installation processes have been streamlined.
- Technical Justifications: Microsoft maintains that some restrictions—particularly in Windows S mode—are motivated by legitimate security and manageability, not by anti-competitive intent. The company’s claim that switching out of S mode is a one-way, user-initiated process is technically accurate, though the complexity of the process may invite criticism.
- Regulatory Fatigue: As browser market shares have fluctuated, some regulators may be wary of repeating protracted investigations and oversight in a sector now subject to such rapid change, especially given the dominance of non-Microsoft browsers.
Broader Implications for Digital Competition
Opera’s move comes amid a broader wave of scrutiny targeting Big Tech’s control over digital ecosystems. Regulators in the EU, UK, and United States have rolled out a raft of new rules designed to increase interoperability, portability, and user choice—most notably the EU’s Digital Markets Act, which explicitly targets so-called “gatekeepers” who might leverage dominant digital platforms to entrench their own services.If Opera’s complaint prevails in Brazil, it could set a precedent for similar demands elsewhere, potentially reverberating across Latin America and beyond. Moreover, a successful appeal in the EU under the DMA could force Microsoft—not just in Europe, but under mounting global pressure—to adopt a more neutral stance in Windows onboarding, at least for browser selection.
Conversely, a failure to secure regulatory relief could be interpreted as a sign that browser market competition has matured, with user preference (rather than OEM or OS default) as the primary determinant of browser success. This, in turn, could embolden platform providers—not only Microsoft, but also Google and Apple—to further leverage integration as a competitive differentiator.
What This Means for Consumers and the Tech Industry
For consumers, the outcome of Opera’s complaint will influence not only what choices are immediately presented during new device setup, but also the longer-term evolution of desktop application defaults and digital sovereignty. The bigger question is whether users should be shielded from or empowered to override platform nudges, and whether regulatory intervention remains necessary in a supposedly mature, competitive browser market.For OEMs and device manufacturers, bundled rebate structures and default deals remain both a source of revenue and a potential liability if they run afoul of changing competition laws. The risk for Microsoft is not only financial—regulatory fines and oversight—but also reputational, as it strives to position Windows as user-friendly and universally accessible in a cloud-first world.
Ultimately, Opera’s challenge to Microsoft’s tactics is a test case for the next chapter in digital market regulation. It will help determine how far dominant platforms can go in pushing their own services—and whether historical lessons about the perils of bundling and default manipulation will be heeded by today’s tech giants.
Conclusion
Opera’s complaint against Microsoft over Edge’s privileged status in Windows is the latest iteration of a longstanding debate: when does default integration become anti-competitive leverage? The answer, as always, is nuanced—depending not only on local market share and user agency, but also on evolving global legal standards and shifting technological norms.What is clear is that the question of browser choice is not a relic of the past, but a live issue with significant implications for market fairness, consumer autonomy, and the future of open digital ecosystems. As regulators in Brazil, the EU, and elsewhere weigh Opera’s arguments, the outcome could reshape how billions of future Windows users encounter—and evaluate—their first (and potentially last) web browser.
In this dynamic landscape, vigilance from both users and watchdogs remains crucial. Only time will tell whether history repeats itself or whether a new equilibrium, balancing platform integration with genuine user choice, finally emerges.
Source: theregister.com Opera complains over Microsoft Edge persuasion tactics
