The campaign is nevertheless useful because it puts a longstanding OEM practice back under scrutiny. It also offers a more concrete way to distinguish what users can reasonably ask for from what a manufacturer is actually obliged to provide.
What Refund4Freedom is asking for
Refund4Freedom is a joint initiative of the Italian Linux Society and the Free Software Foundation Europe. Its sponsors say it launched on May 29, 2025, so it should not be treated as a newly created response to later Windows pricing reports.
The campaign seeks three broad changes in the way computers are sold:
- the ability to purchase a laptop without an imposed operating system or software bundle;
- transparent pricing that lets the buyer decline pre-installed software knowingly; and
- a published, uncomplicated process for obtaining a refund where the buyer refuses bundled software.
Those demands go beyond Windows 11 setup. They challenge the default commercial model in which a consumer buys a finished PC with an operating system already installed and a single headline price. In that model, the amount attributable to Windows is generally not separately visible to the buyer, making it difficult to assess either the value of a refund or whether a supposedly optional licence was meaningfully optional.
The campaign provides a practical route for people pursuing a claim: preserve evidence of the first-run licence terms, contact the manufacturer, and, if rejected, consider a formal notice. That is advocacy guidance, not proof that every claim will succeed. Its escalation materials also draw heavily on Italian decisions and point Italian consumers toward Italy’s competition authority. Users elsewhere should not assume the same legal path or outcome applies in their jurisdiction.
The first-run licence screen matters more than many users expect
For a buyer determined not to accept bundled Windows, the first startup is the key moment to slow down. Microsoft documents that OEMs can add their own licence terms to the Windows licence screen during the first-run experience, and setup cannot proceed until the displayed terms are accepted.
That means there may not be one identical set of practical conditions for every Windows 11 machine. An ASUS laptop, a Dell desktop, and an Acer notebook can come with different OEM additions, support procedures, sales terms, and regional consumer-law contexts. Even two buyers of the same broad product line may have materially different rights if they bought through different retailers or in different countries.
The immediate takeaway is procedural rather than ideological: document what is shown. Before accepting anything, take clear photographs or screenshots where possible, note the model and serial number, save the invoice, and keep copies of advertisements or order confirmations that identify the seller. If a buyer wants to decline the software, those records may matter far more than a later recollection of what appeared during setup.
This is also why wiping the drive or installing Linux immediately can be counterproductive for someone seeking a refund. It may remove evidence about the original setup state, complicate a manufacturer’s inspection process, or create an argument over whether the supplied software was used or altered. The dossier does not establish a universal rule requiring an untouched device, but caution is sensible until the seller’s own process is clear.
Published vendor policies show sharply different outcomes
A central weakness in broad online claims about “Windows refunds” is the implication that every manufacturer follows the same rule. The available policies point in the opposite direction.
Acer Italy publishes a specific Microsoft operating-system refund procedure. It says the customer must contact Acer’s call center and submit the product along with proof of purchase within 30 days. The device is sent to an Acer service center, with Acer stating that it bears shipping costs. Acer says the reimbursement equals the value of the supplied operating system. It also says the software warranty for the device ends after reimbursement.
That policy is significant because it demonstrates that an OEM-only refund process can exist in practice. It is not, however, a frictionless “keep everything, remove Windows, get cash” promise. There is a short deadline, an approval and service process, and a consequence for software-warranty coverage. The actual reimbursement amount for a particular model is not established by the materials available here.
Dell Italy’s consumer sales terms lead to a different result. They state that pre-installed software or an individual operating-system component cannot be returned on its own; the customer must cancel the order and return the complete system. A buyer who needs the hardware but does not want Windows may see that as commercially unhelpful, but it is a clear example of why refusal at setup does not automatically produce a Windows-only refund.
The contrast matters more than either policy in isolation. Acer’s Italian procedure supports the proposition that separate treatment of bundled Windows is possible. Dell’s Italian terms show that an OEM can instead make an all-or-nothing return the stated route. Neither policy establishes a worldwide rule for either company, let alone for every PC maker and retailer.
Italy offers important precedent, not a global guarantee
Refund4Freedom’s legal case is rooted substantially in Italy. In Italian Supreme Court judgment no. 19161/2014, the court held, on the facts before it, that a buyer who declined the pre-installed software licence at first startup could keep the computer, return only the unaccepted software, and receive the portion of the price attributable to that software.
That outcome is an important challenge to the assumption that hardware and pre-installed software are inseparable in every transaction. It also helps explain why the campaign focuses on documenting refusal at first boot: timing and the lack of acceptance were central features of the dispute.
But a court decision must be read at its proper scale. It is a decision in a particular legal system, based on a particular set of facts. It does not mean every Windows 11 user, in every country, can retain the PC and demand a refund after declining a licence. It does not set the refund value for a modern laptop, and it does not override every seller policy outside the legal setting in which it was decided.
A separate Monza dispute involving Lenovo illustrates both the potential value and the limits of litigation anecdotes. Independent local reporting said the court confirmed reimbursement of pre-installed software and ordered €20,000 in additional damages tied to the company’s conduct during prolonged litigation. That should not be presented as a standard “punitive damages” award available to anyone unhappy with a Windows bundle. The additional damages were reported in connection with that company’s litigation conduct, not as a routine price for refusing Windows.
For consumers outside Italy, these cases are best understood as persuasive examples in a policy debate, not as a ready-made entitlement. Local consumer law, the retailer’s contract, the manufacturer’s terms, and the available dispute-resolution systems remain decisive.
A realistic playbook for Windows 11 buyers
Someone purchasing a new PC can improve their position before a disagreement begins. The most effective approach is usually to treat the operating system as a purchase-term question, not merely a setup annoyance.
First, ask before ordering. Contact the retailer or manufacturer in writing and ask whether the exact model can be supplied without Windows, with Linux, or with a documented operating-system refund route. Request the applicable regional terms and ask whether the system must be returned, shipped for service, or remain unactivated. A written answer will be more useful than an informal assurance from a sales page or chat agent.
Second, compare the real alternatives. A Linux-preinstalled model, a barebones system, a business configuration option, or a custom-built machine may cost more or offer fewer hardware choices. Yet it can be cheaper and less stressful than buying a Windows system only to pursue a small, uncertain refund. Availability is often the practical obstacle: consumers may prefer not to fund unwanted software, but may find the desired screen, processor, keyboard layout, warranty, or financing only on a Windows-configured SKU.
Third, preserve the original state and act quickly. Keep the packaging, receipt, product identifiers, and first-run terms. Do not assume that a return window is generous. Acer Italy’s published 30-day requirement is a concrete reminder that some processes can have firm deadlines.
Fourth, make the request precise. State that you are declining the pre-installed software licence, identify the device and purchase date, ask for the applicable procedure and refund amount, and ask what warranty or support consequences would follow. Avoid overstating the law or presenting a campaign demand as if it were already binding on the seller.
Finally, decide proportionately. If the seller requires return of the whole PC, the practical choice may be to return it within the ordinary window and select another machine, rather than pursue an extended dispute. If a dedicated refund procedure exists, weigh the reimbursement against shipping time, loss of software support, and the effort involved.
OEM fee reports do not change the legal position
Reports in August 2026 said Microsoft had raised some OEM Windows licensing fees by 7% to 10% beginning in July. The report attributed that claim to industry sourcing and noted that Microsoft had not commented, so the increase remains unconfirmed in the reviewed material.
Even if such a price change is eventually confirmed, it would not itself create a consumer right to a Windows-only refund. OEM licence fees, a PC’s retail price, and the amount a manufacturer might refund are distinct questions. The dossier does not establish what any particular manufacturer paid for Windows or what portion of a given laptop’s sale price is attributable to the licence.
It is also inaccurate to say the reported fee increase triggered Refund4Freedom. The campaign’s sponsors date its launch to May 2025, more than a year before the reported July 2026 change.
The policy issue is transparency, not just refunds
The strongest case for Refund4Freedom may be less about winning individual reimbursement disputes than about making PC purchasing more legible. Consumers can make better choices when the software bundle, price, return consequences, and alternative configurations are stated clearly before checkout.
For Windows users, that would reduce surprise. For Linux users and privacy-conscious buyers, it could make alternative operating systems a genuine purchase option rather than a post-purchase replacement. For OEMs and retailers, a clear published policy could reduce support friction and disputes about first-run acceptance.
Until that becomes normal practice, the safest conclusion is modest but important: refusing Windows at setup may be meaningful, yet it is not enough on its own to establish a uniform right to keep the hardware and receive money back. Check the terms on the machine, the seller’s regional policy, and the available alternatives before purchase—and treat any refund campaign as a tool for informed advocacy, not a substitute for the terms governing a specific PC sale.
Update: Campaign materials add claimed vendor-by-vendor refund differences (August 29, 2026)
Neowin reports that Refund4Freedom has now highlighted additional claimed approaches from major PC makers, reinforcing that a Windows-only refund is not handled uniformly across the market.
According to Neowin’s summary of the campaign materials, Lenovo offers a refund route but requires the PC to be sent to an assistance center. ASUS is said to offer an undocumented process that requires buyers to decline the licence agreement and contact the company within 30 days of first starting the machine. The same summary says HP has no established refund process, while Dell continues to direct dissatisfied buyers toward returning the complete PC.
These are campaign-reported characterizations rather than newly published, region-wide vendor policies, so buyers should not treat them as a guarantee for a particular model or country. In particular, an undocumented process may be difficult to invoke without written confirmation from the manufacturer.
The practical advice remains to preserve the first-run licence screen, decline it before proceeding if seeking a refund, and promptly obtain the applicable procedure from the seller or OEM in writing.