Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Microsoft litigation

Microsoft litigation encompasses the protracted series of antitrust enforcement actions and intellectual property disputes involving Microsoft Corporation, stemming from its dominance in personal computing software markets since the 1990s. The most defining case, United States v. Microsoft Corp., was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1998, alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act through Microsoft's monopoly maintenance in operating systems and unlawful tying of Internet Explorer to Windows 95 and 98. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found in 2000 that Microsoft had engaged in exclusionary practices to stifle competition, including predatory acts against Netscape Navigator, but the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001 reversed the tying claim and remanded for remedy adjustments, ultimately leading to a settlement requiring Microsoft to share application programming interfaces and abstain from certain restrictive contracts with original equipment manufacturers. Parallel scrutiny from the resulted in multiple fines exceeding €2 billion, beginning with a €497 million penalty in 2004 for withholding information from competitors and bundling , followed by €899 million in 2008 and €561 million in 2013 for repeated non-compliance with browser choice and technical disclosure commitments. More recently, investigations into bundling with Office 365 prompted a 2023 formal charge, resolved in 2025 via commitments to unbundle the products across the without a fine. Beyond antitrust, Microsoft has litigated extensively over patents, both as plaintiff and defendant, with notable outcomes including a $1.52 billion verdict against it in favor of Alcatel-Lucent in 2007 (later reduced and settled) for audio codec infringements and a $242 million jury award to IPA Technologies in 2024 for voice assistant technology used in Cortana, which Microsoft settled post-trial. These disputes underscore Microsoft's strategic use of intellectual property to defend market position amid ongoing regulatory probes, such as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's 2024 inquiry into its cloud licensing and bundling practices.

Antitrust and Competition Challenges

United States Antitrust Proceedings

The (DOJ) first investigated for potential antitrust violations in the early 1990s, with the () examining its software licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) starting in 1990. The DOJ assumed the probe in 1993, leading to a 1994 that required to revise certain licensing terms but imposed limited behavioral restrictions. These early actions centered on allegations that used restrictive contracts to protect its dominance in operating systems, though no maintenance claims were pursued at the time. The landmark proceedings began on May 18, 1998, when the DOJ, joined by 20 states, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, accusing Microsoft of violating Sections 1 and 2 of the . The complaint alleged that Microsoft unlawfully maintained a in Intel-compatible PC operating systems, holding over 90% with Windows, and attempted to monopolize the web market by bundling with Windows at no extra charge, integrating it into the OS to disadvantage rivals like . Specific practices included exclusive deals with OEMs prohibiting installation of competing browsers, technical restrictions on non-Microsoft , and misleading statements about browser functionality to preserve Windows' applications barrier to entry. Trial commenced in October 1998 before Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, featuring testimony from Microsoft executives and industry witnesses; the DOJ presented evidence of Microsoft's internal communications acknowledging competitive threats from and browsers. In November 1999, Judge Jackson issued findings of fact determining Microsoft possessed monopoly power and willfully maintained it through anticompetitive means, including bundling as an illegal tie under a rule-of-reason analysis adjusted for network effects. Conclusions of law in June 2000 held the conduct violated antitrust laws, rejecting Microsoft's defenses of innovation and pro-competitive justifications. Jackson ordered a breakup of Microsoft into separate operating systems and applications businesses in June 2000, but the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in June 2001 reversed the divestiture as premature, criticized Jackson's conduct, and remanded for a new judge while upholding most monopoly findings. The case settled via a November 2001 consent decree approved in 2002 by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, requiring Microsoft to share application programming interfaces with rivals, abstain from retaliating against OEMs or distributors supporting competitors, appoint a technical oversight committee, and undergo periodic compliance reviews—remedies that expired in 2008 and were extended to 2012. Nine states rejected the and pursued stricter remedies, resulting in a 2002-2003 where Kollar-Kotelly imposed additional requirements in November 2003, such as mandatory display of rival software launch icons and uniform contract terms for OEMs, effective from November 2004 after appeals. also settled private suits, including a $1.375 billion agreement with Inc. in 2000 over claims. Enforcement oversight by the DOJ continued until 2011, with reports documenting 's compliance amid criticisms from some states of insufficient structural changes to curb ongoing bundling practices. In recent years, antitrust scrutiny has revived amid Microsoft's expansion into and . The issued a civil investigative demand to in late 2024, probing bundling of Teams with Office 365, cloud practices, and potential exclusionary conduct in and enterprise markets, building on a administrative tied to the merger review. As of October 2025, the investigation remains ongoing without formal charges, reflecting heightened focus on in tech platforms. These proceedings echo 1990s concerns over leveraging dominance across products but emphasize data-driven markets and subscription models.

European Union Competition Enforcement

The European Commission has enforced competition law against Microsoft primarily under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, targeting alleged abuses of dominant position in personal computer operating systems and related software markets. Investigations began in 1998 following complaints from competitors like Sun Microsystems regarding interoperability between Windows client and server software. The Commission's actions have resulted in multiple fines totaling over €2 billion and imposed behavioral remedies, including unbundling products and sharing technical information. In its landmark March 24, 2004 decision, the Commission found Microsoft abused its dominance by bundling Windows Media Player with Windows and refusing to supply interoperability information to rival work group server vendors, stifling competition in media playing and server markets. It imposed a €497 million fine—the largest antitrust penalty at the time—and required Microsoft to license protocol specifications for 120,000 pages of documentation at reasonable rates for five years, offer a version of Windows without Media Player (Windows XP N), and appoint a monitoring trustee. Microsoft appealed to the Court of First Instance, which largely upheld the decision on September 17, 2007, confirming the tying and refusal to supply as abuses while annulling parts of the fine calculation. Subsequent enforcement addressed non-compliance. On July 12, 2006, the Commission fined Microsoft €280.5 million for failing to fully disclose server protocols. Further, on February 27, 2008, it levied an €899 million penalty (later reduced to €860 million by the General Court in 2012) for charging unreasonable prices for protocol access and inadequate disclosure, marking the highest fine then imposed for breaching antitrust commitments. In the browser market, following a 2009 settlement requiring a "browser choice screen" for European Windows users, the Commission fined Microsoft €561 million on March 6, 2013, for failing to display the screen to users who upgraded via Windows Update between May 2011 and July 2012. More recently, the Commission investigated bundling of Microsoft Teams with Office and Microsoft 365 suites, prompted by complaints from Slack in 2020 and others in 2023. On June 25, 2024, it issued a Statement of Objections alleging the tying abused Microsoft's dominance in productivity applications, foreclosing competitors in collaboration tools. To resolve the case without admitting liability, Microsoft offered commitments in 2025, including unbundling Teams for new EEA customers from September 2024, allowing removal for existing subscribers, providing interoperability APIs with rival platforms, and offering Office without Teams at a 25-40% discount. The Commission accepted these binding commitments on September 11, 2025, averting a potential fine up to 10% of Microsoft's global turnover and closing the probe.

Acquisition Scrutiny and Merger Blocks

Microsoft's acquisitions have faced heightened antitrust scrutiny from U.S., , and regulators, primarily due to concerns over potential entrenchment of dominance in gaming, , and markets. Regulators argued that deals could foreclose , particularly in emerging areas like and AI-driven services, though many transactions ultimately proceeded after concessions or judicial rejections of block attempts. This scrutiny intensified following Microsoft's aggressive M&A strategy under CEO , with over 200 acquisitions since 2014, including high-profile gaming expansions. The most contentious case involved Microsoft's $68.7 billion proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard, announced on January 18, 2022, which would have added franchises like Call of Duty to Microsoft's portfolio amid its Xbox ecosystem and Azure cloud infrastructure. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authorized an administrative complaint in June 2022 and filed a lawsuit on December 8, 2022, to block the merger, alleging it would enable Microsoft to suppress competition in multiplayer gaming and cloud services by leveraging Activision's content exclusivity. A federal judge denied the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction on July 13, 2023, ruling that the agency failed to demonstrate a likelihood of anticompetitive harm, as Microsoft committed to multi-year Call of Duty access on rival platforms like Sony's PlayStation. The deal closed on October 13, 2023, but the FTC appealed; the Ninth Circuit Court rejected the challenge on May 7, 2025, and the FTC dismissed its in-house case on May 22, 2025, effectively ending U.S. opposition under the incoming Trump administration's less aggressive enforcement stance. In the , the () provisionally blocked the deal on April 26, 2023, citing risks to innovation, where could withhold titles from competitors, potentially stifling nascent rivals in a market projected to grow significantly. This marked one of the few explicit merger blocks against in recent decades, prompting to restructure the transaction by divesting cloud streaming rights for games to for 10 years, ensuring broader access. The approved the revised deal on October 13, 2023, following a fresh Phase 2 review. The cleared the acquisition on May 15, , subject to commitments from to abstain from cloud exclusivity for Activision content and to license games to EU cloud providers on fair terms, addressing fears of foreclosure in the cloud gaming segment. Earlier deals like the $7.5 billion () acquisition in 2020 underwent FTC review but cleared without a block in September 2021, despite concerns over exclusive titles impacting multi-platform developers. Similarly, the $19.7 billion deal in 2021 faced FTC scrutiny for potential AI and healthcare market consolidation but proceeded under a consent agreement requiring divestitures of overlapping assets. These cases illustrate a pattern where scrutiny often yields remedies rather than outright blocks, with critics arguing regulators overreached on speculative harms unsubstantiated by market evidence.

Emerging AI and Cloud Market Probes

In November 2024, the U.S. (FTC) initiated a broad antitrust investigation into , examining potential violations across its , (AI), software licensing, and cybersecurity operations. The probe focuses on allegations of anticompetitive bundling, where integrates its productivity tools like and security products such as Microsoft Defender with cloud services, potentially locking in customers and foreclosing rivals. This inquiry builds on prior FTC scrutiny of 's $13 billion investment in , including concerns over exclusive access to AI models like GPT series running primarily on infrastructure, which critics argue entrenches 's cloud dominance— held approximately 25% global market share in Q3 2024. Complementing the FTC effort, a class-action filed on October 13, 2025, by users accuses of antitrust violations stemming from its , claiming the deal imposed exclusivity clauses requiring OpenAI's workloads to prioritize , thereby restraining competition and inflating costs for non- users. Plaintiffs allege this arrangement, initiated in 2019 and expanded through multibillion-dollar investments, distorts the market by leveraging 's scale to sideline alternatives like AWS or , with evidence drawn from leaked terms. Separately, the U.S. of Justice (DOJ) and have coordinated probes into chip distribution and s involving , , and , targeting potential bottlenecks in GPU access that favor incumbents. In the , the () launched a investigation into public infrastructure services in 2024, issuing a provisional decision on January 28, 2025, that —alongside —exercises significant unilateral power, stifling competition through practices like long-term contracts, data egress fees, and integration favoring proprietary stacks. The highlighted how 's expansions, including tools like Copilot, create switching barriers for customers, with the UK valued at over £20 billion annually and dominated by three hyperscalers holding 90% share. These findings echo reports on foundation models from 2023-2024, warning of risks from providers restricting third-party access. European regulators have pursued parallel scrutiny, with the monitoring Microsoft's ties since 2023 without classifying it as a notifiable merger but expressing competition concerns over foreclosure. In July 2024, Microsoft settled complaints from the Cloud Infrastructure Services Providers in (CISPE) by committing to fairer software licensing for non- clouds over nine months, averting a formal probe into Azure-favoring terms. Notably, itself lobbied EU authorities in October 2025 to address Microsoft's practices, citing customer lock-in via bundled services and restricted app distribution, underscoring tensions even among partners. These probes reflect broader regulatory unease with Microsoft's pivot to -driven cloud growth, where revenue surged 30% year-over-year in fiscal 2025, amid calls for remedies like mandates.

Intellectual Property Disputes

Patent Infringement Battles

Microsoft has engaged in extensive litigation, both asserting its own patents against competitors and defending against claims from patent holders, often resulting in settlements, licensing agreements, or court-awarded damages exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars. These battles span software technologies like XML processing, database structures, and mobile interoperability, reflecting the high stakes in patent portfolios. Outcomes frequently hinge on standards to industry standards (SEPs) and fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing obligations, with Microsoft securing royalties from device manufacturers while facing losses in cases involving legacy . A prominent defensive case arose in 2007 when i4i Inc., a Toronto-based software firm, sued in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of , alleging willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,499, which covers a method for storing and manipulating XML data in word processing systems, as implemented in 2003 and earlier versions. The jury found infringement and rejected 's invalidity defenses, awarding i4i $200 million in damages, later enhanced by a trebling for willfulness to approximately $290 million plus injunction considerations. appealed, challenging the statutory presumption of patent validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282, arguing for a preponderance-of-evidence standard rather than clear and convincing evidence to prove invalidity based on . In a unanimous 2011 decision, the U.S. upheld the higher evidentiary burden, affirming the judgment and emphasizing the policy of deference to Patent and Trademark Office examinations despite acknowledged imperfections in the patent system. The case underscored challenges for accused infringers in overcoming issued patents, with ultimately complying via software redesigns in later Word versions rather than further appeals. In offensive actions, aggressively asserted patents against Android ecosystem players, claiming essential technologies for file systems, networking, and user interfaces infringed by 's open-source OS and devices from OEMs like and . By 2011, Microsoft had licensed its patents to over a dozen Android vendors, extracting royalties estimated at $5–$15 per device, with alone paying more than $1 billion over 11 months in 2014 to cover shipments. These assertions stemmed from Microsoft's pre-Android patent filings in areas like file systems and protocols, positioning the company to monetize non-Windows mobile growth without market share loss. Lawsuits targeted non-licensors, including suits against and in 2011, but most resolved via confidential settlements, avoiding trials. A key confrontation unfolded in 2010 when Microsoft sued (later acquired by ) in the Western District of Washington, alleging breach of FRAND commitments for SEPs covering H.264 video and wireless protocols used in and Windows devices; Motorola countersued for infringement of its own patents. The district court ruled in 2013 that Motorola violated good-faith RAND obligations by demanding up to 2.25% of end-product revenue, awarding Microsoft $11.65 million in supplemental damages, a decision affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in 2015. The dispute contributed to broader truces, culminating in a 2015 cross-licensing agreement between Microsoft and dropping multiple U.S. and international suits. More recently, Microsoft faced defeats in emerging tech domains, such as the 2024 jury in the District of where Infinite Perios, LLC () prevailed on infringement of U.S. No. 6,901,404, covering AI-driven software tagging and analysis, awarding $242 million—the third-largest patent in that district's history. The case highlights ongoing vulnerabilities for Microsoft in defending against specialized software patents despite its vast portfolio of over 60,000 filings. Conversely, Microsoft has prevailed in eligibility challenges, as in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft (2016), where the Federal Circuit reversed invalidating self-referential database patents, deeming them non-abstract improvements over conventional systems under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. These battles illustrate Microsoft's dual role: leveraging patents for revenue diversification while navigating a litigation landscape where empirical validity rates and settlement incentives favor resolution over adjudication, with total Android-related royalties reportedly in the billions annually before strategic shifts toward open-source compatibility pledges.

Copyright Infringement Claims

The primary claims against in recent years center on the alleged unauthorized use of copyrighted materials to train models developed in partnership with . On December 27, 2023, filed a in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of against and , accusing them of systematically scraping and using millions of the newspaper's articles without permission to train large language models like , resulting in direct reproduction of copyrighted content in AI outputs. The suit alleges direct, vicarious, and contributory infringement, seeking billions in damages and an to prevent further use. In April 2025, a federal judge denied most of and 's motion to dismiss, allowing key infringement claims to proceed while dismissing some DMCA and unfair competition allegations. Similar claims have proliferated from other media outlets and authors. On April 30, 2024, eight U.S. newspapers, including The Tribune, The New York Post, and The Star Tribune, sued and in the Southern District of , alleging the companies ingested millions of their articles to train systems, enabling verbatim reproduction of copyrighted works without licensing or payment. The suit highlights instances where queries produced near-exact copies of paywalled content, undermining the publishers' business models. Authors have also pursued actions; for instance, on , 2024, two book authors filed a proposed class-action suit against and , claiming the defendants "simply stole" their works by incorporating them into training datasets for models powering tools like Microsoft's Copilot. By April 2025, twelve such U.S. cases against and —primarily from authors and news entities—were consolidated in federal court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In June 2025, additional authors sued specifically over the use of their books in AI training, seeking injunctions and statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringed work. has defended these suits by arguing that AI training constitutes under U.S. law, as it transforms source materials into new, non-substitutive outputs, though courts have yet to issue definitive rulings on this defense in these cases. In response to such litigation risks, introduced the Copilot Commitment in September 2023, offering indemnification to enterprise customers against third-party claims arising from use of its AI tools. Historically, has also enforced its own copyrights aggressively against alleged infringers. In Microsoft Corp. v. Software Wholesale Club, Inc. (2001), a federal court found defendants liable for through unauthorized bulk distribution and resale of Microsoft software, awarding damages and injunctive relief under federal copyright law. maintains dedicated processes for reporting third-party infringements of its software copyrights, emphasizing respect for while prioritizing enforcement against and unauthorized copying. These actions contrast with the inbound AI-related claims, where is positioned as the accused party amid broader debates over and generative AI's impact on .

Trademark Infringement Cases

has pursued claims primarily to protect its globally recognized marks, including "," "Windows," and associated product names, against counterfeiters, domain squatters, and entities using confusingly similar terms that could mislead consumers. These actions, often under the in the U.S. or equivalent laws abroad, have resulted in settlements, injunctions, and damages awards, reflecting the company's strategy to maintain brand integrity amid widespread counterfeiting of its software. Courts have generally upheld 's claims where evidence of consumer confusion or dilution was demonstrated, though outcomes vary when faces countersuits or defends against alleged overlaps. In December 2001, Microsoft filed suit against Lindows.com, Inc. in U.S. federal court, alleging that the defendant's "Lindows" operating system name infringed the "Windows" trademark by evoking visual and phonetic similarity, potentially causing consumer confusion. The litigation spanned multiple jurisdictions, including Europe, where a Swedish court initially ruled against Lindows but was overturned on appeal. The case settled in July 2004 on confidential terms that included Microsoft paying Lindows approximately $20 million, with Lindows agreeing to rebrand its product as Linspire, cease worldwide use of the "Lindows" mark within 60 days, and transfer related domains to Microsoft after a four-year period. Another notable domain-related dispute arose in January 2004 when Microsoft issued a cease-and-desist letter to Canadian high school student Mike Rowe over his "MikeRoweSoft.com" website, claiming trademark infringement and cybersquatting due to the phonetic resemblance to "Microsoft." Rowe initially sought fair compensation for the domain, rejecting Microsoft's $10 offer covering registration costs, but the parties settled out of court shortly thereafter, with Rowe transferring the domain to Microsoft in exchange for an Xbox console, Microsoft software, and coverage of his legal expenses. In , secured a significant victory in January 2025 against Retnec Solutions Private Limited, a Gurugram-based entity operating fraudulent call centers that impersonated support to scam customers. The Exclusive Commercial Court in Gurugram granted an ex-parte permanent , holding Retnec liable for misusing the "" well-known , and awarded ₹55 in damages plus additional costs totaling around ₹75 for reputational harm and lost goodwill. The court emphasized the defendants' deliberate deception, including use of 's logos and false claims of affiliation. Microsoft has also faced claims as a , as in Veeva Systems Inc. v. Corporation, filed February 3, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of . Veeva, a pharmaceutical software provider holding trademarks for "" in tools, alleged that Microsoft's "" employee experience platform—launched in 2021 for workplace analytics and engagement—infringes by offering overlapping collaboration features, likely causing confusion among users in regulated industries. Veeva seeks an to halt Microsoft's use of the and unspecified monetary . The case remains ongoing as of October 2025.

Contractual and Licensing Conflicts

Software Licensing Practices

Microsoft's software licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) faced scrutiny in the United States v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust case filed on May 18, 1998, where the U.S. Department of Justice alleged that the company imposed restrictive terms to stifle competition in web browsing software. These included per-processor licensing for Windows that discouraged OEMs from offering alternative operating systems, requirements to pre-install Internet Explorer alongside Windows 95 and 98, and prohibitions on OEMs removing or altering desktop icons and boot sequences to promote Microsoft's products. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found in 2000 that such practices unlawfully maintained Microsoft's operating system monopoly by deterring OEMs from distributing rival software like Netscape Navigator. The case's , upheld on , mandated to loosen OEM licensing restrictions, including allowing of the Windows and boot process, and prohibiting retaliation against OEMs licensing rival . Despite these remedies, critics argued the terms failed to fully address entrenched practices, as evidenced by ongoing private lawsuits alleging residual anti-competitive effects, such as inflated pricing from bundling obligations. In enterprise and cloud contexts, Microsoft's volume licensing models have sparked disputes over compliance audits and punitive enforcement. The company's Business Software Alliance-led audits of enterprise agreements often result in demands for back-licensing fees plus penalties for alleged under-licensing, with reported cases imposing multimillion-dollar settlements on non-compliant organizations. Legal challenges have contested the validity of these audits, claiming Microsoft's self-reported compliance tools and broad audit rights under agreements like the Enterprise Agreement enable overreach, though courts have generally upheld the contracts' enforceability absent fraud. Recent litigation has targeted cloud-specific licensing, particularly Microsoft's policies for and SQL Server on non-Azure platforms. A December 2024 UK antitrust suit by cloud providers seeks £1 billion ($1.25 billion) in damages, alleging that "license mobility" fees—up to 40% surcharges for using Microsoft software on rivals like AWS or Google —artificially inflate costs and lock customers into Azure, harming competition. Similarly, a May 2025 UK class action claims Microsoft abuses its dominance by restricting secondary markets for perpetual s, forcing upgrades and driving up prices for consumers and businesses. These practices echo earlier EU probes, culminating in a July 2024 settlement with the Cloud Infrastructure Services Providers in Europe (CISPE), where Microsoft committed to offering compliant licensing options for clouds by April 2025 to avoid fines. Such disputes highlight causal links between Microsoft's dominant market position—over 70% in desktop OS and significant shares in server software—and licensing terms that prioritize lock-in over , as regulators in the UK and have noted in ongoing probes. Proponents of the practices defend them as necessary for and feature consistency, but from affected providers shows reduced and higher barriers for smaller competitors.

Enterprise and Government Contracts

In 2019, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded a $10 billion contract known as the () for services to modernize handling. protested the award to the (), alleging bias and procedural flaws, including claims of political interference favoring during the administration. The sustained the protest in November 2020, citing the DoD's failure to consider other vendors adequately, prompting a reevaluation. defended its technical qualifications, while pursued parallel federal court litigation against the DoD and , which was stayed pending administrative resolution. The canceled the contract on July 6, 2021, citing evolving requirements for multi-vendor cloud capabilities incompatible with the single-provider structure, shifting to the Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability (JWCC) program. expressed disappointment but reaffirmed its commitment to partnerships, noting prior investments in secure cloud tech during the dispute. The episode highlighted tensions in , with critics pointing to from executive politics over merit-based selection, though no formal findings of illegality emerged. Enterprise contract disputes have centered on Microsoft's licensing terms, particularly allegations of restrictive clauses embedded in agreements that limit resale or options. In a tribunal case initiated in 2021, reseller ValueLicensing sued , claiming the company unlawfully inserted anti-resale provisions into customer contracts, violating EU-derived on perpetual licenses. By October 2025, shifted its defense to arguments, asserting ownership over transferred licenses, amid ongoing proceedings that could impact reuse. A December 2024 class-action , led by Justin Gutmann, accuses of anti-competitive pricing in licenses, charging enterprises up to four times more for software used on compared to on-premises or rival clouds like AWS, potentially entitling thousands of businesses to £1 billion in damages. The claim alleges these terms in enterprise agreements exploit Microsoft's dominance to stifle competition, forcing lock-in and inflating costs without equivalent functionality. has countered that its pricing reflects value provided, including integrated security and support, though the case awaits certification and trial. Such disputes underscore broader enterprise concerns over opaque Enterprise Agreement (EA) renewals, where bundled commitments can lead to unforeseen compliance audits and penalties.

Tax and Regulatory Disputes

International Tax Evasion Allegations

Microsoft has faced allegations of international tax evasion through complex profit-shifting structures involving subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions such as Ireland and Bermuda, primarily aimed at minimizing taxable income in higher-tax countries where sales occur. Critics, including tax advocacy groups and government investigators, contend that these arrangements artificially relocate profits via royalty payments for intellectual property (IP), resulting in effective tax rates far below standard corporate levels in Europe and elsewhere. For instance, a 2012 U.S. Senate investigation highlighted Microsoft's use of Irish entities to channel European sales royalties to Bermuda-based units with zero corporate tax, reducing U.S. and EU tax liabilities on foreign earnings. A key mechanism alleged in these claims is the "Double Irish" arrangement, under which Microsoft transferred IP rights to an Irish-incorporated subsidiary treated as tax-resident in a zero-tax haven like Bermuda, while routing royalties from another Irish entity to avoid Irish withholding taxes and defer U.S. taxation. This strategy, employed by Microsoft from the early 2000s until Ireland phased it out by 2020, enabled profits from global software licensing to be taxed at effectively 0-2% rather than Ireland's 12.5% rate or higher rates in sales markets. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) later challenged related transfer pricing during 2004-2013, proposing $28.9 billion in additional taxes plus penalties, asserting the transactions lacked economic substance and were designed to evade federal income tax—a dispute intertwined with these international flows. Specific examples underscore the scale: Round Island One, an -registered entity tax-resident in , reported a $314.7 billion profit for the year ending June 2020—primarily from global license fees and unrealized gains on transfers—but paid no due to Bermuda's zero rate and hybrid entity status unrecognized for taxation. Operating profits of $13.6 billion were offset or deferred, with dividends taxed elsewhere, exemplifying how shell-like structures with minimal staff collect revenues generated in high-tax regions like the . Reports estimate such practices contributed to tech firms, including , underpaying $96 billion in global taxes over a by inflating low-tax income. While no major () enforcement actions or fines have targeted for state aid or illegal —unlike cases against Apple or —allegations persist from EU parliamentarians and NGOs citing BEPS () violations, with calls for global minimum taxes to curb such routing. maintains these structures comply with laws and reflect value creation , where it employs thousands and invests heavily, but critics argue they erode bases in value-generating markets without genuine economic activity. The absence of EU litigation may reflect selective focus on sweeter tax rulings rather than broad profit-shifting probes, amid broader efforts post-2015 to reform rules.

Domestic Tax Challenges

In October 2023, the U.S. (IRS) issued a notice to asserting that the company owes $28.9 billion in additional taxes for the period 2004–2013, plus penalties and interest, stemming from an audit of its federal returns. The IRS's adjustments primarily target 's cost-sharing agreements with foreign affiliates, alleging improper profit allocation through intercompany transactions that shifted income offshore, including to a Puerto Rico-based engaged in software duplication and distribution. maintains that these arrangements complied with arm's-length principles under IRS regulations and prior private letter rulings, and it plans to contest the determination through administrative appeals and, if necessary, litigation. The , described as one of the largest in IRS , highlights tensions over multinational corporations' use of cost-sharing to allocate rights and associated profits between U.S. parents and foreign units. estimates that any final liability could be offset by up to $10 billion through procedures under U.S. tax treaties and provisions of the 2017 (TCJA), such as the deemed transition tax under section 965. As of late 2023, the matter remains unresolved, with disclosing the dispute in its filings and expressing confidence in its tax positions based on contemporaneous documentation and economic substance. At the level, has pursued litigation over and taxation. In Microsoft Corp. v. Department of Revenue (Oregon Tax Court, 2024), the court granted partial to , ruling that 20% of deemed dividends repatriated under TCJA 965 qualified for Oregon's dividend-received and were exempt from corporate , rejecting the 's broader inclusion of such income in the sales factor. Earlier federal disputes include a 2003 Tax Court decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Commissioner, where the IRS challenged the company's treatment of employee stock options as non-deductible for export property purposes under pre-TCJA rules, resulting in a deficiency judgment upheld on appeal. These cases underscore ongoing scrutiny of 's domestic strategies amid evolving U.S. rules on income sourcing and inter-entity dealings.

Other Significant Litigation

Product Defect and Consumer Actions

Microsoft faced multiple consumer lawsuits alleging defects in its Xbox 360 gaming console, particularly the widespread "Red Ring of Death" (RROD) hardware failure caused by overheating and poor soldering, which affected an estimated 30% of units sold between 2005 and 2010. In October 2008, a class action lawsuit filed in California Superior Court accused Microsoft of selling defective consoles despite knowing of the high failure rate, seeking refunds and disgorgement of profits from affected sales. Microsoft responded by extending the console's warranty from one to three years in July 2007, ultimately incurring $1.15 billion in repair and replacement costs, a decision approved by then-CEO Steve Ballmer to prioritize customer goodwill over short-term profits. Separate class actions also targeted disc-scratched damage from the console's optical drive vibrations, with a 2015 Ninth Circuit ruling allowing one such suit to proceed after initial denial of certification, though Microsoft prevailed in related Supreme Court appeals on procedural grounds in 2017 without admitting liability. Additional consumer claims involved Xbox 360 firmware updates exacerbating hardware instability, but courts largely dismissed class certification attempts due to individualized proof of defect causation and damages varying by usage patterns. Microsoft discontinued formal RROD support after 2010 but offered paid repairs until the 's end-of-life in 2016, maintaining that the issues stemmed from manufacturing variances rather than inherent design flaws. In software-related defects, a 2017 class action filed in Illinois federal court alleged that Microsoft's Windows 10 upgrade process, promoted as free and automatic, damaged hard drives and caused data loss on incompatible older PCs by failing to verify hardware suitability before installation. Plaintiffs claimed the upgrade rendered devices inoperable, with no reliable rollback option, affecting users who experienced boot failures and file corruption post-installation in 2015-2016. Microsoft defended the upgrades as optional despite aggressive prompts, attributing issues to user hardware limitations rather than software defects, and the suit sought compensatory damages for repair costs but did not result in a certified class or settlement admission of fault. Individual consumer successes included a 2016 California small claims victory where plaintiff Teri Goldstein received $10,000 for a forced upgrade that allegedly bricked her system, highlighting risks of automatic updates overriding user control. Similar complaints arose from Windows updates causing blue screen errors or peripheral incompatibilities, but disclaimed liability for third-party hardware interactions or user-induced errors in its end-user license agreements. Surface hardware lines faced defect allegations, including screen and flickering ("Flickergate") due to failures, prompting to launch a no-cost replacement program in 2018 for out-of-warranty units after widespread user reports. Swollen batteries in models raised fire hazards, leading to voluntary replacements but no major class actions, as attributed issues to manufacturing defects covered under extended support rather than systemic design flaws. These actions underscored consumer frustrations with premium device reliability but resulted in expansions over litigation payouts.

Data Practices and Privacy Suits

In June 2023, the U.S. () settled charges against for violations of the () related to its gaming platform. The agency alleged that from 2015 to 2020, collected personal information from children under 13—such as names, addresses, numbers, gamertags, profile pictures, avatars, and unique identifiers—without obtaining verifiable or providing adequate notification. This data was also shared with third-party developers, and retained it beyond necessary periods. Under the settlement, agreed to pay a $20 million , delete data collected without consent, implement enhanced privacy protections including parental notifications and consent mechanisms for child accounts created before May 2021, and inform game publishers about child users. Microsoft's subsidiary faced regulatory action in October 2024 from Ireland's Data Protection Commission (DPC), its lead privacy regulator, for breaches of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The DPC determined that lacked a lawful basis for processing users' to enable targeted , violating GDPR principles of lawfulness, fairness, and . The fine imposed was €310 million (approximately $335 million), one of the largest GDPR penalties to date, reflecting the scale of involved in 's ad practices. In September 2023, Microsoft and OpenAI were hit with a consumer class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing them of unlawfully scraping and misusing personal data from hundreds of millions of internet users to train ChatGPT and related AI models. Filed by two software engineers represented by Morgan & Morgan, the suit claimed violations of privacy rights, property interests, and consumer protection laws, alleging the data collection led to unauthorized use of plaintiffs' personal information and professional expertise. This followed a similar June 2023 class action by Clarkson Law Firm, highlighting concerns over non-consensual data harvesting for AI development. A related class action against emerged in January 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of (San Jose division), where subscribers alleged the platform disclosed their private InMail messages to third parties without authorization to train models. Plaintiffs contended this breached contracts, 's Unfair Competition Law, and the federal , noting that a update on , 2024, permitted such use retroactively, with opt-outs not applying to prior data training. The proposed class, potentially representing millions of users, seeks unspecified damages plus $1,000 per person. These cases underscore ongoing scrutiny of Microsoft's data handling in contexts, with allegations centered on insufficient user controls over sensitive communications.

References

  1. [1]
    U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings Of Fact - Department of Justice
    These consolidated civil antitrust actions alleging violations of the Sherman Act, §§ 1 and 2, and various state statutes by the defendant Microsoft ...
  2. [2]
    Microsoft's decades-long battle with EU antitrust regulators | Reuters
    Jun 25, 2024 · 2008 - The Commission imposes an 899 million euro fine, its second additional penalty, after Microsoft again fails to comply with the 2004 EU ...
  3. [3]
    Complaint : U.S. V. Microsoft Corp. - Department of Justice
    This is an action under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act to restrain anticompetitive conduct by defendant Microsoft Corporation.
  4. [4]
    United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)
    Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that Microsoft violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a series of exclusionary, anticompetitive, and predatory acts ...
  5. [5]
    U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) - Justia Law
    Microsoft Corporation appeals from judgments of the District Court finding the company in violation of 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and ordering various remedies.
  6. [6]
    Antitrust: Commission imposes € 899 million penalty on Microsoft for ...
    Feb 26, 2008 · “Microsoft was the first company in fifty years of EU competition policy that the Commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  7. [7]
    Commission fines Microsoft for non-compliance with browser choice
    Mar 5, 2013 · The European Commission has imposed a €561 million fine on Microsoft for failing to comply with its commitments to offer users a browser choice ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  8. [8]
    Microsoft sidesteps hefty EU fine with Teams unbundling deal - CNBC
    Sep 12, 2025 · The European Commission last year accused Microsoft of breaching competition rules by bundling its Teams and Office products.Missing: history | Show results with:history
  9. [9]
    Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. | 550 U.S. 437 (2007)
    AT&T holds a patent on a computer used to digitally encode and compress recorded speech. Microsoft's Windows operating system has the potential to infringe ...
  10. [10]
    Microsoft settles Cortana patent case after $242 mln trial loss - Reuters
    Jun 20, 2024 · IPA filed the lawsuit in 2018, accusing Microsoft of infringing patents related to personal digital assistants and voice-based data navigation.<|control11|><|separator|>
  11. [11]
    Microsoft faces wide-ranging US antitrust probe | Reuters
    Nov 28, 2024 · The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has opened a broad antitrust investigation into Microsoft , including of its software licensing and cloud ...
  12. [12]
    Timeline of Microsoft investigations - CNET
    1990, Federal Trade Commission begins investigating Microsoft's software marketing practices. · 1993, Justice Department takes over the investigation. · 1994 ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  13. [13]
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/microsoft-antitrust-case-a-timeline
  14. [14]
    Microsoft Antitrust Case - Overview, Charges, Verdict
    The DoJ case alleged that Microsoft was intentionally making it extremely difficult for consumers to install software by other companies on personal computers ...
  15. [15]
    USA v. Microsoft Corp, No. 97-5343 (D.C. Cir. 1998) - Justia Law
    The district court entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting Microsoft Corporation from requiring computer manufacturers who license its oper- ating system ...
  16. [16]
    Final Judgment : U.S. V. Microsoft Corporation; State Of New York ...
    The judgment found Microsoft violated the Sherman Act and state laws, and ordered a divestiture of its Operating Systems Business.
  17. [17]
    U.S. v. Microsoft: Timeline - WIRED
    Nov 4, 2002 · April 3, 2000: Two days after settlement talks collapse, the judge rules that the software giant violated antitrust laws and consistently acted ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  18. [18]
    [DOC] 01-16-08MSFTConsentDecreeTimeline.docx
    October 1998 – A consolidated antitrust case against Microsoft goes to trial before Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in the U.S. District Court for the District of ...
  19. [19]
    Microsoft Bundling Practices Focus of Federal Antitrust Probe
    Dec 26, 2024 · Federal prosecutors alleged that Microsoft maintained an illegal monopoly in the operating system market through anticompetitive behaviors that ...
  20. [20]
    F.T.C. Launches Antitrust Investigation Into Microsoft
    Nov 27, 2024 · The Federal Trade Commission has opened an investigation into whether Microsoft has violated antitrust law in multiple segments of its wide-ranging business.
  21. [21]
    Big Tech remains top priority for DOJ and FTC in US antitrust litigation
    Aug 11, 2025 · This article summarises recent trends and developments in US antitrust litigation concerning vertical and horizontal agreements, ...<|separator|>
  22. [22]
    The Microsoft antitrust case casts a shadow over the Google trial : NPR
    Apr 24, 2025 · The DOJ and Microsoft agreed to drop plans for a breakup of the tech giant and in return Microsoft had to establish an internal antitrust ...
  23. [23]
    62004TJ0201 - EN - EUR-Lex - European Union
    Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) of 17 September 2007. Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities.
  24. [24]
    Antitrust Alert: European Commission Fines Microsoft €561 Million ...
    Mar 6, 2013 · In 2004, the Commission fined Microsoft a then-record €497 million for abusing its dominant position by restricting interoperability between ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  25. [25]
    Commission accepts commitments offered by Microsoft to address ...
    Sep 11, 2025 · If the company does not honour such commitments, the Commission may impose a fine of up to 10% of its worldwide annual turnover, without having ...
  26. [26]
    Microsoft swerves EU antitrust fine with price deal for ... - Reuters
    Sep 12, 2025 · Microsoft avoided a potentially hefty EU antitrust fine by promising reduced prices for Office products excluding its Teams app, a move on ...
  27. [27]
    Game Over or Game On?: Regulatory Scrutiny of Microsoft's ...
    Feb 23, 2023 · If consumers are not the focus, regulators may use powerful antitrust tools to block mergers and acquisitions that competitors do not like or ...
  28. [28]
    Microsoft/Activision Blizzard, In the Matter of
    The Federal Trade Commission authorized an administrative complaint against the proposed merger between Microsoft Corp. and Activision Blizzard, Inc.
  29. [29]
    FTC sues to block the $69 billion Microsoft-Activision Blizzard merger
    Dec 8, 2022 · The Federal Trade Commission said Thursday it is suing to block Microsoft's planned $69 billion takeover of video game company Activision ...
  30. [30]
    Does tech need a regulatory antitrust alternative after the Microsoft ...
    Jul 25, 2023 · The FTC's failure to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision in court suggests a dedicated regulator for tech could be more effective.
  31. [31]
    Microsoft wins appeal in FTC challenge to $69 bln Activision ...
    May 7, 2025 · A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected a legal challenge by the Federal Trade Commission to Microsoft's (MSFT.O) $69 billion purchase of “Call of Duty” ...
  32. [32]
    Nearly two years later, FTC drops final challenge to Microsoft's ...
    May 23, 2025 · Microsoft's $75 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard cleared its final U.S. regulatory hurdle as the FTC dropped its challenge, ...
  33. [33]
    Microsoft's Activision Blizzard acquisition blocked by UK regulators
    Apr 26, 2023 · Microsoft's $68.7 billion deal to acquire Activision Blizzard has been blocked by the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).
  34. [34]
    Microsoft-Activision Blizzard takeover approved by UK regulator CMA
    Oct 13, 2023 · The decision marks a major U-turn from the CMA, the staunchest critic of the takeover, which effectively blocked the deal earlier this year over ...
  35. [35]
    Competition authorities heed the Call of Duty? - Hausfeld LLP
    Feb 27, 2024 · In August, Microsoft and Activision submitted a new deal to the CMA for approval, which involved the complete divestiture of cloud streaming ...
  36. [36]
    United States: Trump administration signals major shift in US digital ...
    Sep 22, 2025 · United States: Trump administration signals major shift in US digital mergers from aggressive scrutiny to targeted enforcement · Structural ...
  37. [37]
    How Microsoft Turned the Tide in Its Regulatory Fight Over Activision
    Oct 13, 2023 · Microsoft turned to an increasingly popular tactic for corporate lawyers trying to defeat regulators. While trying to get mergers approved, ...
  38. [38]
    FTC opens antitrust investigation into Microsoft's cloud, AI, and ...
    Nov 28, 2024 · The probe highlights concerns over bundling, market dominance, and cybersecurity failings. · Focus on market dominance and security practices.
  39. [39]
    FTC Launches Inquiry into Generative AI Investments and ...
    Jan 25, 2024 · FTC Launches Inquiry into Generative AI Investments and Partnerships. Agency Issues 6(b) Orders to Alphabet, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Anthropic ...
  40. [40]
    Antitrust Investigations into Microsoft, OpenAI, and NVIDIA
    Sep 2, 2024 · The DOJ and FTC are investigating Microsoft, OpenAI, and NVIDIA for antitrust violations, focusing on chip distribution, Microsoft's OpenAI ...<|separator|>
  41. [41]
    AI users sue Microsoft in antitrust class action over OpenAI deal
    Oct 13, 2025 · The lawsuit said the deal Microsoft struck early in OpenAI's development violated federal antitrust law by restraining market competition and ...Missing: 2023-2025 | Show results with:2023-2025
  42. [42]
    https://grellas.com/microsoft-faces-antitrust-class-action-over-openai-partnership/
  43. [43]
    Cloud services market investigation - GOV.UK
    28 January 2025: The CMA has published its provisional decision in its market investigation into the supply of public cloud infrastructure services in the UK.
  44. [44]
    UK CMA accuses Microsoft and Amazon of stifling cloud competition
    Aug 1, 2025 · The findings conclude that Microsoft and Amazon hold "significant unilateral market power" in the UK's cloud infrastructure services market ...
  45. [45]
    UK and EU antitrust authorities target AI partnerships in expansion ...
    Sep 22, 2025 · The CMA's AI foundation models reports (2023 and 2024) flagged the risk of dominant cloud providers potentially restricting access to ...
  46. [46]
    Microsoft, OpenAI Not Out of EU Regulator's Sights - Investopedia
    Jun 28, 2024 · The European Union (EU) has determined that the relationship between Microsoft (MSFT) and OpenAI is not considered a merger.
  47. [47]
    Microsoft brokers deal with European cloud lobby, dodges EU ...
    Jul 10, 2024 · Microsoft brokers deal with European cloud lobby, dodges EU antitrust probe. The cloud and software giant has nine months to resolve software ...
  48. [48]
    OpenAI Urges EU to Tackle Microsoft, Google, Apple AI Barriers
    Oct 10, 2025 · OpenAI has urged EU regulators to address anti-competitive barriers from Microsoft, Google, and Apple, citing customer lock-in, restricted app ...
  49. [49]
    Regulatory Crossroads: How Antitrust Scrutiny of Microsoft's Cloud ...
    Aug 23, 2025 · - Microsoft's cloud operations face antitrust scrutiny under FTC Chair Lina Khan, focusing on bundling strategies and AI partnerships that ...Missing: 2023-2025 | Show results with:2023-2025
  50. [50]
    Microsoft, Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 14-35393 (9th Cir. 2015)
    Microsoft sued Motorola for breach of RAND obligations. The court affirmed the judgment for Microsoft, finding Motorola breached its good faith obligations.
  51. [51]
    Samsung paid Microsoft over $1 billion in Android patent royalties in ...
    Oct 4, 2014 · Google is making fast market share gains at Microsoft's expense, in a field of technology in which Microsoft filed tens of thousands of patents ...
  52. [52]
    Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership | 564 U.S. 91 (2010)
    Jun 9, 2011 · The jury found that Microsoft willfully infringed the i4i patent and that Microsoft failed to prove invalidity due to the on-sale bar or ...
  53. [53]
    Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership - Oyez
    Apr 18, 2011 · The jury found Microsoft liable for willful infringement, rejecting the company's argument that the patent was invalid, and awarded $200 million in damages to ...
  54. [54]
    Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership and Infrastructures for ...
    Apr 18, 2011 · In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether 35 U.S.C. § 282 requires the challenger of a patent's validity in patent infringement ...
  55. [55]
    U.S. Supreme Court Affirms "Clear and Convincing" Evidentiary ...
    Jun 16, 2011 · The decision means that Microsoft may now face a judgment in excess of $250 million. Background. In 2007, i4i claimed that Microsoft's Word ...
  56. [56]
    Microsoft, Google Tussle Over Android Phone Patents - NPR
    Oct 3, 2011 · Microsoft has told phone-makers using the Android operating system that they need to pay up, because Android is built on software that is patented by Microsoft.
  57. [57]
    Analysis of 222 smartphone patent assertions: more than 90% go ...
    Oct 1, 2014 · Microsoft has announced a total of 27 Android/Chrome-related license deals and brought infringement lawsuits against only two device makers, ...
  58. [58]
    [PDF] Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc. - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
    Jul 30, 2015 · Microsoft sued Motorola for breaching RAND patent licensing agreements. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Microsoft, finding Motorola ...
  59. [59]
    Google and Microsoft end patent battle and drop lawsuits | The Verge
    Sep 30, 2015 · A five-year patent battle between Google and Microsoft has come to a close, as both companies decided to end the feud and drop around 20 lawsuits in the US and ...Missing: assertions | Show results with:assertions
  60. [60]
    Patent Trials and Triumphs: IPA v. Microsoft
    Sep 5, 2024 · Find out how a small AI software technology company won a $242M damages award in a patent infringement case against Microsoft.
  61. [61]
    Skiermont Derby and Bayard Secure IPA Win in Microsoft Patent ...
    May 14, 2024 · Skiermont Derby and Bayard Secure IPA Win in Microsoft Patent Infringement Case ... This is the third largest patent verdict in Delaware history.Missing: major lawsuits
  62. [62]
    ENFISH, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3d 1327 - BitLaw
    May 12, 2016 · Enfish sued Microsoft for infringement of several patents related to a "self-referential" database. On summary judgment, the district court ...
  63. [63]
    Why Microsoft may be relinquishing billions in Android patent royalties
    Oct 10, 2018 · Microsoft is announcing that it has made peace with the free world. Specifically, the world of free and open source software (FOSS).
  64. [64]
    The Times Sues OpenAI and Microsoft Over A.I. Use of Copyrighted ...
    Dec 27, 2023 · The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement on Wednesday, opening a new front in the increasingly intense legal battle.
  65. [65]
    Dueling OpenAI Copyright Cases to Remain Separate, Parallel ...
    Nov 4, 2024 · New York Times (“NYT”) filed suit against OpenAI and Microsoft seeking billions of dollars for copyright infringement and trademark dilution, ...
  66. [66]
    NYT copyright lawsuit against OpenAI, Microsoft can advance - Axios
    Apr 1, 2025 · A US District Court judge last week denied most of OpenAI's motion to dismiss a lawsuit against it and its minority owner Microsoft from the New York Times.
  67. [67]
    Eight newspapers sue OpenAI, Microsoft for copyright infringement
    Apr 30, 2024 · Eight daily newspapers sued OpenAI and Microsoft on Tuesday, alleging that the maker of ChatGPT copied its work without permission or payment.
  68. [68]
    Newspaper publishers sue Microsoft, OpenAI over copyright ... - CNBC
    Apr 30, 2024 · Eight newspaper publishers alleged that Microsoft and OpenAI used millions of their articles without payment or permission to train AI ...
  69. [69]
    Microsoft and OpenAI sued for copyright infringement by nonfiction ...
    Jan 5, 2024 · Two nonfiction book authors sued Microsoft and OpenAI in a would-be class action complaint alleging that the defendants “simply stole” the writers' copyrighted ...
  70. [70]
    US authors' copyright lawsuits against OpenAI and Microsoft ...
    Apr 4, 2025 · Twelve US copyright cases against OpenAI and Microsoft have been consolidated in New York, despite most of the authors and news outlets suing ...
  71. [71]
    Microsoft sued by authors over use of books in AI training | Reuters
    Jun 25, 2025 · The authors requested a court order blocking Microsoft's infringement and statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each work that Microsoft ...
  72. [72]
    Infringement Notices: Copyright and Trademark | Microsoft Legal
    The fastest and easiest way to notify us of infringement is by using our online forms. Microsoft respects the intellectual property rights of others.
  73. [73]
    Microsoft announces new Copilot Copyright Commitment for ...
    Sep 7, 2023 · The Copilot Copyright Commitment extends Microsoft's existing IP indemnification coverage to copyright claims relating to the use of our AI-powered Copilots.
  74. [74]
    Microsoft Corp. v. Software Wholesale Club, Inc., 129 F. Supp. 2d ...
    Microsoft asserts that defendants' conduct violates federal copyright and trademark laws as well as Texas state unfair competition laws. In addition to other ...
  75. [75]
    Trademark and Brand Guidelines | Microsoft Legal
    Follow these trademark and brand guidelines when referring to Microsoft trademarks and the names of Microsoft software, products, and services.Missing: notable | Show results with:notable
  76. [76]
    Microsoft and Lindows Settle Trademark Case - Source
    Jul 19, 2004 · Lindows.com and Microsoft Corp. today jointly announced that a worldwide settlement has been reached in the trademark infringement cases between the two ...<|separator|>
  77. [77]
    What's in a name? $20 million - Seattle Post-Intelligencer
    Jul 19, 2004 · Microsoft Corp. resolved one of its more troublesome legal challenges Monday, agreeing to pay $20 million to Lindows Inc., a small company ...
  78. [78]
    Microsoft pays to end Lindows suit - The Globe and Mail
    Jul 19, 2004 · Microsoft will pay upstart Linux seller Lindows $20-million to settle a long-running trademark dispute, according to a regulatory document ...
  79. [79]
    MikeRoweSoft settles for an Xbox - CNET
    Jan 26, 2004 · Canadian student Mike Rowe, who Microsoft put under legal pressure over his Web site's name, has agreed to bury the hatchet out of court for an Xbox and some ...
  80. [80]
    Microsoft wins ₹55L in damages in trademark infringement case
    Jan 29, 2025 · Microsoft Corporation has been awarded ₹55 lakh in damages by the Exclusive Commercial Court in Gurugram for trademark infringement and fraudulent activities.
  81. [81]
    Microsoft Wins Landmark Judgement for Trademark Infringement ...
    Jan 31, 2025 · The Court held Retnec Solutions Private Limited (Retnec) and its collaborators liable for unlawfully misusing MICROSOFT, a well-known trademark, ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  82. [82]
    Microsoft sued by software company Veeva over 'Viva' branding
    Feb 4, 2025 · Veeva asked the court to force the tech giant to stop using its Viva branding and requested an unspecified amount of monetary damages.
  83. [83]
    Veeva Systems Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation 5:2025cv01110
    Feb 3, 2025 · Trademark case filed on February 3, 2025 in the California Northern District Court.Missing: Viva | Show results with:Viva
  84. [84]
    Competitive Impact Statement : U.S. V. Microsoft Corporation
    Microsoft's licensing practices deter OEMs from entering into licensing agreements with operating system rivals and discourage OEMs who agree to sell non ...
  85. [85]
    [PDF] Maintenance of Monopoly: US v. Microsoft (2001) - UC Berkeley Law
    With respect to bundling and OEM restrictions, Microsoft believed that it was justified in restricting OEMs from altering the start-up process to preserve ...
  86. [86]
    Microsoft Software Audit Disputes - Scott & Scott LLP
    Microsoft mentions two types of audits in its volume licensing contracts. The onsite audit has been explained above. However, there is also a self-assessment or ...
  87. [87]
    Microsoft Audit Penalties: Real‑World Examples & Lessons Learned
    May 12, 2025 · Introduction: When non-compliance is discovered, Microsoft software licensing audits can impose hefty penalties on organizations.
  88. [88]
    UK antitrust suit hits Microsoft with claim for $1.25B in cloud fees ...
    Dec 3, 2024 · It revolves around accusations related to fees the software giant charged businesses and other organizations for licensing Windows Server when ...
  89. [89]
    Microsoft Faces Major UK Class Action Over Software Licensing ...
    May 22, 2025 · The lawsuit alleges that Microsoft has abused its market dominance by imposing restrictive licensing practices, leading to inflated prices for consumers and ...
  90. [90]
    CISPE and Microsoft Agree Settlement in Fair Software Licensing ...
    Jul 11, 2024 · Microsoft offers new product to settle unfair software licensing claims · Nine-month deadline established to deliver lasting remedies · European ...Missing: antitrust | Show results with:antitrust
  91. [91]
    Dominance of Amazon and Microsoft in cloud harming competition ...
    Jul 31, 2025 · UK antitrust regulator group says two players dominate market · Singles out Microsoft licensing practices · Says CMA should investigate Amazon and ...
  92. [92]
    New Report Finds Microsoft Licensing Continues to Inflict Broad ...
    May 13, 2025 · Coauthors Dr Aleksandra Boutin and Dr Xavier Boutin found that Microsoft's anticompetitive cloud licensing practices continue to harm European cloud service ...Missing: lawsuits OEM
  93. [93]
    Pentagon cancels $10 billion JEDI contract given to Microsoft ... - CNN
    Jul 6, 2021 · The Department of Defense is canceling a controversial $10 billion cloud computing contract that had been awarded to Microsoft (MSFT) over Amazon (AMZN) under ...
  94. [94]
    Pentagon Cancels $10 Billion JEDI Cloud-Computing Contract
    Jul 6, 2021 · When the award fell to Microsoft, Amazon sued to block the contract, arguing that Microsoft did not have the technical capabilities to ...
  95. [95]
    Pentagon cancels $10 billion JEDI cloud contract - CNBC
    Jul 6, 2021 · The Department of Defense announced Tuesday it's calling off the $10 billion cloud contract that was the subject of a legal battle involving Amazon and ...
  96. [96]
    Pentagon cancels disputed JEDI cloud contract with Microsoft
    Jul 6, 2021 · The Pentagon said it has canceled a cloud-computing contract with Microsoft that could eventually have been worth $10 billion.
  97. [97]
    Pentagon cancels massive JEDI cloud contract after drawn ... - Politico
    Jul 6, 2021 · The Pentagon on Tuesday canceled its massive JEDI cloud contract, ending a chapter in the department's yearslong quest to stitch together classified networks.
  98. [98]
    Microsoft's commitment to the DoD remains steadfast
    Jul 6, 2021 · Even though we couldn't work directly with the DoD on JEDI while the protest was in the courts, the investments we've continued to make in ...
  99. [99]
    Pentagon Scraps $10 Billion Contract With Microsoft, Bitterly ... - NPR
    Jul 6, 2021 · The Defense Department canceled its $10 billion cloud contract called JEDI, planning instead to hire multiple vendors. Amazon sued after its ...
  100. [100]
    https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/20/microsoft_valuelicensing_tribunal/
  101. [101]
    Microsoft faces UK lawsuit over cloud computing licences - Reuters
    Dec 3, 2024 · Microsoft faces legal action in Britain over a claim that thousands of businesses using cloud computing services provided by Amazon, ...Missing: enterprise | Show results with:enterprise
  102. [102]
    Microsoft faces £1bn class action case in UK over software prices
    Dec 3, 2024 · Thousands of UK businesses could receive payouts if a legal claim filed against tech giant Microsoft is successful.Missing: enterprise disputes<|control11|><|separator|>
  103. [103]
    Microsoft faces another lawsuit over software licensing practices
    May 15, 2025 · A new class action lawsuit in the UK claims Microsoft abused its market dominance to drive up prices.
  104. [104]
    Microsoft Enterprise Agreements May Be a Poor Choice for Many ...
    Microsoft Enterprise Agreements may represent attractive licensing options for larger companies with dynamic IT environments for which steady growth can be ...
  105. [105]
    https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/hearings/offshore-profit-shifting-and-the-us-tax-code
  106. [106]
    [PDF] Irish Subsidiary Lets Microsoft Slash Taxes in U.S. and Europe
    Nov 7, 2005 · Microsoft leaves much of its profit in Ireland, including $4.1 billion in cash, avoiding U.S. corporate income taxes. But it still can count ...Missing: Netherlands | Show results with:Netherlands
  107. [107]
    Ireland to Phase Out 'Double Irish' Tax Break Used by Tech Giants
    Oct 14, 2014 · It allows corporations with operations in Ireland to make royalty payments for intellectual property to a separate Irish-registered subsidiary.
  108. [108]
    US seeks $29bn in back taxes from Microsoft over double Irish period
    Oct 12, 2023 · Microsoft has just disclosed a multi-billion-dollar dispute with the IRS over the transfer pricing arrangements it put in place two decades ago.
  109. [109]
    Microsoft's Foreign Earnings: Tax Strategy
    Nov 1, 2015 · U.S. global corporations, such as Microsoft, use Double Irish as a tax-minimization strategy by shifting income from a higher tax country to a ...
  110. [110]
    Microsoft's Irish subsidiary posted £220bn profit in single year | Tax ...
    Jun 3, 2021 · However, Cyprus, which like Ireland has a 12.5% corporate tax rate, threatened to veto the EU's adoption of Joe Biden's proposal on Thursday.Missing: Netherlands | Show results with:Netherlands
  111. [111]
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/31/silicon-six-tech-giants-accused-of-inflating-tax-payments-by-almost-100bn
  112. [112]
    Apple, Microsoft, Pfizer net tax breaks from Ireland operations - CNBC
    Jun 12, 2025 · Companies such as Apple, Microsoft and Pfizer appear to have taken steps to stow intellectual property in Ireland, reducing their effective corporate income ...Missing: avoidance Netherlands
  113. [113]
    Facebook, Google and Microsoft 'avoiding $3bn in tax in poorer ...
    Oct 26, 2020 · Facebook, Google and Microsoft should pay a global minimum rate of corporate tax, an aid charity says.Missing: investigation | Show results with:investigation
  114. [114]
    An update on our IRS tax audit - Microsoft On the Issues
    Oct 11, 2023 · The IRS says Microsoft owes an additional $28.9 billion in tax for 2004 to 2013, plus penalties and interest. The IRS's proposed adjustments do ...Missing: allegations | Show results with:allegations
  115. [115]
    Microsoft says US has asked for $28.9 billion in audit dispute - Reuters
    Oct 11, 2023 · Microsoft said the IRS notices relate to an ongoing dispute between the company and the U.S. tax authority, which is auditing how Microsoft ...Missing: domestic | Show results with:domestic
  116. [116]
    Why the IRS Says Microsoft Owes $29 Billion in Back Taxes
    Oct 13, 2023 · ... Microsoft's transactions was to avoid or evade federal income tax.” He agreed with the IRS' characterization of the deal as a tax shelter.Missing: allegations | Show results with:allegations
  117. [117]
    Microsoft wins section 965 repatriation challenge in Oregon
    Oct 1, 2024 · Risk, fraud and cybersecurity. Technical resources and analysis. Financial reporting resources · Tax regulatory resources. Featured platform ...
  118. [118]
    Microsoft Corporation, Appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal ...
    Microsoft Corporation appeals the tax court's deficiency judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the "Commissioner"). In 1990 and 1991, ...
  119. [119]
    How the Xbox 360 'Red Ring of Death' cost Microsoft $1.15 billion
    Former Xbox exec Peter Moore describes sitting across the table from Steve Ballmer explaining that the Xbox 360 was going to cost Microsoft at least an extra $ ...Missing: class | Show results with:class<|separator|>
  120. [120]
    Microsoft Gets Sued For Red Rings - IGN
    Oct 16, 2008 · The lawsuit seeks to have Microsoft formally execute a refund program for customers in California as well as disgorge all of the profits made ...
  121. [121]
    Xbox Lawsuit Appeal Goes To The Supreme Court - Forbes
    Jan 17, 2016 · The lawsuit alleges that the Xbox 360 would scratch discs with small movements of the optical drive, and that Microsoft knew about the problem ...
  122. [122]
    'Red Ring Of Death' Victims Sue Microsoft - Courthouse News Service
    Microsoft sold defective XBox 360 video game consoles for years though it knew they were defective and froze with circular, flashing red lights.
  123. [123]
    Class Sues Microsoft Over Windows 10 Update
    Mar 24, 2017 · A class of Illinois PC users claims upgrading to the new Windows 10 operating system destroyed their hard drive or caused them to lose data.
  124. [124]
    Microsoft Class Action Says Windows 10 Upgrade Damaged Hard ...
    Mar 27, 2017 · The plaintiffs claim that the Windows 10 installer does not check the computer system for compatibility before installing the operating system, ...
  125. [125]
    Class action claims Windows 10 upgrade damaged computers
    Mar 28, 2017 · A class action lawsuit claims that Microsoft installed Windows 10 without consent on consumer devices, which often caused extensive damage.
  126. [126]
    Microsoft Hit by First Successful Windows 10 Forced Upgrade Lawsuit
    Jun 28, 2016 · The first of possibly many, Teri Goldstein from California, successfully sued Microsoft for $10,000 in damages and legal fees over its ...
  127. [127]
    Surface Pro 4 Flickergate Resolved | Migliaccio & Rathod LLP
    May 11, 2018 · Out of warranty, Surface Pro 4 owners were being asked to pay between $450 and $800 out-of-pocket to replace their devices with refurbished ...
  128. [128]
    Microsoft Surface Pro 4 Class Action Investigation
    Feb 6, 2018 · **UPDATE** Microsoft Creates a Replacement Program for Surface Pro 4 Owners. We are no longer pursuing action related to this defect.
  129. [129]
    FTC Will Require Microsoft to Pay $20 million over Charges it ...
    Jun 5, 2023 · Microsoft will pay $20 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)
  130. [130]
    LinkedIn hit with 310 million euro fine for data privacy violations from ...
    Oct 24, 2024 · European Union regulators have slapped LinkedIn with a 310 million euro fine for violations of the bloc's stringent data privacy rules.
  131. [131]
    OpenAI, Microsoft hit with new US consumer privacy class action
    Sep 6, 2023 · OpenAI and its main backer Microsoft (MSFT.O) are facing at least their second class action lawsuit in San Francisco federal court for allegedly breaking ...
  132. [132]
    Microsoft's LinkedIn sued for disclosing customer information to train ...
    Jan 22, 2025 · Microsoft's (MSFT.O) LinkedIn has been sued by Premium customers who said the business-focused social media platform disclosed their private messages to third ...