According to a new report from Taiwanese publication United Daily News (UDC) Microsoft is raising the cost of Windows license fees for hardware makers by a much higher amount than normal. According to the report, certain OEMs are seeing licensing price hikes of between 7% and 10%.

Usually, Microsoft raises Windows license fees for OEMs by a low digit percentage, making this 7% to 10% increase much more significant than normal.

“A PC brand executive stated that Microsoft increases licensing fees for Windows OEMs (device manufacturers) every year. In the past, licensing fees mostly increased by single digits each year, but starting in July this year, the average increase has reached 7% to 10%, which is a significant increase compared to previous years,” UDC says.

Of course, the cost of the Windows license fee is usually (at least partially) passed onto the consumer buying a computer, and UDC claims that their source says laptop pricing is already being impacted by these recent license fee increases. Microsoft charges different OEMs their own fees for Windows, so the exact increase in cost will differ for each hardware maker.

Regardless, with the ongoing memory component shortage, PCs have already seen astronomical price increases over the last year, with experts claiming that we haven’t yet seen the worst of it. With Microsoft raising prices higher than usual on Windows licenses, it feels like the Redmond giant is adding extra fuel to the fire.

To be clear, the Windows license fee price hikes only apply to OEMs building hardware that ships with Windows. The cost of buying a license for Windows 11 as a consumer remains unchanged, being $99 for Windows 11 Home and $199 for Windows 11 Pro.

The ongoing component crisis has made computing unaffordable for many people. PCs that used to target the $600-$800 price bracket now cost close to $1,000. And flagship Windows laptops that used to cost $1,200-1,500 are now closer to $2,000. Even Apple has been hit by the shortage, being forced to raise prices by hundreds of dollars across its Mac line-up. Microsoft’s own Surface line was hit especially hard, with the flagship Surface Pro and Surface Laptop being $400-$500 more expensive than the last-gen models.

Microsoft is moving parts of its AI portfolio beyond pure per-seat pricing by pairing user licenses with charges tied to usage. The hybrid model keeps recurring seat fees in place while adding a variable billing unit as customers consume more AI capacity.

That model is beginning to show up in Microsoft’s financial results. Dynamics 365 Customer Service credit consumption rose fourfold quarter over quarter, while GitHub Copilot generated what Microsoft called “significant consumption revenue” after its June billing change.

Microsoft also reported more than 30 million paid Microsoft 365 Copilot seats, with net additions more than doubling from the previous quarter, and said GitHub continued adding Business and Enterprise seats.

Software giant VMware is suing an Italian distributor for around €30 million in damages, claiming in a London court that the company failed to ensure a customer agreed to delete old software licenses during an upgrade plan.

VMware said Computer Gross should have required Italian bank Intesa Sanpaolo to agree to VMware’s licensing terms when it sold the bank VMware’s cloud computing software, according to a newly public High Court claim.

Computer Gross had previously bought the rights to resell the software, the claim says.

VMware said that under its terms, Computer Gross was required to ensure that Intesa deleted its old software licenses once it had the updated versions. But Computer Gross failed to do so, and Intesa confirmed that it never agreed to those terms, according to the claim.

VMware said that it gave Computer Gross an 82% discount on the standard resale agreement, based on the expectation that Intesa would retire its existing perpetual licenses, according to the filing.

The list price of the software was €36 million, but Computer Gross paid only €6.6 million, resulting in a discount worth €29.4 million, the claim says.

VMware said Computer Gross should have prevented the license duplication. By not doing so, Computer Gross essentially sold the software at a heavily discounted price.

As well as damages for the allegedly unauthorised price cut, VMware is seeking an order to prevent Computer Gross from continuing separate civil proceedings in Milan, the claim says.

Computer Gross breached a jurisdiction clause in its contract with VMware when it asked the Italian court to confirm that it did not owe VMware compensation over the software deal, according to the claim.

ValueLicensing (VL) has been invited to attend a case management conference in a related multibillion-pound collective action against Microsoft, according to the reseller’s boss, Jonathan Horley.

VL sued Microsoft for £270 million in 2021, alleging that the software giant restricted the supply of surplus Office licenses available for resale. Barrister Alexander Wolfson is the proposed class representative in a separate claim filed in 2025 on behalf of more than two million UK customers. That action seeks between £1.3 billion and £3.5 billion in compensation.

Both cases are before the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) and concern Microsoft’s alleged efforts to restrict the market for pre-owned software licenses.

Case management conferences (CMCs) are used to set timetables and decide procedural questions as a case progresses.

According to Horley, ValueLicensing has a CMC concerning disclosure listed for September 14, followed the next day by an invitation to another in the Wolfson proceedings.

The September 15 CMC could address how the two proceedings interact, including whether the Wolfson action should be stayed pending judgement in the more advanced ValueLicensing case. There is also the possibility that the claims could eventually be heard together, although the tribunal has yet to indicate what course it will take.

ValueLicensing’s case is considerably further ahead of Wolfson’s. The Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft’s appeals on issues including copyright in July, although Microsoft can seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Kate Pollock, head of competition litigation at law firm Stewarts, said of the Wolfson case earlier this year: “Microsoft’s conduct has had a profound and costly impact on millions of individuals and private and public sector organisations that rely on its software for daily business operations.

“We believe that Microsoft abused its market dominance by imposing restrictive licensing practices that effectively shut down competition and inflated prices.”

Closer procedural links between the cases could complicate Microsoft’s defence against two claims arising from similar allegations.

VL’s Horley said: “Following on from the judgement at the Court of Appeal we are pleased to have a hearing listed for September 14 to progress further disclosure. ValueLicensing has also been invited to the first hearing of the Alexander Wolfson class action on September 15. That will deal with the next steps for certification and the interactions between the two claims.”

Horley said the move was “very significant” and showed the progress ValueLicensing had made in terms of the competition and copyright law aspects.

“ValueLicensing are experts in the pre-owned Microsoft market with significant evidence and experience of the operation of the market during the relevant period in which the abuse is alleged to have occurred,” he said.

“Given that both claims relate to the pre-owned Microsoft market, that the ValueLicensing claim is so advanced and Mr Justice Turner is Chair for both, it is logical for ValueLicensing to be invited. ValueLicensing is happy to assist the Tribunal in determining the next procedural steps for both actions.”

Broadcom has lost a round in what’s shaping up to be one of the more consequential antitrust fights in European tech regulation. The EU General Court dismissed the company’s request to suspend an information demand from the European Commission, specifically one that seeks documents related to Broadcom’s US legal advisers.

The ruling effectively tells Broadcom that EU regulators can, in fact, ask for those papers. And that trying to challenge such requests could, in the court’s words, weaken enforcement efforts in EU competition law.

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority has opened a fresh investigation into Microsoft, this time over how the company is marketing its Microsoft 365 Personal and Family subscription plans.

A cursory glance at the probe highlights that the CMA is trying to prevent Microsoft from sneaking in Copilot and AI features as justification for recent subscription price hikes. A closer look at the investigation displays a pattern of friction Microsoft runs into with regulators regarding its subscription practices, automatic renewals, and software bundling almost every time it adjusts its services.

The CMA made the investigation public on July 29, 2026, though the case itself was opened two days earlier. According to the CMA’s case announcement, the price gap between plans is concrete. The Classic Microsoft 365 Personal plan costs £59.99 a year, compared to £84.99 a year for the Copilot-equipped version, a difference of £25 annually. The Family plan costs £79.99 a year for Classic versus £104.99 a year with Copilot bundled in.

The CMA’s announcement hinges on Microsoft’s change in January 2025, when the company automatically added new features such as Copilot to existing Microsoft 365 plans with no increase in fees for the remainder of the subscription period. Unfortunately, once the plans were up for renewal, customers who were not paying attention were re-enrolled into higher-priced plans. Customers who were paying attention could avoid the bait-and-switch by selecting a ‘Classic’ plan or cancelling during the re-enrolment period.

This price change was covered when it first happened in February 2025, and even then, Microsoft would not directly attribute the increase to Copilot in their own communications. Personal plans jumped from $6.99 to $9.99 a month in the US, and Family plans went from $9.99 to $12.99, with the Classic option only showing for existing subscribers who knew to look for it during cancellation.

CMA regulators are now examining whether Microsoft provided adequate messaging for customers to understand what changes occurred and how much more they were going to pay despite spending months using features that were initially presented as free.

As Senior Director for Consumer Protection, Hayley Fletcher puts it, “When a business changes its subscription plans, customers need clear and timely information about their options.”

Still smarting from Court of Appeal loss earlier in July, Microsoft has secured an extended stay in the ValueLicensing saga as it seeks the Supreme Court’s blessing for one more roll of the dice.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled in 2025 that the resale and subdivision of Microsoft on-premises software licenses did not infringe the US corporation’s copyright. Microsoft appealed and, on July 7, lost.

Proceedings had already been stayed in February pending the Court of Appeal’s decision, and an extended stay was granted July 21 after Microsoft indicated that it intends to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Microsoft has undertaken a potentially high-risk strategy. Having first contested a claim by ValueLicensing that it had inserted contractual clauses to nudge customers toward Microsoft 365 subscriptions and prevented those customers from reselling their perpetual licenses, it changed tack. Microsoft suggested that reselling its software was illegal due to copyright infringement. The CAT ruled otherwise. Microsoft appealed and lost.

ValueLicensing sued Microsoft for £270 million in 2021 over claims that the company choked off the supply of surplus Office licenses. It’s a big number, but not as big as a class action that bears several similarities to the case. That action, represented by Alexander Wolfson, could result in a multibillion-pound payout. Microsoft has a lot to lose if things don’t go its way.

The stay does not apply to ValueLicensing’s disclosure application, nor does it apply to the confidentiality application. ValueLicensing noted that the applications “are expected to be considered at a further Case Management Conference in September, meaning the case continues to move forward despite the stay.”

The stay hinges on what happens with the Supreme Court. The Chair, Justin Turner KC, said: “As yet it is unknown whether permission to appeal to the Supreme Court will be granted. It is necessary for me to balance the potential for a waste of costs in the event permission is granted and an appeal is successful, against the undesirability of delay in these proceedings.”

The approach, where the outstanding applications could proceed, was described as “middle ground” by Justin Turner KC. “These steps are proportionate at this stage given that the Claimant has successfully prevailed before this Tribunal and the Court of Appeal.”

In the earlier judgement rejecting Microsoft’s appeal, it was noted that Microsoft’s approach, if followed, “would produce odd results.” First, there was a distinction made between products on CD-ROM, where Microsoft can’t control the resale market. Then there was the potential for a legal minefield around UsedSoft, where Oracle’s attempt to stop the sale of secondhand software licenses was stymied by an EU court in 2012.

The Microsoft approach, according to the judgement, “would mean that all that was necessary to avoid the effect of UsedSoft would be to incorporate some icons or clip art with the program.”

ValueLicensing boss Jonathan Horley said in a statement: “We are pleased a full stay of the proceedings hasn’t been granted and we can progress the outstanding applications on further disclosure and confidentiality. These are important steps to enable ValueLicensing to progress swiftly to a full liability trial. As was noted in the Reasoned Order, we succeeded at first instance and in the court of appeal and the decision to allow our disclosure applications to progress now represents a fair and proportionate decision which seeks to minimise further delay to the determination of the claim.”