A Norwegian startup faces a $17,600 Claude bill and two vendors pointing at each other, after running Anthropic models through Microsoft Foundry while $21,168 in Azure sponsorship credits expired untouched.

Vegalabs AS said it received $25,060 in cloud credits through Microsoft for Startups and deployed Claude in Foundry in August. The company expected its analysis workloads to draw against the credit balance.

Microsoft’s sponsorship rules exclude that scenario. Anthropic models purchased through Azure Marketplace fall outside the credits, and an account with a card on file gets charged for them.

Microsoft attempted to collect $16,500 from the card Vegalabs had on file, and the invoiced total later reached $17,600 before tax. The sponsorship portal kept showing available credits while Marketplace charges accumulated alongside them.

Microsoft’s deployment documentation states the terms: credit-only sponsored subscriptions don’t work for these models, and an account with a card attached gets charged. Vegalabs deleted the deployment within an hour of spotting the charges. The card issuer declined the payment over suspected fraud, and the remaining $21,168 in sponsorship credits expired Sept. 8.

Vegalabs said it never read the credit exclusions and never configured a budget alert. The company disputes neither the usage nor the documented rule. Its complaint targets the deployment interface, which it says presented a sponsored subscription and a Marketplace purchase as one continuous billing picture.

The refund request then ran into a wall.

Vegalabs sent it to Microsoft support first. The reply said Marketplace transactions process through a billing pipeline tied to the third-party publisher, and that Azure Support cannot waive, refund, or adjust those charges. If Anthropic approves the request, the reply said, Anthropic can initiate the refund authorisation through Microsoft.

Anthropic support said Microsoft did not require its authorisation to process a refund and sent Vegalabs back to Microsoft.

Four of the seven support replies Vegalabs received were AI-generated, including both from Anthropic. Those Anthropic replies described the account as an “Azure Student Sponsorship,” a program name that does not apply to the company.

Reporters asked Microsoft on Oct. 6 for comment and received an acknowledgement plus a request to be told what Anthropic had to say. Microsoft offered nothing further. Anthropic did not respond.

The billing pattern has a trail. A similar case in March involved third-party model charges that sponsorship credits did not cover.

Microsoft will phase out the current licensing structure for Azure VMware Solution (AVS). This will eliminate one option for organisations to use VMware in the cloud without licensing VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) themselves. Existing customers have until August 2027 to transition.

Under the current version of AVS, the necessary licenses for vSphere, vCenter, vSAN, NSX, and other components are included in the service Microsoft provides. That model is being phased out. Starting October 31, 2026, Microsoft will no longer sell new AVS environments that include these VMware licenses.

Going forward, customers must have their own VCF license from Broadcom, reports The Register. They can then use it within AVS via the “Bring Your Own License” model, also known as AVS VCF BYOL. Existing users of the current setup must transition by August 30, 2027, at the latest. After that, their existing environments will no longer run the same way.

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is taking a closer look at Microsoft’s business software empire, launching a strategic market status investigation into the company’s ecosystem.

The probe, which is the fourth since the UK’s digital markets competition regime came into force last year, will determine whether Microsoft should be designated as having strategic market status, which would allow the CMA to implement interventions to support competition.

In March, the CMA announced that the investigation was coming. The regulator was concerned that Microsoft’s software licensing practices were reducing competition in the cloud.

In the most recent announcement, the CMA said it had “heard that UK customers may not always be able to effectively combine software from Microsoft with that of other providers, limiting their ability to get access to the best products at the most competitive prices.”

Microsoft is no stranger to regulatory friction. In 2025, it described calls from AWS and Google for the UK competition regulator to “intervene and constrain the price” it charges customers to run wares on those rivals’ cloud platforms as “extraordinary and unprecedented.”

Two year prior, Google branded Microsoft’s cloud software licensing a “tax” paid by customers as a penalty for not running Microsoft software on Azure infrastructure. It claims that Microsoft charges up to four times more, for example, to run Windows Server on GCP. AWS has previously moaned about this too.

As well as assessing whether Microsoft is using its position to limit customer choice, the CMA investigation “includes looking at how AI competitors are able to integrate with Microsoft’s business software, giving customers access to AI software across suppliers to best suit their needs.”

Microsoft is pushing Copilot AI into as many Microsoft 365 subscriptions as it can, even creating a new tier, E7, aimed specifically at AI services.

In a statement, Nicky Stewart, senior advisor to the Open Cloud Coalition – a trade association Microsoft previously dismissed as a Google lobby group – said:

“This investigation needs to be both rapid and conclusive. It must address Microsoft’s unfair licensing practices once and for all, giving the UK cloud market a level playing field and the confidence to innovate and invest for the long term.”

Readers should not expect results anytime soon. It took 21 months for the CMA to publish the results of an investigation into the UK cloud services market, in which it said Microsoft and AWS were using their dominance to harm UK cloud customers. It claimed Microsoft, for example, could have charged UK enterprise customers £500 million more annually to run its wares in AWS and Google clouds than they’d have paid to run them in Azure.

A key concern from that investigation – whether Microsoft’s software licensing practices were reducing competition in cloud services – has informed this one.

This latest inquiry must be completed within nine months, and a decision on designating Microsoft with SMS is scheduled to be reached by February 2027.

For its part, a Microsoft spokesperson said “We are committed to working quickly and constructively with the CMA to facilitate its review of the business software market.”

The investigation will be wide-ranging, encompassing productivity applications, operating systems, databases, and security software.

Sarah Cardell, Chief Executive of the CMA, said, “Our aim is to understand how these markets are developing, Microsoft’s position within them and to consider what, if any, targeted action may be needed to ensure UK organisations can benefit from choice, innovation and competitive prices.”

Authorities in the US, Europe, Brazil, South Africa and Japan are also closely monitoring Microsoft’s licensing policies.

A UK Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) has dismissed Microsoft’s objections to a collective action lawsuit brought by UK-based cloud licensees, clearing the way for trial.

The case seeks compensation for approximately 59,000 businesses and organisations over Microsoft’s pricing of Windows Server on Azure versus competing cloud platforms including AWS and Google Cloud – allegations that Microsoft charged less for the software on its own platform than on rivals’. If Microsoft loses, it could face liability of up to £2 billion (c $2.7 billion).

The CAT granted a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) on an opt-out basis, and said in its judgement that the claim “comfortably passes” the reasonable prospect of success threshold. The CPO – expected to be published within weeks – will set a deadline for businesses to opt out, and may include directions for when hearings begin.

Microsoft’s protestations concerned funding and the merits of the case.

Lead claimant Dr Maria Luisa Stasi called the ruling “an important moment for thousands of organisations impacted by Microsoft’s conduct.”

She added: “For years, Microsoft’s practices have had real financial impact on both public and private organisations. I’m now looking forward to preparing for trial and getting their money back on their behalf.”

A spokesperson for Microsoft said: “We will pursue an appeal of the Tribunal’s decision because it failed to follow recent precedent from the Supreme Court on class action certifications. We also dispute the underlying allegations by the class representative, and today’s decision makes no final determination on those claims.”

The case, filed in December 2024, is one of several legal headaches for Microsoft in the UK. The company is separately appealing a CAT ruling over secondhand software sales in a claim brought by reseller ValueLicensing.

Jonathan Horley, boss at ValueLicensing, said of the class action case heading to trial: “However it pans out, it is very good that MS are being held to account over their strategic move to a subscription model.

“Over the last 15 years, in both the desktop and datacenter environments, VL believes that Microsoft has abused its dominant position to achieve that aim. I believe the Stasi and Wolfson claims are manifestations of that.”

Cloud provider Civo also welcomed the development. CEO Mark Boost said: “Ensuring a level playing field for all providers is essential to fostering innovation, expanding choice, and delivering the best outcomes for customers.”

Microsoft’s alleged licensing practices have drawn scrutiny across Europe and further afield – in 2024, the company settled with EU cloud vendor group CISPE with a payout and commitments to change its practices. CISPE had no comment to make on this latest development. In the same year, Google filed a complaint with the European Commission’s anti-trust team over the matter.

The FTC is examining if Microsoft’s cloud clout crosses the line, and authorities in Japan are investigating if the vendor has violated anti-monopoly laws.

Google and AWS have not commented on the CAT licensing ruling, which sends the case to trial.