The UK’s Court of Appeal has dismissed Microsoft’s appeal against a ruling that ValueLicensing (VL) can resell pre-owned software licences.

The judgement, handed down July 7, follows a ruling by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in November that customers could resell their licenses, even if Office contained clip-art.

In 2021, VL filed a claim accusing Microsoft of stifling the market for pre-owned on-prem software licenses, alleging the US biz baked restrictive clauses into its contracts – essentially, better subscription deals for customers who didn’t resell old licenses. VL sought £270 million in damages; Microsoft denied wrongdoing.

The case later took a turn, when Microsoft attempted to reframe it as a copyright dispute. VL was leaning on the EU’s UsedSoft ruling, which established that secondhand software licenses could legally be resold. Microsoft changed tack and countered that Office’s icons and help files made it a creative work, and thus covered by the Copyright and Information Society Directive rather than the software licensing rules UsedSoft addressed. Microsoft also argued that licenses it had sold in bulk (for example, a 1,000-seat purchase) couldn’t legally be broken up and resold piecemeal by VL.

The CAT rejected both arguments and ruled unanimously for ValueLicensing. Microsoft filed an appeal, and that appeal has now failed.

The judgement is unambiguous on both counts. On copyright, the Court of Appeal agreed with the CAT that Microsoft’s reasoning would lead to “odd results.”

“It 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,” the judgement noted.

As for the subdivision of volume licenses, again, the Court of Appeal sided with the CAT and dismissed Microsoft’s appeal: there’s nothing wrong with VL’s approach.

VL’s Jonathan Horley said in a statement: “I am delighted that the Court of Appeal has given such a clear judgement in ValueLicensing’s favour on both of Microsoft’s appeals. The judgement agreed with all the main conclusions of the CAT on both rulings under appeal as well as clarifying the overall legality of our business model.”

Horley pointed out that none of Microsoft’s arguments succeeded and VL now intends to pursue its compensation claim.

“We are considering the consequences of the Court of Appeal’s judgement for Microsoft’s defence to our claim and will focus in the coming weeks and months on the key procedural steps leading up to a liability trial,” he added.

A Microsoft spokesperson said: “We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and will seek permission to appeal. Today’s decision does not address ValueLicensing’s core complaint that we gave customers the option to apply the value of their licenses for older products to new cloud subscriptions rather than selling them to third parties.

“We continue to believe that was both legal and the right thing to do. Helping our customers move to the cloud improves productivity and security.”

Justin Turner KC, the judge presiding over ValueLicensing’s claim, is also overseeing Alexander Wolfson’s collective action against Microsoft. Wolfson was granted permission to intervene in the appeal on March 30, and the judgement noted that “the intervener’s position was essentially supportive of VL’s case.”

That potentially makes today’s dismissal significant well beyond VL’s own claim. The Wolfson collective action, bolstered by this ruling, could expose Microsoft to liability running into the billions, dwarfing the hundreds of millions at stake in VL’s original claim.

Microsoft has quietly extended its free Windows 10 Extended Security Updates (ESU) program for consumers by an additional year, allowing enrolled devices to continue receiving security updates until October 12, 2027.

The change was made without a formal announcement and instead appeared in updates to Microsoft’s Windows 10 ESU documentation and as an “Editor’s note” to a Windows Experience Blog post.

“Editor’s note – June 25, 2026 – This post has been updated to reflect that the Windows 10 Extended Security Updates (ESU) program for personal use devices is being provided for an additional year, with coverage now available through Oct. 12, 2027,” reads the updated blog post.

“This extension provides customers with more time to transition to a new Windows 11 PC while continuing to receive critical security updates.”

On October 14, 2025, Windows 10 reached the end of support, and Microsoft no longer provides technical support, feature updates, or security updates for the operating system unless you are running a Windows LTSC version.

For those who are unable to upgrade to Windows 11, Microsoft originally offered consumers an extra year of security updates if they enrolled in a free extended security updates (ESUs) program that would expire on October 12, 2026.

Enterprise customers could also enrol in the ESU program for up to three years, bringing the total cost per device to $427 over that period.

With today’s quiet update, Microsoft has now extended the free consumer ESU program to October 12, 2027, giving users an additional year to upgrade to a newer operating system.

When asked why the free ESU program was extended, Microsoft shared the following statement:

“We understand that moving to a new PC can take time. As part of our ongoing commitment to helping customers stay secure during the transition, the Windows 10 Extended Security Updates (ESU) program for personal devices is being provided for an additional year,” explained Microsoft.

“Coverage will now be available through October 12, 2027. This gives customers more time and flexibility to find the best PC for their needs while keeping them protected.”

Consumers can continue to receive extended security for free using one of these methods:

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.

The Coalition for Fair Software Licensing has published research showing that US workers reckon Microsoft is using its productivity tools to lock their employers into the company’s AI services.

The survey data of more than 1,000 workers – out a day before the release of Microsoft’s E7 AI bundle – found that three-quarters believed Microsoft was using its dominance in productivity software to push AI. More than half (57 percent) opposed their employer buying Microsoft’s E7 bundle.

Only a third of workers questioned said they preferred Microsoft as a vendor, while 78 percent reported they could do their jobs just as well with another vendor’s AI tool.

Perhaps that other tool is Google Gemini. Though the survey makes for difficult reading for Microsoft and Copilot enthusiasts, it also opens a new front in the war for productivity hearts and minds. Google has no official affiliation with the survey or the Coalition for Fair Software Licensing – but Microsoft, for one, has its suspicions.

In a 2024 blog entitled “Google’s shadow campaigns,” Rima Alaily, Microsoft’s general counsel for Infrastructure Legal Affairs, wrote, “We understand Google is a main funder of the US-based Coalition for Fair Software Licensing.”

The Coalition for Fair Software Licensing were asked about its ties with Google. A spokesperson said, “While the Coalition does not disclose our membership, our members span a cross-section of key industries, including healthcare companies, financial services businesses, as well as cloud and cybersecurity providers – each one has experienced or been exposed to anticompetitive and abusive software licensing practices in the cloud.”

Another source grumbled about Gemini, saying there is a risk that “Google is deploying the same playbook as when they were monopolising search.”

Google were asked for comment, but the company was unable to provide a statement before publication. Other than an acknowledgement of receipt, Microsoft has also not responded.

Ryan Triplette, executive director of the Coalition for Fair Software Licensing, said, “Microsoft’s decision to launch E7 on May Day is no coincidence. It should send a clear distress signal for any organisation already locked into the Microsoft ecosystem. For years, customers have borne the cost of that lock-in, paying a premium not for innovation, but simply for the ability to maintain flexibility. E7 is the latest extension of that model, and the reaction from workers underscores a growing reality: the cost is not justified.

“Despite Microsoft facing mounting regulatory scrutiny over its anticompetitive behaviour, we fully expect the company to deploy every tool in its playbook to force existing customers into this new bundle. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic should be watching closely and be poised to act quickly to protect customers.”

Microsoft is dominant in the office productivity space. Google Workspace has claimed a few high-profile scalps over the years, but some, such as European aerospace megcorp Airbus, have found the Microsoft habit a hard one to kick.

It is unsurprising, then, that critics have rung alarm bells over Microsoft pushing AI technology into enterprises that have already bought into its productivity ecosystem. Copilot has yet to deliver the productivity gains promised by evangelists, but Microsoft is heavily invested in the tech and determined it will be a success.

The survey data reflects wider unease among workers over AI tools being promoted through subscriptions like E7, and anxiety, perhaps, about an agentic future and what it means for their jobs. What it does not capture, however, is the thinking of those who will actually make the decisions: whether Microsoft holds its grip on office productivity into the AI age, or loses its crown to a rival.

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.

Does your AI agent count as an employee?

At a recent conference, Microsoft executive Rajesh Jha floated a provocative idea. In a future where companies deploy fleets of AI agents, those agents may need their own identities — logins, inboxes, and even seats inside software systems. If so, AI wouldn’t shrink software revenue. It could expand it.

“All of those embodied agents are seat opportunities,” Jha said, envisioning organisations with more agents than humans — each effectively a user that must pay for a software license, or “seat” in industry lingo.

That’s a radical twist in the SaaS pricing debate rattling companies like Microsoft, Salesforce, and Workday. Investors worry AI could hollow out seat-based pricing, the backbone of enterprise software. If one human can manage dozens of agents, why pay for dozens of licenses?

Jha’s answer: because those agents are the new users. A company with 20 employees might buy 20 Microsoft 365 licenses today. If each employee gets five AI agents, and the workforce shrinks to 10 people, that could still mean 50 paid seats.

Not everyone buys it.

Nenad Milicevic, a partner at AlixPartners, sees the opposite. AI agents will reduce the number of humans interacting with software, slashing licenses. Instead of 20 employees, you might have one person overseeing a handful of agents. That shift would pressure vendors and empower customers to push back on pricing that no longer makes sense.

Milicevic argues the winners will be open platforms. Companies could charge extra for machine-based access, but risk losing customers to software rivals that let agents operate freely.

Which brings us back to the core tension: if AI agents are just extensions of you, charging extra feels like double billing. If they’re autonomous workers, paying for them may be inevitable.

The answer could define the next decade of software economics.