Allstate Insurance Company has accused Broadcom of haphazardly issuing audits against it because the insurance firm decided not to renew its contracts with VMware and CA Technologies.

The allegations were made in relation to a lawsuit that VMware filed against Allstate in December 2025, according to The Register. In the complaint, Broadcom alleges that Allstate failed to comply with license audits, which Broadcom claims its contract with Allstate requires.

In a June 12 filing, Allstate suggested that Broadcom issued the audits in response to Allstate deciding to end business with its companies. Allstate’s statement reads:

T-Mobile is asking a New York court to rule that Broadcom was contractually obligated to continue supporting its VMware perpetual licenses.

In its complaint, T-Mobile said it has tens of thousands of virtual machines using VMware software across approximately 303,140 CPU cores. It also said that it was migrating off VMware but noted the time-consuming and technical challenges involved in migrating over 1,000 applications.

It filed its lawsuit, which was first reported by The Register, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in August 2025.

The mobile company claimed that in 2023, it bought perpetual VMware licenses, plus two years of support with the option to buy a third year. But after Broadcom bought VMware, it stopped sales of VMware perpetual licenses in favour of subscriptions and started bundling VMware products into a few, more expensive bundles.

When T-Mobile tried to extend support for a third year for $5,288,398.45, Broadcom wouldn’t allow it, per an August 2025 filing from T-Mobile. A Broadcom representative reportedly told T-Mobile via email: “Broadcom announced end of available of all perpetual products, which includes Stated Out Year Renewals for perpetual support.”

A judge granted T-Mobile an injunction that allowed it to receive support services from October 2025 through August 3, 2026, for $5.28 million, plus the posting of a $500,000 undertaking.

Now, T-Mobile is seeking a declaration that it was entitled to renew support services and further relief as the court deems necessary.

At one point, T-Mobile wanted support so badly that it offered $20 million for two years of software updates and support services. The company cited litigation costs and “mitigating interruption and security risks to both the network and the business” as part of its reasoning.

In a filing last month, Broadcom claimed that it has incurred $24 million in costs to provide T-Mobile with support for six VMware products and to assign it three dedicated support account managers. T-Mobile responded that it doesn’t use three of the six named products and has opened only two service cases this year.

The case is similar to a privately settled case that Broadcom had with AT&T over VMware support and to an ongoing case with Tesco.

Broadcom previously argued that T-Mobile’s case stands out because T-Mobile waited a long time before trying to extend support.

“Thousands upon thousands have successfully migrated to subscription,” a Broadcom lawyer said in an October 2025 hearing, per the publication. “T-Mobile is the outlier here that is in litigation. … Thousands upon thousands of customers have already transferred under these sorts of provisions and accepted and understood that end of availability applies.”

However, it’s worth pointing out that the financial and technical burdens involved in suing a conglomerate like Broadcom. Those challenges may have deterred organisations, especially smaller ones, from getting into litigation over VMware.

Neither T-Mobile nor Broadcom has publicly commented on the case.

A proposed class action lawsuit alleges that TeamViewer has misleadingly sold “perpetual” licenses for its remote computer access software, given that it has withdrawn internet-based connectivity for legacy versions, leaving users with a “materially diminished” product unless they buy it again or upgrade their subscription.

The 17-page lawsuit contends that TeamViewer, which offers remote-from-anywhere access to computers outside of a user’s network without complex network configuration, sold “perpetual” licenses for TeamViewer Versions 11 and 12 that were later cut off from the software’s servers and network, stripping the product of its core remote-access functionality.

According to the class action lawsuit, TeamViewer’s “perpetual” licenses were sold on the basis that, after one “substantial” upfront payment, customers would have continued access to remote-access functionality through TeamViewer-controlled servers. Per the case, TeamViewer enables device identity, authentication, session negotiation, and NAT/firewall traversal for remote sessions over an internet connection, allowing users to connect to devices outside of their Local Area Network (LAN). Each of these services required an ongoing connection to TeamViewer’s servers and infrastructure, the suit stresses.

The filing contends that after shifting toward a subscription-based model, TeamViewer unfairly implemented an “end-of-support” action that unilaterally denied TeamViewer Versions 11 and 12 access to its servers and network, rendering the software “unable to perform its essential intended use.” As a result, consumers with “perpetual” licenses have been left with LAN-only connectivity and the “resulting pressure” of being unable to work remotely until they purchase another subscription or upgrade.

The lawsuit says that TeamViewer’s decision to remove legacy versions of its software from its network ecosystem is more egregious than simply ending updates or customer support, given that consumers are left with LAN-only connectivity despite paying for remote-access functionality, the “defining” feature of the product.

“TeamViewer’s attempt to characterise the resulting ‘LAN-only’ connectivity as a continued benefit is misleading and commercially unreasonable,” the suit argues.

Consumers widely understood “perpetual” to mean more than simply the retention of the right to “run a local executable,” and that continued remote-access use was the “essential” purpose of the license, per the case.

As the complaint tells it, TeamViewer has failed to provide consumers with meaningful compensation—such as partial refunds or credits—to reimburse them for the license’s premium price.

The plaintiff purchased TeamViewer based on the representation that the perpetual license was a “paid-up” alternative to a subscription service, and paid a total of $2,799 for the software license. The complaint relays that when the plaintiff made his purchase, he did not expect that TeamViewer would later “extinguish” the software’s intended use by removing access to its servers.

The TeamViewer class action lawsuit seeks to cover all individuals and entities in the United States who purchased a perpetual license to TeamViewer Version 11 or Version 12.

It’s not possible to operate a completely sovereign cloud outside of China or the USA, according to Douglas Toombs, a VP analyst at Gartner.

Speaking at the analyst firm’s IT Infrastructure, Operations & Cloud Strategies Conference in Sydney, Toombs said only the US and China make all the tech needed for a sovereign cloud. Buyers elsewhere can’t avoid relationships with foreign providers.

Toombs said that while US-based cloud vendors have created products they say can meet the needs of organisations that need a cloud that doesn’t have legal entanglements outside their chosen jurisdiction, the fact they’re ultimately owned by American corporations means it’s not possible to be certain a cloud provider can promise complete sovereignty.

Even on-prem clouds like AWS Outposts, Azure Local, or Oracle’s Dedicated Cloud Regions, “need to phone home,” he said.

The analyst doesn’t think attempts to create sovereign clouds will succeed. He mentioned past French attempts to create sovereign clouds named “Andromeda”, “Numergy,” and “Gaia-X”, which he says went nowhere – but did produce some nice white papers.

He also cited the The Rule of Three and Four, a maxim developed by Boston Consulting Group that asserts “A stable competitive market never has more than three significant competitors, the largest of which has no more than four times the market share of the smallest,” and argued that it predicts the cloud market has settled around AWS, Google, and Microsoft.

Toombs allowed that some smaller clouds could thrive and will make it feasible to create sovereign SaaS providers and products.

But he thinks that even aggressive moves to go on-prem won’t free organisations from dependency on US-owned clouds, an assertion he backed with the example of a Dutch healthcare provider that tried to build its own infrastructure but then experienced an outage when a supplier’s services went down along with a major cloud provider.

If sovereign clouds fail to develop, it may be problematic because some European organisations are worried US-based cloud operators might leave the continent, forcing them into hasty and risky migration projects, according to Adrian Wong, a Gartner Director Analyst who also spoke in Sydney.

Wong said “heightened geopolitical tensions” are causing customers of major clouds to rethink their strategies, a decision he welcomes because he sees very few organisations bother to develop a cloud exit strategy.

“Exit plans are overlooked,” he said, and users are “very much locked in” – especially when they use cloud-native services or platform-as-a-service.

“Exiting within a timeframe of anything less than two years takes significant planning and investment,” he warned. “Exit strategies and plans are largely swept under the rug.”

Wong says he is now seeing “the pendulum swing.”

Not developing a cloud exit strategy is one of the ten big mistakes Wong sees users make. Also on his list are starting use of clouds with mission-critical and complex applications like ERP, assuming the cloud is appropriate for all applications, and expecting to get all the benefits of the cloud with every application.

He also said it’s folly to assume that going multi-cloud will improve availability – unless users first tackle the more complex and expensive task of making applications portable. Wong said organisations that use multiple clouds should do so to access specific features of each, not to improve resilience.

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 federal spending watchdog has found the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) faced “challenges” in understanding the correct number of licenses it should hold for the top five vendors in its $985 million annual software expenditure.

In a report published last month, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that “while the VA identified its five most widely used software vendors with the highest quantity of licenses installed, it faced challenges in determining whether it was purchasing too many or too few of these software licenses.”

The GAO said that for fiscal 2025, the VA planned to spend about $985 million on software, including commercial software licenses.

In 2015, the GAO identified “the management of software licenses as a focus area” for the VA in a high-risk report.

Another GAO report in January 2024 said the VA should track licenses in use within its inventories and compare them with purchase records.

The VA agreed with the recommendations and – as the latest report states – had taken “preliminary actions” to track software license usage and was due to implement initial functionality for a centralised software license inventory in late March 2026.

“If successful, this could be a critical first step in improving the department’s ability to track and analyse licenses across the department. Implementation of these recommendations would allow VA to identify opportunities to reduce costs on duplicate or unnecessary licenses,” it said.

Before that system went live, the GAO remained concerned that “VA was not tracking the appropriate number of licenses for each item of software currently in use.”

The GAO notes the VA “did not compare inventories of software licenses that were currently in use to purchase records on a regular basis.”

The GAO was also concerned with “restrictive software licensing practices” from vendors, which it defined as “any software licensing agreements or vendor processes that limit, impede, or prevent agency efforts to use software in cloud computing.”

The GAO has tracked progress on this issue since an earlier report in November 2024. It found restrictive software licensing practices affected federal agencies’ cloud computing efforts, including those of VA.

“These practices either increased costs of cloud software or services or limited the department’s options when selecting cloud service providers. VA had not established guidance for effectively managing impacts from restrictive practices for cloud computing or determined who is responsible for managing these impacts,” it said.

The GAO said that “fully assessing software licenses and effectively managing impacts from restrictive licensing practices at VA is an issue of vital importance.”

However, it said that the VA had not fully implemented recommendations from earlier reports.

“If the department continues to experience the challenges we have previously identified and does not take further actions to address our recommendations, it may jeopardise its ability to effectively manage its software licenses that provide critical services to veterans,” said the report.

VA told the GAO it expected to implement additional actions to address the recommendations by September 30, 2026. As of March 2026, VA had not provided an update on the status of the working group, the report said.