The ACCC has launched Federal Court proceedings against Microsoft Australia, alleging the tech giant misled roughly 2.7 million Australians over subscription options and price increases following the integration of its AI assistant, Copilot, into Microsoft 365 plans.

This action is long overdue.

What’s needed is another inquiry into Microsoft’s monopoly of the OS and office application environment and efforts to push Windows users into a global monopoly and toward other services like their horror Microsoft Edge and their none essential Copilot.

Despite claiming to offer cutting-edge AI, Microsoft struggles with basic functionality. Users logged into Microsoft 365 with Copilot via Microsoft Authenticator often face repeated login requests for Teams, OneDrive, and other apps. I recently experienced this firsthand during a presentation: Teams and PowerPoint prompted me to log in four separate times.

Then it was Adobe’s turn with PDF log in.

This security chaos hurts productivity, and Microsoft’s backend structure is largely to blame.

If Microsoft 365 were a car, it would be considered a lemon.

Yet, thanks to its monopoly, governments and consumers worldwide have limited control with all roads leading to Microsoft.

The reason for gthese constant log in requests is mot likely because their apps sits on separate cloud servers, prompting multiple logins, with the company recently admitted it was investigating another widespread Outlook.com mailbox outages.

The ACCC alleges that since October 31, 2024, Microsoft told 365 Personal and Family plan subscribers with auto-renewal that they must either accept Copilot and pay more, or cancel their subscription. But there was a hidden third option: the Microsoft 365 Personal or Family Classic plans, which retained the previous features and price without Copilot.

There’s nothing like burying stuff in small print when you want to hide an offer.

Today Microsoft treats AI as a revenue generator, pressuring users into expensive plans that many don’t need.

Australians are effectively being charged an extra $40 per month for software of questionable value.

Rebooting a PC can easily involve 40 minutes of battling Microsoft’s attempts to lock users into its cloud-based Azure environment, including Edge, which remains unpopular despite aggressive push tactics.

Google Chrome dominates globally, holding roughly 72% of the desktop browser market as of September 2025, with Safari second. Edge lags at just 5% in Australia, despite Microsoft’s repeated attempts to block Chrome as the default.

Microsoft’s monopoly behavior isn’t new. In the 1990s, while I was editor of Windows Magazine, the company faced a major U.S. antitrust case for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows and using its dominance to stifle competition. The Department of Justice alleged Microsoft illegally tied IE to Windows, leveraged its OS monopoly, and hindered rivals like Netscape Navigator.

Back then, Microsoft perfected a practice called tying, forcing PC manufacturers to bundle Windows with IE and dictate UI designs that disadvantaged competitors. They even tried to negotiate with Netscape to avoid competing on Windows entirely. The DOJ argued that Microsoft’s OS dominance created an “applications barrier to entry,” blocking rivals regardless of quality. Although the company avoided breakup, courts imposed restrictions to curb anti-competitive behavior.

Nothing has changed. Today, Microsoft pushes Copilot as a revenue tool while delivering inconsistent performance. Productivity suffers, and businesses are often trapped in its monopolistic ecosystem.

There is a silver lining. Google’s Workspace division recently rolled out tools to lure businesses away from Microsoft 365, offering solutions to maintain operations during Microsoft outages and securely migrate data out of Microsoft’s ecosystem. According to Ganesh Chilakapati, Google Workspace’s director of product management, these tools address Microsoft’s “architectural brittleness.”

With Australian businesses increasingly frustrated by Microsoft’s practices, it may be time to seriously consider regulatory measures to restrain the company once again.