The claim is against Microsoft, specifically centering on its cloud computing service Azure and the relationship between that product and Microsoft’s historic and ongoing dominance in server operating systems.

Dr Stasi has brought this claim on behalf of the proposed class.  For more information about Dr Stasi and the rest of the team involved in bringing the claim, please see the About Us page.

If a company (either public or private), a charitable organisation or a public body purchased a licence to use Windows Server (any version after - and including - Windows Server 2008) from either AWS, GCP or Alibaba Cloud from December 2018, they are included in the proposed class.

Customers obtaining licences for Windows Server from AWS, GCP or Alibaba Cloud do so pursuant to the Services Provider License Agreement or “SPLA” programme. The differences in price and quality between licensing Windows Server via the SPLA programme for use on rival cloud platforms, and doing so to use on Microsoft Azure, is central to the claim.

Microsoft charges higher licensing fees for using Windows Server on AWS, GCP and Alibaba Cloud, through this SPLA programme than it charges from a customer that licenses Windows Server on Microsoft Azure.

This means that a business or organisation that purchased a licence to use Windows Server from either AWS, GCP or Alibaba Cloud, did so through the SPLA programme, and paid more than it would have paid had it used Microsoft Azure, and therefore is included in the proposed class.

The proposed class is limited to businesses or organisations that have purchased a licence to use Windows Server from Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud Platform and Alibaba Cloud.

As long as your business or organisation was active and obtained a licence to use Windows Server for use on AWS, GCP or Alibaba Cloud’s platforms in the period from December 2018, you automatically will be included in the claim.

If you fall within the proposed class, we encourage you to register for updates on the case. Beyond this, you do not need to do anything else at this stage.

If the claim is successful, to recover your losses you will have to prove that you are a member of the proposed class, so you should keep copies of invoices or any registration documents which show you purchased a licence for Windows Server from AWS, GCP or Alibaba Cloud.

Collective actions are a form of court procedure introduced to the UK by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, that enable a class representative to bring proceedings on behalf of a group affected by an infringement of EU or UK competition law. They combine individual claims that raise the same, similar, or related issues of fact or law (known as ‘common issues’).

Before a collective action can proceed, the Competition Appeal Tribunal must make a collective proceedings order (‘CPO’) authorising the class representative and certifying the claims as eligible to be included in collective proceedings.

When the CPO has been made, the matter progresses to a trial of the common issues unless the case settles first. After success at trial or settlement, the damages are distributed amongst the class members using a distribution method approved by the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

This is an ‘opt-out’ collective action, so anyone based in the UK who is within the proposed class is automatically included in the proceedings unless they actively choose not to be by opting out. Details on how to opt-out are provided further down this page.

The claim is being brought in the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (also known as the “CAT”) which is a specialist court based in London. The CAT hears and decides cases involving competition issues and has expertise in law, economics, business, and accountancy. The CAT publishes its Rules and Guidance, together with information about what it does, on its website: www.catribunal.org.uk.

Nothing. All costs (including all risk of future costs) are met by Dr Stasi based on financing arrangements she has entered with specialist third party litigation funder, LCM Funding UK Limited (“LCM”), to bring and fund the claim.

Third party funding is a form of investment which helps claimants with a small claim to bring claims against large, well-resourced international companies such as Microsoft. If sanctioned by the Tribunal, the funder will receive a fee, payable only from any recovery made from the defendant(s), in return for its investment.

The funding arrangements will be scrutinised by the Tribunal to ensure that Dr Stasi has the financial resources to fund the claim and to pay the defendants’ costs if ordered to do so. The Tribunal must also approve any payment to the funder, to ensure that it is fair to class members.

No. Dr Stasi has secured litigation funding from LCM. If the claims are unsuccessful, LCM has agreed to pay Microsoft’s reasonable legal costs. Proposed class members do not face any personal risk in relation to these proceedings.

No money is available now, and unfortunately is not guaranteed. In December 2024, Dr Stasi filed the claim with the Competition Appeal Tribunal, and we anticipate a case management hearing to be scheduled during 2025 at which the timetable for the claim is likely to be clarified.

The precise value of the claim will be based on experts analysis of data which Microsoft will provide at a later stage of the claim. If the claim is certified by the Competition Appeal Tribunal, we estimate that the proposed class as a whole will be able to claim damages worth millions of pounds.

Once we know the total loss suffered, we will be able to provide more information on how much individual proposed class members will receive.

The legal process could take a few years. We appreciate your patience.  It is possible that the case will settle without going to trial, in which case compensation could be available sooner.

Registering for updates is the best way to do so. When you register your interest in this claim, you will receive updates about latest developments in the claim and information about any action you may be required to take.  In addition, you can track the progress of the claim on this website, and via the following social media channels:

Linkedin

 

At this stage we cannot be certain.  Legal proceedings of this nature can take a long time, and it depends on certain decisions taken by the Competition Appeal Tribunal.  We will update you as the claim progresses.  At this stage, it is estimated it will take a few years for the claim to reach a conclusion.  It may be possible to resolve the claim sooner if a settlement can be agreed.

These are 'opt-out' proceedings which means that anyone who falls within the proposed class definition, will automatically be included in the proceedings unless they actively choose not to be by opting out.

You can complete an opt-out form found here. This will ask you to confirm the following statement: “I wish to opt out of the Competition Appeal Tribunal collective claim: “Luisa Maria Stasi [number]” and provide your full name, postal address, email address and telephone number.

Once completed, please attach the form either to an email and send it to enquiries@ukcloudclaim.com or by posting the completed form to:

PO Box 5551
First Avenue
Westfield Industrial Estate
Radstock
BA3 9DL

If you choose to opt out, you will not be able to request any payment from future damages or a settlement if the claim is successful. Further information can be found in the Notice that has been approved by the Tribunal, which can be found here.

The following categories are excluded from being a part of this claim:

  • Any organisation instructed by the Proposed Defendants to provide legal, expert, or other professional support for the purposes of the Proposed Collective Proceedings;
  • Any organisation instructed by the Proposed Class Representative to provide legal, expert, or other professional support for the purposes of the Proposed Collective Proceedings;
  • The Competition Appeal Tribunal itself, and any organisation owned or controlled by the members of the Tribunal panel assigned to the Proposed Collective Proceedings; and
  • Any organisation owned or controlled by any judge hearing any appeal in the Proposed Collective Proceedings.