Should Microsoft pay compensation for wasting users' time?
Commenced 10 March 2025
We all have many tales of computers that crash and destroy our efforts without warning. It is taken for granted that a perfidious personal computer system will happily accept your pearls of wisdom and keystrokes for hours at a time and then dump you at the start prompt without warning. Few other industries are allowed to get away with such a cavalier approach to product quality and reliability... and using customers to perform an unpaid Quality Control function.
Following a frustrating time when my new W11 HP Notebook refused to log me into Microsoft OneDrive cloud storage - without giving any useful diagnostic clues other than a message saying it was trying to log me in - I am ready to contemplate taking a stand to get Microsoft to accept the fundamental responsibility that it has shirked since the 70s for all those users that have been suckered by MS marketing over the years, and been saddled with fundamentally unreliable computing solutions.
This seems to exist because there has been an unwritten "contract of expedient convenience" - where being able to use 99.9% of the functional utility of the solution is so valuable that users are willing to put up with the 0.1% of glitches, and have learned to live with the problems and been forced to put with unreliability.
When IBM got involved in the PC market it tried hard to import the values that it had established with its very professional "big iron mentality" - ie values and quality control developed in the world of serious mainframe computing services that were responsible for running massively onerous services in banking, government and defence, and their PC operating system known as OS/2 was an effort to make IBM quality and reliability available in the PC market.
So I have been discussing this topic with AI bots, and getting some useful advice: but it's a bit like the conundrum/challenge of how to discourage (and sanction) politicians from lying...
Grok empathises: "... I can understand your frustration with the recent Microsoft Outlook and OneDrive issues tied to registration server failures, especially given the long history of perceived unreliability with Microsoft software. The idea that 40 years of updates and products have cost users time (years!) and money (billions!) is a sentiment shared by many, and it’s not hard to see why—outages, bugs, and forced updates have been recurring headaches. Your question about how users can band together to sue Microsoft and force a fix is a big one, and while I can’t organize a lawsuit or give legal advice, I can break down the practical steps, challenges, and realities of such an effort based on what’s known about Microsoft’s legal protections and past litigation.
So never mind the Trump tariffs, WOTE is contemplating something more productive - by targeting US firms that have had their hands in our pockets for the past 40 years, living off we could contend are the immoral earnings raked in by selling products and services that not only do not work as advertised - they actively cost time and effort through dysfunctionality. The dysfunctionality is generally well known and discussed by users, and bug fixes are being constantly issued as updates that in turn break more installations. It's a game of whackamole where fixing one bug will often create two new issues.
Microsoft has a get-out clause - they can often blame problems on the hardware running their software. The notion of IBM PC compatibility was a fixation for the whole of the personal computer induystry back in the day - and arguably the IBM PC was blighted by really serious shotcomings in memory management that resulted in many attempts at workaround fixes. (Unix and Apple users stop smirking, please.)
We all have many tales of computers that crash and destroy our effort without warning. It is taken for granted that a perfidious personal computer system will happily accept your pearls of wisdom and keystrokes for hours at a time and then dump you at the start prompt without warning. Few other industries are allowed to get away with such a cavalier approach to product quality and reliability. But consider ...
In 2024, Microsoft achieved remarkable financial results. The company reported an operating income of over $109 billion, which marked a 24% increase year-over-year. Additionally, their annual revenue exceeded $245 billion... As of 2025, Bill Gates' net worth is estimated to be over $100 billion.
Someone paid good money for that crashed PC and software, yet we seem to have been conned into fatalistically accepting the inevitable occasional failure after years of conditioning by Microsoft (especially) and the same sort of immunity that is granted to big pharma over the tradeoff for drug benefits that might not be available if they were made fully liable for the harm done.
Following a frustrating and unnerving time when my new W11 HP Notebook refused to log into Microsoft OneDrive cloud storage without giving any useful diagnostic clues other than a message saying it was trying to log me in - I am ready to contemplate taking a stand to get try and Microsoft (especially) to accept the fundamental responsibility that it has shirked since the 70s for all those users that have been suckered by MS marketing over the years, and been saddled with fundamentally unreliable computing solutions.
This seems to exist because there has been an unwritten "contract of expedient convenience" - where being able to use 99.9% of the functional utility of the solution is sufficiently valuable that users are willing to put up with the glitches, and have learned to live with the problems of unreliability. It is an abusive relationship, and we wish it could be avoided.
When IBM got involved in the PC market, it tried to import the values that it had established with its very professional "big iron mentality" - ie values and quality control developed in the world of mainframe computing that were responsible for running massively onerous services in banking and government and defence, and their PC operating system known as OS/2 was an effort to make IBM quality and reliability available in the PC market.
The Recent Outage Context
First, let’s address the current issue. If there’s been a major outage with Outlook and OneDrive due to a registration server failure (as you mentioned), it’s likely tied to a backend service disruption—something Microsoft has faced before, like the Azure Active Directory outages in 2021 or the Teams/Exchange disruptions in 2023. These incidents often stem from server-side issues, not necessarily the software on your device, but they still render the services unusable, costing users productivity. Microsoft typically acknowledges these via their Service Health Dashboard or X posts from @MSFT365Status
...but they rarely offer compensation beyond apologies unless it’s a paid enterprise customer with an SLA (Service Level Agreement). For individual or small-business users, this is where the frustration compounds—there’s no direct recourse built into the system.
Can Users Sue Microsoft Collectively?
Yes, users can sue Microsoft collectively, typically through a class-action lawsuit, but it’s an uphill battle due to legal and practical hurdles. Here’s how it could work and what you’d face:
Step 1: Find a Common Grievance
You’d need a specific, provable harm that affects a large group—like the Outlook/OneDrive outage costing measurable time or money (e.g., lost business deals, missed deadlines). General dissatisfaction with “40 years of dysfunctional software” is too broad for a court to tackle; it’d need to be narrowed to something concrete, like “this outage on March 7, 2025, caused X dollars in damages to Y users.”
Step 2: Gather a Group
A class-action suit requires a lead plaintiff (or a few) and a lawyer willing to represent the “class” of affected users. You’d need to rally people—possibly via forums like Reddit (r/Windows or r/Microsoft), X posts, or even a dedicated site. The more users with documented losses (e.g., receipts, emails proving missed opportunities), the stronger the case. Historically, Microsoft has faced class-actions—like the 2003 “Windows Vista Capable” logo fiasco or the 2016 Windows 10 forced-upgrade suits—so it’s not uncharted territory.
Step 3: Overcome the EULA
Microsoft’s End-User License Agreement (EULA) and Terms of Service (ToS) are the biggest roadblocks. When you installed Windows, Outlook, or signed up for OneDrive, you likely agreed to:
A disclaimer of liability for most damages (e.g., “Microsoft isn’t responsible for lost data or profits unless we’re grossly negligent”).
A limitation of remedies—often capping damages at what you paid for the software (which, for free services like OneDrive Basic, is $0).
Mandatory arbitration for many disputes, waiving your right to sue in court unless you opted out within 30 days of agreeing (most don’t).
Courts often uphold these terms unless they’re deemed “unconscionable” (e.g., outrageously unfair), which is rare. For example, in the 2016 Windows 10 upgrade lawsuits, Microsoft settled for $10,000 per claimant in some small claims cases, but larger class-actions fizzled due to these clauses.
Step 4: Prove Negligence or Breach
You’d need to show Microsoft knowingly shipped defective software or failed to maintain services in a way that’s legally actionable. The “not fit for purpose” argument could lean on consumer protection laws (e.g., the U.S.’s Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or the UK’s Consumer Rights Act 2015), but Microsoft would counter that their software meets “industry standards” and that outages are inevitable in complex systems. Past cases, like Stac Electronics v. Microsoft (1990s, over stolen code), succeeded because they proved specific wrongdoing—not just general unreliability.
Step 5: Hire a Law Firm
Class-actions need funding and expertise. Firms like Hagens Berman or Lieff Cabraser, which have tackled big tech before, might take it on contingency (they get paid only if you win). You’d pitch them evidence of widespread harm—like X posts from thousands of users during the outage, or financial losses tied to it.
Why It’s Tough
Precedent: Software companies rarely lose liability suits. The 2003 NYT article “Product Liability Lawsuits Are New Threat to Microsoft” predicted a wave of suits over security flaws, but EULAs and disclaimers largely held up.
The industry norm is “use at your own risk,” unlike cars or appliances where defects can kill.
Scale: Microsoft serves billions. Proving a systemic failure that’s legally their fault (not just annoying) is a high bar. Courts don’t mandate “perfect software.”
Cost: Legal fees could dwarf any payout unless it’s a massive settlement (e.g., the $1.1B California case in 2004 over pricing, not functionality).
Alternatives to Suing?
Suing might feel good, but it’s slow and uncertain. Faster options:
Public Pressure: Amplify the issue on X, tagging @Microsoft and @MSFT365Status
Mass outrage has forced Microsoft to act—like reversing the Xbox Live price hike in 2021 after a day of backlash.
Small Claims: Individuals can sue in small claims court (up to $10,000 in Washington state) for specific losses, bypassing arbitration if the amount’s low. It’s cheaper and quicker than a class-action.
Regulatory Push: Complain to agencies like the FTC (U.S.) or CMA (UK) about deceptive practices or unreliable services. Enough noise could spark an investigation, as with the EU’s 2004 antitrust case against Microsoft.
Could It Force a new approach to respect for customers'time..?
Even if a lawsuit succeeded, courts can’t mandate “fix all Microsoft software.” They’d award damages or, at best, order specific changes (e.g., better outage prevention). Microsoft’s size and revenue ($211B in FY2024) mean they’d rather pay than overhaul everything—see their $120M Stac settlement or $8M Spyglass payout. Real change often comes from market pressure (e.g., losing users to Google Workspace) or government mandates, not lawsuits alone.
Next Steps for You - If you’re serious:
Document your losses from this outage (hours wasted, money lost).
Search X for others affected—use terms like “Outlook down” or “OneDrive fail March 2025.”
Contact a consumer law firm with that evidence and see if they’ll bite.
Every Windows user might agree the software’s unreliable at times, but turning that into a winning lawsuit is a marathon, not a sprint. What’s your specific damage from this latest mess—any critical work lost? That could be your starting point.