As you may be aware, Microsoft has been offering users of Microsoft windows products the opportunity to upgrade to Microsoft 10 free. This offer will end on July 29th. However, despite this perceived goodwill, there may be issues in how the product has been offered.
On Friday, July 22nd, three Florida men filed a class action suit against Microsoft alleging that the upgrade notifications and offers constitute unsolicited electronic advertisements, as well as violating the law on deceptive and unfair business practices. At the same time, Microsoft was sued in Israel on the allegation that Microsoft Installed Windows 10 on users’ computers without their consent.
Microsoft has continuously claimed that its upgrade to Microsoft 10 was only an offer.
However, an offer, is defined as something you typically choose whether or not to accept. In the case of Windows 10, unless a person took action to change one’s update policies, Windows 10 automatically downloaded itself on to people’s computer system. During the spring, Microsoft changed the upgrade notification so that the upgrade prompt no longer functioned. As a result, some people were upgraded to Windows 10 without their consent.
Many experts now believe that Microsoft did not simply offer the newest Windows program, but instead it was used as a mallet that consumers had to dodge over and over again. It was also integrated further into prompts and warnings into its web browsers. The only time that it was rolled back was when it was being recognized as malware.
Even though millions of people have enjoyed the new upgrade, it is generally felt that Microsoft acted unfairly as they repeatedly made changes to circumvent the users’ preferences. As such, the question must be asked, what is considered an offer from a legal sense? As previously mentioned, an offer is a choice to either accept or not accept a product. However, it seems that Microsoft was pushing the product onto the customers over a twelve month period. As such, with the actions occurring involving Windows 10, does this constitute a monopolistic practice, which is illegal?Google+