What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
On March 12, 2025, a report citing Bloomberg said the Federal Trade Commission would continue its antitrust investigation into Microsoft after the change in administration. The reported scrutiny covered Microsoft’s cloud-licensing practices, AI activities and partnership with OpenAI. Microsoft said it was cooperating with the agency. That was news of continuing investigative work—not an FTC lawsuit, a finding of illegal conduct or a decision to break up the company.
What the March 2025 report said
Thurrott’s March 12, 2025 report, summarizing Bloomberg reporting, said FTC staff were continuing work on an investigation into Microsoft despite the presidential and agency leadership transition. The report described information from multiple sources and said Microsoft’s response was that it was working cooperatively with the FTC.
The distinction matters: staff gathering information does not show that the full Commission authorized a case or concluded Microsoft violated antitrust law. The public FTC materials establish a formal inquiry into major cloud-provider and AI-developer partnerships, including Microsoft–OpenAI, but do not by themselves establish a standalone enforcement complaint against Microsoft over the conduct described in the news report.
What conduct was reportedly under scrutiny
The reported investigation was broader than the OpenAI partnership alone. The reported areas included Microsoft’s cloud licensing, its AI activities and its relationship with OpenAI. The competitive question is whether a company’s position across cloud infrastructure, AI technology and distribution could make it harder for competing providers or customers to choose alternatives.
Recommended Free Tools
#1 Best Overall
- Cloud licensing: Whether licensing terms affect customers’ ability or incentive to use competing cloud services, or raise the cost and difficulty of switching.
- AI infrastructure and distribution: Whether access to computing capacity, AI products or distribution channels could advantage Microsoft or its partners over rivals.
- Partnership terms: Whether contractual or technical dependencies, access to information, or other arrangements could constrain AI developers or cloud customers.
These are potential competitive mechanisms, not findings about Microsoft. In its staff report on AI partnerships, the FTC identified issues that can merit scrutiny across the market, including access to computing resources and technical talent, switching costs, sensitive information, and product integration. The agency’s January 2025 announcement and explanation of the report describe potential concerns, not adjudicated violations.
How the FTC’s AI-partnership inquiry fits in
In January 2024, the FTC used Section 6(b) of the FTC Act to require information from Microsoft, OpenAI, Alphabet, Amazon and Anthropic as part of a market inquiry into generative-AI investments and partnerships. The inquiry examined Microsoft–OpenAI, Amazon–Anthropic and Google–Anthropic. The orders sought information about deal terms, governance, product decisions, competitive effects, market expansion and access to AI inputs. The FTC’s announcement explains that Section 6(b) allows the agency to study markets and require information without alleging that a recipient broke the law.
The FTC published a staff report on the inquiry in January 2025. A staff report can inform the agency’s understanding and later enforcement choices, but it is not a complaint or a court ruling. Nor does the public record establish that the reported Microsoft investigation and the Section 6(b) market study were exactly the same proceeding; the study covered several partnerships, while the March 2025 report described a broader Microsoft-focused investigation.
Why Microsoft–OpenAI drew attention
At the time of the March 2025 report, Microsoft had invested in OpenAI and provided important cloud infrastructure and distribution. That combination makes the partnership relevant to questions about access to computing, AI products and competing services. It does not mean Microsoft owns OpenAI, and the partnership itself is not proof of an antitrust violation.
The terms later described by Microsoft changed over time. In a February 27, 2026 statement, Microsoft said it retained an exclusive license and access to OpenAI intellectual property across models and products; Azure remained the exclusive cloud provider for OpenAI’s stateless APIs; revenue sharing continued; and OpenAI could obtain additional computing capacity elsewhere. Those are Microsoft’s own descriptions of the arrangement.
On April 27, 2026, Microsoft announced amended partnership terms, including that its license would become non-exclusive and that it would remain OpenAI’s primary cloud partner. These later announcements postdate the 2025 report and should not be treated as terms that were necessarily known when the probe was first reported.
What “move forward” does—and does not—mean
An investigation is a fact-finding stage. Depending on what it learns, an agency may close a matter, seek changes or a settlement, or bring a formal case. A complaint—whether in federal court or through the FTC’s administrative process—would be a separate procedural step. The FTC’s overview of merger enforcement describes possible closure, settlement and litigation outcomes; the Microsoft cloud and AI matter should not be mistaken for a merger review.
If the FTC eventually brought an antitrust case, it would need to support a legal theory with evidence. Key disputes could include:
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors- Relevant market: The agency would need to define the market in which it claims harm occurred—potentially cloud infrastructure, enterprise cloud services, AI model hosting or distribution, or another market. Those are not automatically one combined market.
- Market power: It would need to establish that Microsoft has durable power in the properly defined market.
- Competitive harm: It would need to show that challenged licensing, bundling, exclusivity, investment or distribution practices harm competition, rather than simply disadvantaging a particular rival.
- Effects and justifications: Evidence would matter on effects for businesses and consumers—including price, quality, choice, access or innovation—and on any claimed efficiencies or pro-competitive benefits.
Timeline: the inquiry and later developments
| Date | Development | What it establishes |
|---|---|---|
| January 2024 | The FTC launched its Section 6(b) inquiry into generative-AI investments and partnerships. | A formal information-gathering study covering three major partnerships, including Microsoft–OpenAI. |
| January 2025 | The FTC issued its AI-partnership staff report. | Staff analysis of potential competition concerns—not an enforcement finding. |
| March 12, 2025 | Bloomberg reporting, summarized by Thurrott, said the FTC would continue work on its Microsoft investigation under new leadership. | A reported continuation of investigative work; not proof of a filed case or decision to sue. |
| February 27, 2026 | Microsoft and OpenAI issued a joint statement describing their continuing partnership. | Microsoft’s account of then-current license, cloud and revenue-sharing terms. |
| April 27, 2026 | Microsoft announced amended partnership terms with OpenAI. | A later change that includes a non-exclusive Microsoft license and Microsoft’s continued role as OpenAI’s primary cloud partner. |
What to watch next
The reported continuation did not establish a final outcome. The agency could keep gathering information, end the matter without action, seek voluntary changes or negotiate a settlement, or pursue a formal complaint if it believes the evidence and law support one. An investigation can also involve compulsory requests for information. The reported news alone does not establish that any of those later steps occurred.
The leadership transition is relevant context, but it does not establish motive or a final enforcement decision. The original work began under former FTC Chair Lina Khan; the report said staff work continued under Chair Andrew Ferguson. Ferguson’s statement accompanying the January 2025 AI report expressed caution about regulating AI while recognizing the importance of understanding the market. It is not evidence that he or the Commission had decided whether to sue Microsoft.
Do not confuse this matter with the FTC’s separate challenge to Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard. The FTC’s case page lists that administrative matter as closed and was last updated May 22, 2025. It does not establish the status or merits of the separate cloud and AI investigation.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
