The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →On October 28, 2024, Microsoft accused Google of using the newly forming Open Cloud Coalition as an “astroturf” or “shadow” lobbying vehicle to influence European cloud regulation and attack Microsoft Azure. Google confirmed that it belonged to the coalition and said its concerns about Microsoft’s licensing practices were public. The available evidence established the coalition, Google’s membership and the underlying licensing dispute, but did not independently prove that Google secretly controlled or funded the group.
The argument became part of a wider regulatory question: whether software licensing can make it materially harder or more expensive for customers to run Microsoft workloads on rival clouds. That question remained relevant after the 2024 dispute, including when the European Commission announced a preliminary view in June 2026 that AWS and Microsoft Azure should be designated as Digital Markets Act gatekeepers.
What Microsoft alleged in October 2024
Microsoft’s deputy general counsel, Rima Alaily, said Google was behind the Open Cloud Coalition and was presenting smaller European cloud providers as the group’s public face. According to Microsoft, Google was trying to obscure its own funding, influence and leadership while discrediting Microsoft before European policymakers and antitrust authorities.
Microsoft also argued that the campaign could divert attention from Google’s own regulatory scrutiny and improve Google Cloud’s competitive position. Those are Microsoft’s allegations, not findings by the European Commission or another adjudicator. The contemporaneous reporting did not independently establish covert control, undisclosed funding or Google’s effective direction of the coalition.
#1 Best Overall
TechCrunch reported the accusation and Google’s response on October 28, 2024: Microsoft accuses Google of shadow campaign to influence cloud regulation in Europe.
What the Open Cloud Coalition was
The coalition was preparing to launch formally on October 29, 2024. Its stated purpose was to promote a more open and competitive European cloud market by reducing lock-in, improving interoperability and giving customers more choice among providers.
TechCrunch identified Nicky Stewart, public-sector director at U.K. cloud company Civo, as the coalition’s leader. DGA Group was reported to be helping recruit members. The initial group was expected to include:
- Civo
- Centerprise International
- Gigas
- ControlPlane
- DTP Group
- Prolinx
- Pulsant
- Clairo
- Room 101
The coalition described itself as “not anti” any particular company. That public description is compatible with a genuine coalition of providers that shared concerns about portability and competition. It does not, by itself, resolve Microsoft’s separate questions about funding, influence or control.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The licensing dispute underneath the lobbying fight
Google’s complaint concerned the practical cost of running Microsoft software on competing infrastructure. A customer may be technically able to run Microsoft products on AWS, Google Cloud or a European provider, yet licensing conditions can make that option less attractive than running the same workloads on Azure.
Rank #2
The competition theory is that Microsoft can use its position in enterprise software—including Windows Server, Microsoft 365 and related products—to favor Azure. Customers may then face higher costs, technical restrictions or operational friction when they try to move workloads or use more than one cloud.
CISPE’s earlier complaint to the European Commission described alleged practices including:
- Discriminatory or restrictive licensing;
- Bundling and tying;
- Self-preferencing of Azure;
- Economic and technical lock-in; and
- Steering customers toward Microsoft infrastructure.
CISPE’s complaint summary is available at CISPE’s Executive Summary. The complaint and any investigation should not be confused with a final legal finding that Microsoft infringed EU competition law.
How CISPE’s settlement changed—and failed to end—the dispute
CISPE reached a settlement with Microsoft in July 2024. The arrangement covered licensing changes for participating European cloud providers, but it excluded major hyperscalers, including Google, AWS and Alibaba. That limitation explains why the settlement removed one complaint without resolving every concern in the market.
| Event | What it established | Important qualification |
|---|---|---|
| CISPE complaint | European cloud providers alleged that Microsoft licensing disadvantaged rival infrastructure. | These were allegations, not a final infringement decision. |
| July 2024 settlement | Microsoft agreed to changes for participating CISPE members. | Google, AWS and Alibaba were excluded. |
| October 2024 coalition dispute | Microsoft accused Google of using the coalition to influence policy. | Public reporting did not independently prove secret control or funding. |
| July 10, 2025 agreement | CISPE and Microsoft agreed on additional licensing changes for CISPE members’ European infrastructure. | The arrangement still did not extend to other hyperscalers. |
TechCrunch also reported that Google offered CISPE members €470 million to continue pursuing the case. That figure was reported rather than independently verified in the available primary documents, so it should not be treated as a confirmed payment or agreement.
Rank #3
What changed in 2025
A CISPE report said the organization and Microsoft reached a further agreement on July 10, 2025. It described additional changes to Microsoft licensing terms for CISPE members’ European infrastructure and said that the European Cloud Competition Observatory (ECCO) would continue monitoring implementation.
ECCO is managed by CISPE and describes itself as independently governed. Its role is set out at CISPE’s ECCO page. The 2025 report is available at ECCO third report 2025.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Was the coalition really an “astroturf” campaign?
The answer depends on separating four different questions:
- Transparency: Were members, organizers and funders identified clearly?
- Control: Is there evidence that Google directed the coalition’s strategy or messaging?
- Substance: Did independent European providers and customers share the coalition’s concerns?
- Regulatory relevance: Did policymakers assess the evidence on its merits rather than simply accept a sponsor’s position?
The public record supports the coalition’s existence, Google’s membership and a real licensing controversy involving Microsoft. It does not, on the material available for this account, prove that Google secretly ran the coalition. A company can have a legitimate complaint and a commercial interest at the same time. Likewise, a coalition can contain independent members while receiving support from a larger sponsor.
“Lobbying” is ordinary advocacy by an identified company or group. “Coalition advocacy” involves several organizations advancing a shared position. “Astroturfing” is a pejorative term for a campaign that appears grassroots but is allegedly created, funded or controlled by a larger organization. “Shadow campaign” similarly suggests concealed influence. Microsoft used those terms as a characterization; they were not legal conclusions.
Why the timing mattered in Europe
The accusation came as several developments converged:
- Google had filed its own complaint about Microsoft’s licensing;
- The Open Cloud Coalition was preparing to launch;
- A new European Commission was preparing to take office;
- The U.K. Competition and Markets Authority was examining cloud competition and lock-in; and
- European policymakers were focusing more closely on interoperability, concentration and digital sovereignty.
It is reasonable to infer that Microsoft wanted to challenge Google’s credibility before the coalition became an established policy voice. That is an interpretation of the timing and Microsoft’s stated arguments, not an independently verified account of Microsoft’s strategic planning.
Why regulators and customers care
Cloud competition is not only a dispute between three large technology companies. Licensing can affect whether an enterprise can move workloads, negotiate with multiple providers or maintain a credible exit option. Those choices influence resilience, pricing, security architecture and dependence on one vendor.
There are competing interests:
- Google and other rivals: They seek fewer restrictions on running Microsoft software on competing clouds.
- European cloud providers: They want commercially viable access to Microsoft workloads and protection from hyperscaler advantages.
- Microsoft: It may argue that different licensing treatment for European providers and large hyperscalers reflects different competitive positions.
- Customers: Portability can improve bargaining power, but using several clouds may add migration, support, security and integration costs.
- Regulators: Interoperability remedies may improve competition while affecting investment incentives and technical support models.
“European cloud” is also an imprecise label. It can refer to ownership, the location of infrastructure, data residency, operational control or legal sovereignty. Those characteristics are not interchangeable.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the European Commission changed in 2026
On June 25, 2026, the European Commission announced a preliminary view that AWS and Microsoft Azure should be designated as gatekeepers under the Digital Markets Act. The Commission said AWS and Azure were the largest and second-largest cloud services in the EU and could be important gateways between businesses and customers, even though the services did not meet the DMA’s quantitative designation thresholds.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteBest Value
The Commission said cloud infrastructure had become increasingly important to European businesses, public administrations and AI systems. Amazon and Microsoft were given an opportunity to respond, and the announcement was not a final designation.
The announcement is reported at the European Commission’s June 25, 2026 statement. The Commission’s 2025 general report had already discussed an investigation into whether AWS and Azure were important gateways: European Commission General Report 2025.
This development shows that European authorities had an independent reason to examine cloud concentration and access. It does not prove Google’s original allegations about the coalition, and it does not by itself establish that Microsoft’s licensing breached competition law. The Digital Markets Act, traditional antitrust enforcement, digital-sovereignty initiatives and sector-specific rules such as DORA are distinct frameworks.
How to read the 2024 accusation today
The most defensible conclusion is narrower than either company’s preferred headline:
- Microsoft really did accuse Google of a shadow or astroturf campaign on October 28, 2024.
- Google really was a member of the Open Cloud Coalition and had a direct commercial interest in the policy outcome.
- CISPE and other providers had raised substantive licensing and lock-in concerns before the coalition dispute.
- The 2024 and 2025 CISPE arrangements covered participating members, not every major cloud provider.
- The available public material does not independently establish that Google secretly controlled or funded the coalition.
- European regulatory scrutiny later developed on its own, including the Commission’s preliminary 2026 DMA position on AWS and Azure.
For cloud customers, the practical question is therefore not simply whether Google was “behind” a trade coalition. It is whether licensing, portability and interoperability give businesses and public bodies a realistic ability to switch providers, use multiple clouds and negotiate on fair terms.
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.
