The Microsoft Teams tying case (Cases AT.40721 and AT.40873) was an antitrust investigation by the European Commission into Microsoft’s inclusion of Teams in its Office 365 and Microsoft 365 suites for business customers. The Commission preliminarily found that Microsoft held a dominant position worldwide in software-as-a-service (SaaS) productivity applications for professional use. It also found that, since at least April 2019, Microsoft had tied Teams to those applications in breach of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).[4] On 12 September 2025 the Commission made commitments offered by Microsoft legally binding. They cover suites without Teams at a lower price, switching rights for customers with long-term licences, interoperability and data portability.[4]
Background
Teams is a cloud-based communication and collaboration tool offering messaging, calling, video meetings and file sharing. The Commission describes Microsoft as having “a suite-centric business model combining multiple types of software in a single offering”, and records that when Teams was launched Microsoft included it by default in Office 365 and Microsoft 365.[4]
Slack Technologies, now owned by Salesforce, complained to the Commission on 14 July 2020 that Microsoft illegally tied Teams to its productivity suites.[1] alfaview GmbH filed a second complaint raising similar concerns on 20 July 2023.[2]
The dispute
The Commission opened formal proceedings on 27 July 2023. It was concerned that Microsoft might grant Teams a distribution advantage “by not giving customers the choice on whether or not to include access to that product when they subscribe to their productivity suites”, and that Microsoft might have limited interoperability between its suites and competing offerings.[1]
After the opening of proceedings, Microsoft started offering some suites without Teams. On 25 June 2024 the Commission opened a second set of proceedings on the alfaview complaint and sent Microsoft a Statement of Objections covering both. In it the Commission took the preliminary view that the changes were insufficient and that “more changes to Microsoft’s conduct are necessary to restore competition”.[2] A Statement of Objections does not prejudge the outcome of an investigation.[2]
On 16 May 2025 the Commission invited comments on commitments offered by Microsoft. Microsoft offered to sell suites without Teams in the EEA at a lower price than the corresponding suites with Teams, and to give customers recurrent opportunities to switch to them, including within existing contracts. It also offered interoperability for Teams’ competitors and data extraction from Teams. The Commission noted that Microsoft had decided that, if the commitments were made binding, it would align its worldwide suite offers and pricing with them.[3]
Decision or outcome
The market test ran from 16 May to 16 June 2025. Microsoft then amended its proposal, and on 12 September 2025 the Commission made the final commitments binding.[4] Microsoft committed:[4]
| Commitment | Detail |
|---|---|
| Suites without Teams | Offer EEA customers Office 365 and Microsoft 365 suites without Teams at an appreciably lower price. After the market test, the price difference for some suites, including those for businesses, was increased by 50% |
| Discount parity | Not to offer higher discount rates on Teams, or on suites with Teams, than on suites without Teams |
| Switching | Give EEA customers recurrent opportunities to switch to suites without Teams, allow customers with long-term licences to switch, and allow such suites to be deployed in datacentres worldwide |
| Interoperability | Give Teams’ competitors and certain third parties effective interoperability with certain Microsoft products for specific functions, let them embed the Office web applications (Word, Excel and PowerPoint), and let them integrate their products in Microsoft’s core productivity applications |
| Data portability | Allow EEA customers to extract their Teams messaging data for use in competing solutions |
| Advertising | Show the corresponding offer without Teams on Microsoft websites that advertise an offer including a suite with Teams |
The Commission also noted that Microsoft had unilaterally decided to align its worldwide suite offers and pricing with the commitments. It would also continue offering suites without Teams for frontline workers, at a further reduced price for the largest such suite.[4]
The commitments last seven years, and ten years for interoperability and data portability. A monitoring trustee supervises them and mediates disputes between third parties and Microsoft, with fast-track arbitration if a concern persists. After the market test, both Slack and alfaview withdrew their complaints.[4] An Article 9 decision does not conclude whether there was an infringement. If Microsoft breaches the commitments, the Commission may fine it up to 10% of worldwide annual turnover without proving an infringement, or impose a periodic penalty payment of 5% of daily turnover for every day of non-compliance.[4]
Significance for software licensing and SAM practice
The case concerns how a SaaS bundle is priced and packaged. The Commission’s concern was not a separate charge for Teams, but the lack of choice whether to acquire access to Teams at all when buying the productivity suite.[2] The remedy works through licensing terms: a separate SKU family without Teams, a guaranteed price gap, discount parity and switching rights, including for customers already committed to multi-year agreements.[4] It follows the Commission’s earlier case on bundling Windows Media Player with Windows, described in Microsoft v Commission. For the current suite structure, see Microsoft 365 and Online Services.
Lessons learned
- Price both versions. Suites without Teams must be offered in the EEA at an appreciably lower price, and the gap was widened by 50% for some suites after the market test.[4] Organisations that use another collaboration tool should compare the two versions at renewal.
- Switching is not tied to renewal. Customers with long-term licences may switch to suites without Teams, and EEA customers get recurrent switching opportunities.[4] Record when those windows occur in each agreement.
- Discounts must not favour the bundle. Microsoft committed not to offer higher discount rates on Teams or suites with Teams than on suites without Teams.[4] A quote that discounts only the Teams bundle can be compared against this commitment.
- Bundles without a separate price can still be challenged. The Commission’s concern was the absence of choice about acquiring Teams with the suite, reinforced by interoperability limits.[2] Commitments, not a fine, were the result, and the decision made no finding of infringement.[4]