The Sue Me, Sue You Blues:
Lawrence Klein v. Microsoft
Edition
[ed notes]
1. In this article, as is with most computer related articles I
have posted, my focus is always on the Consumer and small business
owner. Large entities have their own army of support personnel.
2. Research for this article was done with the help of
Microsoft's Copilot. I have found Copilot to be the best source
for factual information about all things Microsoft.
On August 8, 2025, in the California Superior Court, San Diego, Plaintiff, Lawrence Klein, filed a lawsuit against Microsoft for its discontinuation of free support, including security updates, for the Windows 10 operating system. In the First of Action, Plaintiff Klein alleges that Defendant Microsoft has engaged in unfair competition, false advertising, and violations of consumer protection laws related to Microsoft's decision to discontinue support for Windows 10. Plaintiff attorneys argue that by forcing Microsoft customers, whose current PCs are not Windows 11 compatible, to either purchase new PCs, or pay $30 for an additional year of security updates, puts Microsoft in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California Business & Professions Code § 17200, among other offenses against California Consumer protection statutes. At ¶69, the Compliant states:
Defendant violated the unfair prong of the UCL by, among other things, prematurely ending support for Windows 10 despite its continued widespread use and thereby rendering many older but still functioning devices obsolete and requiring many consumers to incur the cost of purchasing new devices, which benefits Microsoft. Worse, Microsoft recognizes that many users will be unable to upgrade before the end-of-support date in October 2025 and plans on continuing security updates but only to users who pay a fee, where it could simply continue providing such updates to all affected users.
So one question relevant here does Microsoft guarantee the Windows 10 OS? Yes. But the warranty is only for 90 days. As stated in the Microsoft License terms stated below:
If you acquired the software from a retailer, Microsoft warrants that the software will perform substantially as described in any Microsoft materials that accompany the software for a period of 90 days from the date you acquired it.
Intrinsically, Windows 10, or any software on the market, is a product, not unlike any other type of manufactured product. It is common practice for manufacturers to offer extended warranties past the time of the original product warranty. Much like buying an extended warranty for a car after the factory coverage expires, Microsoft’s Extended Security Updates offer users a way to prolong protection beyond the original support window. Plaintiff argues this monetizes basic security, but it’s not unlike what consumers already accept in other industries. Plaintiff does not, however, recognize that there are production costs to the creation and distribution of needed security updates.
For instance, a Consumer may purchase an extended warranty for an automobile to ensure the brakes always function properly. So, it is common practice in many industries to offer extended protection against product failure for a reasonable fee. In the case of Windows 10, for consumers there is a fee of $30 for an additional year of security patches.
Central to Plaintiff's case is that many enterprise users of Windows 10 will neither upgrade their current PCs. Neither will they pay any additional fees for extended security patches. These enterprise customers PCs often have stored on them critical information regarding their businesses and customers. And, as all computers users should now know, without security patches to fix vulnerabilities in software, any unpatched machine is liable to have the data stored on those machines stolen by cyber criminals.
Here my real world experience in the field offers some practical experience on how users deal with issues of computer security. Either they do; or they don't. Users who are aware of the many ways they; their machines; and the data stored on their machines, are under constant threat from cyber attacks, put in a great deal of effort in keeping their machines as up to date as possible. Security conscious users understand that they will need to replace their machines every 4 to 5 years. These users have a backup plan and implement those procedures on a regular basis. I work with small businesses. Each of those entities have already upgraded to Windows 11.
Moreover, simply patching Windows 10 will not make the older OS as secure as is Windows 11 out of the box. As the chart below generated by the Copilot AI shows, both the hardware and the software of Windows 11 and compatible machines offers far greater security than does Windows 10 hardware and software. The first two items in the chart, TPM 2.0 and Secure Boot, for example, are features that are enabled by default on newer motherboards. No patching of the operating system will offer those newer security features that are hardware related.
At ¶70, Plaintiff contends that Microsoft is "sunsetting [sic] software without adequate safeguards or transparency..." This argument does not hold much water, though. Microsoft announced the coming end of support for Windows 10 on June 14, 2023, and placed the date for ending support at October 14, 2025. At ¶28, Plaintiff alleges that Microsoft has shortened the end of Life timeframe for Windows 10.
• Windows XP support ended in 2014, 7 years after Windows Vista
launched.
• Windows Vista support ended in 2017, 8 years after
Windows 7 launched.
• Windows 7 support ended in 2020, 8 years after
Windows 8 launched.
• Windows 8 support ended in 2023, 8 years after
Windows 10 launched.
The Plaintiff’s timeline, however, misrepresents Microsoft’s official support lifecycle by inaccurately linking end-of-support dates to the launch of successor operating systems. While it’s true that Windows XP support ended in 2014, seven years after Vista launched, the same logic fails for subsequent versions. Windows Vista, for example, launched in January 2007 and received support until April 2017—ten years, not eight. Similarly, Windows 7 support ended in January 2020, just over seven years after Windows 8 launched in October 2012, not eight years as claimed. Finally, Windows 8.1—the version that received extended support—ended in January 2023, approximately 7.5 years after Windows 10’s release in July 2015. Microsoft’s lifecycle policy is based on each version’s release and support schedule, not the release of its successor, making the Plaintiff’s comparative timeline both misleading and factually incorrect. [Copilot]
This distinction isn’t just technical—it’s central to understanding how Microsoft communicates support timelines and sets expectations for users. By basing support on each version’s own release date, Microsoft provides a predictable lifecycle that consumers and businesses can plan around. Misrepresenting that structure—like tying end-of-support to the launch of a newer OS—can create confusion about how long users are actually entitled to updates. In legal terms, it also risks mischaracterizing Microsoft’s intent or obligations. If a Complaint hinges on the idea that support was cut short or not clearly disclosed, then it’s critical to use Microsoft’s actual lifecycle policy—not a retrofitted timeline based on successor releases. Otherwise, the argument loses factual grounding and misleads the court or public about what users were reasonably led to expect. [Copilot]
At ¶28, Plaintiff also posits that "each time Microsoft announced that it would end support for an operating system, the number of active users had declined to a small overall percentage of the operating systems in use." Adding at ¶29, "In addition, previous OS upgrades did not require users to upgrade their hardware. For example, most devices that ran Windows 7 and 8 could simply upgrade to Windows 10." As the guy who has upgraded Consumers systems for many years, the statements above were not true in many cases. Device driver incompatibility, for instance, was often an issue when upgrading from one Windows version to another.
Plaintiff contends that the reason behind Microsoft's push to have Consumers buy newer machines that are preloaded with Windows 11 is to further assert Microsoft's dominance in the ever growing field of Artificial Intelligence. At ¶56, Plaintiff seems to argue in favor of Microsoft's marketing for Windows 11.
By embedding Copilot into Windows, Microsoft ensures that millions of users encounter its AI assistant by default, reducing friction in adoption compared to third-party AI tools that require separate downloads or subscriptions. The competitive implications are significant. Consumers do not need to seek out or install Copilot because it is already integrated into the OS.
Indeed, if a Consumer wishes to delve into AI, then having the AI application already available is more convenient and cost saving for the Consumer. In the world of marketing, that is known as "adding value." Furthermore, AI is here to stay. What better way for a Consumer to come familiar with this new technology than having it preinstalled on a machine built for Artificial Intelligence.
At ¶55, Plaintiff chastises Microsoft for having "integrated into Windows 11." Plaintiff continues this criticism.
Microsoft has also placed Copilot branding within Windows 11 settings, such as in the taskbar and system menus. By default, Copilot appears on the task bar in Windows 11. Some users have noted that Copilot Pro ads appear in Windows 11 Settings, though there is not currently an option to remove them. Further, advertisements for Copilot pop up from the task bar, sometimes at inopportune times, and Microsoft actively promotes its AI features in apps like Word.
This author and many others have written several articles detailing how to turn off any unwanted Copilot features found both in Windows 11 and in Office 365 (now known as Microsoft 365 Copilot). Simply peruse the Table of Contents of this website to learn how easy it can be to tame the Copilot AI that is now embedded in Microsoft applications. I have done this for several clients over the last couple of years. Ya'll don't want no stinkin' AI? Presto! It's gone.
At ¶58, Plaintiff argues that by incorporating AI into its current products "puts Microsoft at a competitive advantage in the AI market against competitors without a captive audience. Microsoft is abusing its near monopoly in the operating system market to force consumers to purchase new devices so that it can secure a dominant position in the AI sector." Well, yes. But dominance is not criminal; nor is dominance synonymous with being monopolistic. Apple Computer is also integrating AI into all of its products. Anyone who has used the Google Chrome web browser lately to do a search has encountered the Google Gemini AI appearing first in any search return.
At ¶64, Plaintiff summarizes the central issue of his Compliant.
Plaintiff Klein currently runs Windows 10 on his Asus and Samsung laptops. Plaintiff Klein is unable to update these devices to Windows 11. As a result, Plaintiff’s device will effectively become obsolete in October 2025 when Microsoft ends support for Windows 10.
Indeed. Or for $30, Plaintiff can extend his Windows 10 support for another year. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the laptops Plaintiff currently owns were replacement(s) for older obsolete machines at the time he purchased his current machines. Although not as relevant now as when it was first posited in 1965, Moore's Law about the rapid advancement in computer technology stills holds some water, at least as a governing concept. For most savvy computer users, constant and disruptive change is the only thing guaranteed in the world of computing.
It cost Plaintiff $435 to file his Unlimited Limited Civil Complaint in California Superior Court. It's my guess that he could have purchased a new computer for around that amount. And a new computer would perform better than his very old laptops. Like many tings in life, it comes down to dollars and sense. Or the sense that there is a class action tort here in the making, with many dollars waiting at the end of this particular rainbow. According to their own website, Plaintiff's attorneys are associates of CounselOne, and are "widely experienced class-action litigators."
So who am I to say?
You serve me
And I'll serve you
Swing your
partners, all get screwed
Bring your lawyer
And I'll bring
mine
Get
together, and we could have a bad time
We're gonna play
the sue me, sue you blues
— Sue Me, Sue You Blues, George Harrison
Gerald Reiff