Microsoft vs Google: Microsoft claims Google doing shadowy attacks on it

Microsoft has taken a direct shot at Google, accusing the search giant of secretly leading a campaign to sway European competition authorities and tarnish Microsoft’s reputation in the cloud sector. The claim was made public through a sharply worded blog post by Microsoft’s deputy general counsel, Rima Alaily, who pointed to a new group, the Open Cloud Coalition, set to launch soon in Europe. Microsoft asserts that Google has orchestrated this group, presenting smaller European cloud providers as its public face in order to sidestep scrutiny of Google’s motives. The issue is layered and complex but let’s break it down and look at the specific concerns raised by Microsoft.
As per Microsoft’s Alaily, the Open Cloud Coalition, while appearing to advocate the smaller European cloud providers, is actually a front organised and funded by Google. “This week an astroturf group organised by Google is launching,” Alaily noted in the blog post. Microsoft accuses Google of leveraging smaller firms to mask its own involvement, creating what it terms an “astroturf” organisation –– an industry slang for a supposedly grassroots movement that is actually backed by corporate interests. Microsoft also claims that Google is trying to mislead regulators and the public by not openly leading this initiative. Instead, it plans to downplay its role, positioning smaller companies at the forefront.
This gets better, or worse. Microsoft also highlights how Google allegedly tried a similar tactic with CISPE (the Cloud Infrastructure Services Providers in Europe) earlier this year. When CISPE was close to resolving its own dispute with Microsoft, Google supposedly offered CISPE’s members a staggering $500 million in incentives to reject the settlement and continue litigating. CISPE, however, declined Google’s offer and moved forward with Microsoft’s resolution.
But why would Google go to such lengths to support an anti-Microsoft coalition? According to Microsoft’s Alaily, Google is attempting to divert attention from its own regulatory issues. “Never in the past two decades have Google’s search, digital advertising, and mobile app store monopolies faced such a concerted and determined threat,” she argues, citing at least 24 ongoing antitrust investigations against Google globally. Microsoft believes that, with Google under intense scrutiny, the company is attempting to weaken rivals like Microsoft Azure to bolster its own cloud platform, Google Cloud Platform.
As evidence of Google’s influence campaign, Microsoft points to Google’s recent public complaint to the European Commission regarding Microsoft’s cloud software licensing practices. Google’s grievance, which it opted to announce publicly rather than submit confidentially, challenges the fees Google pays to use Microsoft software like Windows Server within its cloud services. According to Google’s argument, Microsoft’s licensing terms are restrictive and create an unfair cost burden.
Microsoft counters that Google’s analogy is flawed, arguing that when a media service, such as Netflix, includes content, it pays licensing fees regardless of whether users already own that content on DVD or another format. “Software and the cloud are no different,” Alaily explains, reinforcing that Google should not expect discounts just because Microsoft’s software is involved.
Microsoft also argues that Google is attempting to position itself as a “non-hyperscale” provider — a smaller player needing regulatory support against larger giants. Alaily calls this stance “incredible” given Google’s massive data centre network, noting that Google has more data centre capacity than any other provider, backed by $13 billion in infrastructure investment and a 29 per cent growth rate last quarter alone.
Microsoft also claims that Google has a long history of using covert tactics to influence regulators. Microsoft has accused Google of funding, both directly and indirectly, academics and industry commentators who discredit Microsoft through published articles and “studies”. Microsoft maintains that these paid commentators “undermine true expertise and antitrust enforcement.”
The blog post refers to a recent op-ed by one such commentator who argued for more regulatory intervention against Microsoft, although the author’s ties to Google were only disclosed after Microsoft flagged it with the publication. Microsoft says this is part of a larger pattern in which Google operates through intermediaries, including the US-based Coalition for Fair Software Licensing, which lobbies against Microsoft’s cloud business in the US, the UK, and Europe.
Microsoft also accuses Google of initiating “attack campaigns” on unrelated topics, such as cybersecurity, and pitching negative stories about Microsoft’s operations in China to media outlets and government agencies worldwide. This “shadowy” approach, Microsoft argues, is less about reforming cloud services than it is about discrediting competitors wherever possible.
In response to Google’s alleged lobbying, Microsoft describes its own approach to regulatory challenges as co-operating and responsive. The company stresses on its willingness to engage with regulators and adjust its business practices in response to genuine concerns. Microsoft gives the example of recent changes to its business and enterprise productivity suites, which now include versions without Microsoft Teams at a reduced price. This was after feedback from the European Commission.
Microsoft going to war with Google is huge. If Google’s alleged tactics succeed, Microsoft warns that non-hyperscale cloud providers and their customers could be the biggest losers. As competition regulators continue investigating the cloud sector, this battle for influence and favourable treatment may impact cloud services’ cost and accessibility.
But there is also another side to this. If Microsoft’s accusations against Google prove to be unfounded, Microsoft risks undermining its credibility with regulators, partners, and customers alike. Casting unsubstantiated criticism could backfire, painting Microsoft as a hypersensitive market player more focused on discrediting rivals than fostering healthy competition. Regulators might then scrutinise Microsoft’s own tactics more closely, potentially imposing stricter oversight on its cloud operations. That said, Microsoft also wouldn’t casually make such big accusations.
Bigger picture: While Google and Microsoft remain at odds, both companies are positioning themselves as champions of fair competition. Yet, Microsoft’s latest revelations add a layer of complexity to the debate, as it accuses Google of hiding behind the very policies it’s promoting. Right now, we can do nothing but wait for this whole thing to unfold and see which tech giant’s version of “fair competition” wins out.