The hyperscalers’ hold on the global, multibillion-pound cloud computing market has come under repeated scrutiny over the past couple of years from governments, regulators and trade bodies.
In broad terms, the purpose of this scrutiny is to ascertain if the market’s biggest hitters, which include Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft, are behaving in anti-competitive ways to grow and protect their market-leading positions.
Where Microsoft’s activities are concerned, there is one particular behaviour the company participates in that has been singled out for criticism in many of these investigations. That behaviour concerns its widely criticised practice of charging customers more for wanting to run and host its software (namely Windows Server) in competing cloud environments.
It is claimed the tactic can make it cost-prohibitive for enterprise cloud users to run Microsoft’s software anywhere but on the software giant’s own public cloud platform Azure, which could potentially give it an unfair advantage when it comes to building its share of the cloud infrastructure market.
The CMA’s 637-page investigative report devoted more than 170 pages to discussing Microsoft’s cloud licensing habits in detail, and concluded the company’s practices are “adversely impacting the competitiveness of AWS and Google [specifically] in the supply of cloud services” and “reducing competition in [the] cloud services market”.
The CMA also stated that Microsoft’s licensing practices, “in combination with other features we have identified”, are further limiting the choice and “attractiveness” of alternative products and suppliers.
As a result, the CMA recommended that Microsoft be subject to targeted and bespoke interventions to remedy the impact the company’s behaviour is having on the UK cloud infrastructure services market as a whole.
At the time of writing, it is unclear when exactly in 2026 the CMA’s recommendations are likely to come into effect and what the long-term impact of them will be on Microsoft’s behaviour.
In the meantime, work is underway to secure financial recourse for UK businesses in the form of a burgeoning group legal action, which is open to any firm that fears it may have paid more “at any point since December 2018” to use Microsoft’s software in the AWS, Google or Alibaba public clouds.
Overseeing this effort is Italian competition lawyer, Maria Luisa Stasi, with the support of complex disputes resolution firm, Scott+Scott. They claim UK firms affected by Microsoft’s cloud licensing practices could be collectively owed £2bn in compensation.
The first round of court hearings on the issue are due to take place at the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on 11 December 2025.
The hearing’s purpose is to determine if a collective proceedings order (CPO) for the matter should be granted. This is a legal mechanism that allows a collective action involving multiple claimants with similar issues to band together in a single legal action against an entity (in this case, Microsoft) on anti-competition grounds.
If the CAT grants the order, that will certify Stasi’s claim and means her case against Microsoft can proceed to full trial, putting the businesses that have allegedly been left financially disadvantaged by Microsoft’s actions one step closer to being compensated.
The case itself has been more than a year in the making, as news that Stasi had submitted a claim for consideration to CAT first emerged in December 2024, with it being confirmed at the time that this claim would take the form of an “opt-out collective action”.
This approach makes it possible for class actions, such as Stasi’s case, to proceed against a company like Microsoft without needing to get those allegedly affected by its behaviour involved and onside first.
Over the past 12 months, Microsoft has been given the chance to respond to the claim, and – in October 2025 – Stasi issued her first call for businesses that suspect they’ve fallen foul of Microsoft’s alleged licensing practices to get in touch and join her group action.
Ahead of the 11 December CAT court date, Computer Weekly sat down with Stasi to find out what it is about Microsoft’s cloud licensing practices that persuaded her to take on this fight on behalf of the UK business community.
“Microsoft is dominant on some parts of the [IT infrastructure] stack and is using this power to impose things that otherwise will be difficult to accept for business users, and the reality is that they can do that because they limit choice for people,” she says.
“It’s not just about the [fact its services are] overpriced, it’s also about how difficult it is for users to switch and use other providers, and how that limits competition within the market.”
She adds: “[The cloud market] is a sector of the economy that should be very vibrant, innovative and open because we all rely on it, but it’s not. And someone is making a profit out of this situation, so things need to change.”
Stasi makes the point that it would be very difficult for a single business, upset with its treatment by Microsoft, to launch a legal action against the company alone and achieve that change.
“[It’s] my mission. to represent all of [the affected users] and try to get their money back, working on the theory that together, you’re a stronger force”
Maria Luisa Stasi, competition lawyer
“That’s my mission. I want to represent all of [the affected users] and try to get their money back on their behalf, working on the theory that if you unite together, you’re going to be a stronger force to be reckoned with.”
The UK court system is set up well to support this kind of claim, she says, with one of the most advanced systems in Europe for pursuing this kind of group claim. “It’s also exciting to be part of shaping this body of law that, to me, is one of the best guarantees we have for the public interest to be respected.”
Momentum for change
Citing the European Commission’s recently launched investigation into Microsoft, and the previous work done by Ofcom and the CMA to bring to light aspects of the software giant’s anti-competitive behaviours, Stasi says there is a real momentum building to get the software giant to change how it operates.
However, change will take time, she admits. “We are hoping to see some remedies introduced soon [on the back of the outcome of the CMA’s work], but it’s not a fast process, and even my proposed class action is not going to progress quickly.”
She says: “We went to court a year ago, and we’re hoping to have the certification in a couple of weeks’ time, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to get judgment anytime soon. But if we get certified [after 11 December 2025], we can start working towards the trial, and the game is on.”
Microsoft’s take on Stasi’s case
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Microsoft has not taken the news of Stasi’s legal action particularly well, with a spokesperson for the company sharing a statement with Computer Weekly that accuses Stasi of trying to opportunistically capitalise on Google Cloud’s complaint to the European Commission about Microsoft’s licensing practices.
“This is an opportunistic attempt by a law firm and its private funders to piggy-back on baseless complaints Google has made and which we’ve all addressed or rebutted,” the Microsoft spokesperson’s statement reads.
“We enable our cloud competitors to profit by offering our products to their cloud customers, and our competitors set their own prices when they do this.”
Stasi dismisses Microsoft’s take on her legal action and the notion that its existence owes anything to Google’s (now abortive) attempt to address its rival’s cloud licensing strategy.
“I’m grateful to my brilliant legal team and supportive funders, but the driving force for this case is me. What’s more, my voice is not alone. UK regulators found that Microsoft charges higher prices for using its software on rival cloud services,” she says. “The European Commission recently announced a similar probe into Microsoft’s cloud services.”
In response to Computer Weekly’s questions about how Microsoft has engaged with the legal process so far, she says: “It won’t surprise you that we have a completely different reading of what the impact of its actions are on the class [the businesses involved] and on those sectors of the economy overall.”
She continues: “We’re trying to do everything we can to solve all the different things that can be solved before getting to a potential trial, so that the latter can be straightforward and proceed as fast as is reasonably possible.”
I would be very surprised if nothing changes in the cloud market over the next five years. There are political discussions, policy discussions and enforcement actions coming down the line, so everything seems to be in place for a change to come Maria Luisa Stasi, competition lawyer
The trial will also be an opportunity to address what Stasi describes as an “asymmetry of information” in this case, which would not be possible without getting Microsoft into the courtroom.
“One of the aspects covered by this asymmetry of information is how many clients are actually paying what I consider to be an overcharge [to run Microsoft software in competing clouds],” she says.
“This is something I don’t know precisely, but our experts have been estimating this based on publicly accessible information. The precise number is known to Microsoft, but this type of disclosure won’t happen unless we go to trial.”
She adds: “The piece that I’m arguing is that Microsoft’s [behaviour around licensing has] a real financial impact on many, many businesses and public administrations, which needs addressing.”
With an imminent court date, the CMA’s actions set to take effect in 2026, and the European Commission’s own investigation into Microsoft now underway, Stasi says she is confident that the cloud market will become a much more level playing field in the years to come.
“I would be very, very surprised if, in five years from now, we’re sitting, having this conversation and nothing has changed,” she says.
“This class action might be one of the entry points [for change] and is particularly targeted on claiming back some extra charges, but there is a lot going on [in the cloud market] with the European Commission investigation and the CMA and the work they’re doing to restructure the market, but this is only part of the story.”
She then went on to cite the October 2025 AWS outage in the US, which had far-reaching consequences across the globe, as further evidence that having a market so reliant on just a handful of large tech firms is far from ideal.
“The outages are a strong reminder of what kind of harms and problems we can face as a democracy and as a citizenry, if we keep on having this environment so concentrated and so controlled in brackets by just a few global players,” she says.
“This makes it extremely difficult to guarantee basic principles such as observability, transparency, accountability and resilience. I would be very surprised if nothing changes in the cloud market over the next five years. There are political discussions, there are policy discussions, and there are enforcement actions coming down the line, so everything seems to be in place for a change to come.”
UK companies interested in joining Stasi’s legal action can find out more about it here: ukcloudclaim.com/register.
Design Within Reach carries some of the best and coolest home decor you can find, from modern couches to fantastic office chairs and fun designers like Herman Miller and Dusen Dusen. It’s not a cheap store to shop at, though, which is what makes these coupons something to jump on. Unlock online-exclusive discounts of up to 50%, free shipping, plus 20% off featured brands and 15% off office furniture bundles with Design Within Reach promo codes and Summer 2025 sale events. Save on hundreds of stylish items, including our favorite Design Within Reach office chairs, plus some other fantastic home gear we’ve earmarked for testing.
Extra 25% Off at Design Within Reach
Upgrade your digs to sleek Eames-esque mid-century modern design for up to 25% off furniture with Design Within Reach promo code EXTRA25. Head to Design Within Reach’s sale page for huge markdowns of live-proof, luxe furniture and household items like storage furniture, bar stools, chairs, couches, cabinetry, accessories, and more. And don’t forget to use that Design Within Reach promo code for even more savings.
Get 15% Off Furniture With Design Within Reach Promo Codes
On Design Within Reach’s website, you’ll see an expansive catalogue with a huge range of furniture to revamp any room—from couches and credenzas to coffee tables and bar stools for way less than normal designer prices. Flos lamps, known for mixing functionality and style, are now 20% off for a limited time. These colorful table lamps start at $255, with wall sconces, pendants, and more on sale.
Summer’s here, and it’s better late than never to get some great outdoor furniture. During Design Within Reach’s outdoor sale event, you can get up to 30% off great outdoor furniture essentials, like outdoor sectionals, chaise lounge chairs, benches, and outdoor tables. You can get bonus savings with sitewide Design Within Reach promo codes during this time. But you can still save thousands of dollars, on top of 50% off markdowns. If you’ve been eyeing the Eames Lounge Chair, Aeron Chair, or Noguchi table, this is your chance to save over $1,500.
One of the easiest ways to get a design within reach coupon is by signing up for their emails. When you sign up for DWR’s email list, you’ll get 15% off your first order, plus, you’ll be the first to know of flash sale events and discount codes when the updates are sent straight to your inbox.
You can ditch the delivery fees with Quick-Ship free shipping offers. You can save up to $699 and get complimentary shipping sitewide on orders of $2,000 or more. Explore the many items with quick-ship and free shipping offers, including sofas, storage pieces, coffee tables, and more iconic furniture. Check out their New to Sale deals too, with 40% off select bar stools, 20% off sectionals, and decor for 50% off. Design Within Reach’s end-of-season sales are some of the best times to save big on those pricier purchases, but you’ll be surprised to find that many new arrivals will go on sale too. While you’re browsing the Sale section, you can use the filter button to organize by category, specific designers, brands, and even price. Unleash your inner interior designer and go wild.
Shop up to 50% Off Design Within Reach Clearance Sale Deals
Buying furniture and other household items can be one of the biggest purchases one makes in their life. Luckily, Design Within Reach has some great furniture deals, with clearance deals that are even steeper than their usual sale discounts. These deals include last-chance furniture discounts, with up to 50% off on all home categories and decor—including light fixtures, tables, ottomans, furniture cushions, and more. Check out Design Within Reach clearance deals and take advantage of the final sale prices, where furniture items are at their lowest prices yet—before they go out of stock.
More Ways to Save on Design Within Reach Furniture
Design Within Reach is also here for small business owners and design industry professionals, to help them jumpstart and elevate their businesses in style. They can apply to the free DWR Trade program, where they will receive sitewide discounts every day, a dedicated Account Executive, exclusive promotions only available to Trade members, and exclusive and discounted Trade pricing across Design Within Reach’s 200 premium design brands in one place.
Our Favorite Design Within Reach Gear
Design Within Reach has a huge range of designers and home pieces, from massive couches to decor and chargers. They carry Herman Miller pieces we love from our guide to the Best Office Chairs, plus chargers from Courant that we recommend in our Best Wireless Chargers guide. We’ve also got our eye on couches and sheets from designers like Hay and Dusen Dusen to test too that you can find at Design Within Reach.
As the Trump administration phases out the use of animal experimentation across the federal government, a biotech startup has a bold idea for an alternative to animal testing: nonsentient “organ sacks.”
Bay Area-based R3 Bio has been quietly pitching the idea to investors and in industrypublications as a way to replace lab animals without the ethical issues that come with living organisms. That’s because these structures would contain all of the typical organs—except a brain, rendering them unable to think or feel pain. The company’s long-term goal, cofounder Alice Gilman says, is to make human versions that could be used as a source of tissues and organs for people who need them.
For Immortal Dragons, a Singapore-based longevity fund that’s invested in R3, the idea of replacement is a core strategy for human longevity. “We think replacement is probably better than repair when it comes to treating diseases or regulating the aging process in the human body,” says CEO Boyang Wang. “If we can create a nonsentient, headless bodyoid for a human being, that will be a great source of organs.”
For now, R3 is aiming to make monkey organ sacks. “The benefit of using models that are more ethical and are exclusively organ systems would be that testing can be meaningfully more scalable,” Gilman says. (R3’s name comes from the philosophy in animal research known as the three R’s—replacement, reduction, and refinement—developed by British scientists William Russell and Rex Burch in 1959 to promote humane experimentation.)
New drugs are often tested in monkeys before they’re given to human participants in clinical trials. For instance, monkeys were critical during the Covid-19 pandemic for testing vaccines and therapeutics. But they’re also an expensive resource, and their numbers are dwindling in the US after China banned the export of nonhuman primates in 2020.
Animal rights activists have long pushed to end research on monkeys, and one of the seven federally funded primate research facilities across the country has signaled it would consider shutting down and transitioning into a sanctuary amid growing pressure. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is also winding down monkey research, part of a bigger trend across the government to reduce reliance on animal testing.
As a result, Gilman says, there aren’t enough research monkeys left in the US to allow for necessary research if another pandemic threat emerges. Enter organ sacks.
Organ sacks would in theory offer advantages over existing organs-on-chips or tissue models, which lack the full complexity of whole organs, including blood vessels.
Gilman says it’s already possible to create mouse organ sacks that lack a brain, though she and cofounder John Schloendorn deny that R3 has made them. (For the record, Gilman doesn’t like the term “brainless” to describe the organ sacks. “It’s not missing anything, because we design it to only have the things we want,” she says.) Gilman and Schloendorn would not say how exactly they plan to create the monkey and human organ sacks, but said they are exploring a combination of stem-cell technology and gene editing.
It’s plausible that organ sacks could be grown from induced pluripotent stem cells, says Paul Knoepfler, a stem cell biologist at the University of California, Davis. These stem cells come from adult skin cells and are reprogrammed to an embryonic-like state. They have the potential to form into any cell or tissue in the body and have been used to create embryo-like structures that resemble the real thing. By editing these stem cells, scientists could disable genes needed for brain development. The resulting embryo could then be incubated until it grows into organized organ structures.
“Tavajoh! Tavajoh! Tavajoh!” a man’s voice announces, before going on to narrate a string of numbers in no apparent order, slowly and rhythmically. After nearly two hours, the calls of “Attention!” in Persian stop, only to resume again hours later.
According to Priyom, an organization which tracks and analyses global military and intelligence use of shortwave radio, using established radio-location techniques, the broadcast was first heard as the US bombing of Iran began. It has since played on the 7910 kHz shortwave frequency like clockwork—at 02.00 UTC and again at 18.00 UTC.
Over the weekend, Priyom said it had identified the likely origin of the broadcast. Using multilateration and triangulation techniques, the group traced the signal to a shortwave transmission facility inside a US military base in Böblingen, southwest of Stuttgart, Germany.
The site lies within a restricted training area between Panzer Kaserne and Patch Barracks, with technical operations possibly linked to the US army’s 52nd Strategic Signal Battalion, headquartered nearby.
That identification narrows the field, but it does not reveal who is behind the transmissions or who they are meant for.
The two-hour-long transmission is divided into five to six segments, each lasting up to 20 minutes. Each opens with “Tavajoh!” before shifting into a string of numbers in Persian, sometimes punctuated with an English word or two. Five days into the broadcast, radio jammers were heard attempting to block the frequency. The following day, the transmission shifted to a different frequency—7842 kHz.
Radio communication experts believe the broadcast is likely part of a Cold War–era system known as number stations.
The Return of the Numbers
Number stations are shortwave radio broadcasts that play strings of numbers or codes that sound random—like the one now heard in Iran. “It is an encrypted radio message used by foreign intelligence services, often as part of a complex operation by intelligence agencies and militaries,” says Maris Goldmanis, a Latvian historian and avid numbers stations researcher.
Number stations are most commonly associated with espionage. “For intelligence agencies, it is important to communicate with their spies to gather intelligence,” says John Sipher, a former US intelligence officer who served 28 years in the CIA’s National Clandestine Service. “This is not always possible in person due to political constraints or conflict. This is where number stations come in.”
While the use of number stations can be traced back to the First World War, they gained prominence during the US-Soviet Cold War. As espionage grew more sophisticated, governments used automated voice transmissions of coded numbers to communicate with agents, Goldmanis says. Citing declassified KGB and CIA documents, he adds that number stations were widely used during this period, often as Morse code transmissions and, in many cases, as two-way communications, with agents reporting back using their own shortwave transmitters.
“Nowadays, you have various satellite and encrypted communications technologies,” Sipher says. “But during the Cold War and even before that, governments had to find ways to do this without being noticed, and broadcasting coded messages was one way to communicate with your assets discreetly.”
The apparent randomness of the numbers means they can be understood only with a codebook, Sipher adds. “Nobody can make heads or tails of it or understand what it says unless you have the codebook that can give you hints to decrypt the code,” he says, noting that such systems must be set up and coordinated in advance.
A Signal Without a Sender
While the likely origin of the signal may now be clearer, its purpose and intended recipient remain unknown.
Because the broadcasts are encrypted and designed to be covert, those details may remain unclear for years, Goldmanis says. The structured nature of the transmission—its fixed schedule and consistent use of frequencies—further suggests it is part of a planned operation.
Sports1 week ago
Entertainment1 week ago
Sports1 week ago
Sports1 week ago
Tech6 days ago
Sports6 days ago