User sues Microsoft over planned end of Windows 10 support

[Alfonso Maruccia]

What just happened? Official support for most Windows 10 editions is set to end on October 14, 2025, causing growing unease among users. One individual has asked a legal team to attempt to compel Microsoft to extend support beyond this date, citing concerns over data integrity and security that could justify several additional years of support for Windows 10 devices.

Lawrence Klein, a Southern California resident who owns two Windows 10 laptops, is suing Microsoft over the company's plan to end support for the older operating system in less than two months. According to Klein's lawsuit, Microsoft is driven primarily by a desire to "monopolize the generative AI market" without any regard for users' data or devices.

The lawsuit alleges that Microsoft's decision to stop supporting a widely popular OS is part of a strategy to push users to buy new devices. Some of these new PCs come equipped with neural processing units, which are currently required to use the Copilot chatbot integrated into Windows 11. However, millions of users will likely continue using their existing PCs even after Windows 10 support ends.

Both consumer and business customers will soon stop receiving security updates for their Windows systems. Many of these devices store sensitive customer data, putting them at increased risk of cyberattacks and other security incidents, the lawsuit claims. Klein asserts that Microsoft is "well aware" of these risks.

For now, Klein is not seeking monetary compensation. He simply wants a judge to compel Microsoft to continue supporting Windows 10 until the operating system's usage falls below a certain threshold. The lawsuit defines that threshold as 10 percent of total Windows users, meaning Windows 10 could remain supported for several more years.

Hundreds of millions of people still use Windows 10, and an estimated 240 million devices don't meet the hardware requirements to install Windows 11. While Microsoft offers the upgrade for free, some Windows 10 users may have to pay a yearly fee to continue receiving security patches for a limited time.

Although Klein's lawsuit raises some valid points, it is unlikely to have any practical impact. Microsoft's plans to retire Windows 10 have been known for years, long before the recent AI-driven shifts in the company's strategy. Windows 10 is now 10 years old, and numerous workarounds exist to install Windows 11 even on unsupported, older PCs.

Those truly concerned about data security should consider moving away from Windows altogether. As former White House cybersecurity advisor Roger Cressey recently highlighted, Microsoft products have become frequent targets for Chinese hackers, reflecting concerns that the company no longer prioritizes security.

Permalink to story:

User sues Microsoft over planned end of Windows 10 support

 

[acrossthestars]

Look, I agree with the sentiment that Microsoft shouldn't just leave millions of devices out in the cold on October 14th, but trying to sue for additional years of security updates? This ain't it, chief!

Microsoft has a long history of eventually ending support for legacy operating systems. It would be utter insanity to suggest they continue to officially support Windows XP 24 years after first releasing it to the market, simply because people don't want to or cannot upgrade. Additionally, the plaintiff is not addressing "why" this time is different. Windows 8.1, 8 and 7 were all eventually discontinued and stopped receiving security updates, so what changed? It's because there is a critical mass of devices that ostensibly become e-waste, the moment security updates are no longer expected. Every version of Windows, prior to 11, could be upgraded to—provided the computer had the hardware to run it. Windows 11 breaks from "tradition" and says "if you don't have a TPM 2 module on your device, you cannot upgrade." It doesn't matter whether or not the computer can run Windows 11 as a matter of practicality; what matters is that it's not "secure enough".

Therefore, if someone were to sue Microsoft over the impending lack of security support, instead of demanding it on the grounds of "inconvenience" (which is what this lawsuit amounts to), they should sue because "even devices with TPM 2 hardware support are not substantially more secure than those without", or that the difference is not significant-enough to make millions of devices obsolete. Of course, this all rests on the assumption that we're talking about B2C or Business-to-Customer. Business-to-Business is very much going to be concerned about TPM 2 hardware support, because it affords enterprise a degree of CIA or "Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability". Most people don't care about this, because they don't store anything on their devices worth stealing, but laptops containing trade secrets worth millions are another story.

 

[candle86]

Look, I agree with the sentiment that Microsoft shouldn't just leave millions of devices out in the cold on October 14th, but trying to sue for additional years of security updates? This ain't it, chief!

Microsoft has a long history of eventually ending support for legacy operating systems. It would be utter insanity to suggest they continue to officially support Windows XP 24 years after first releasing it to the market, simply because people don't want to or cannot upgrade. Additionally, the plaintiff is not addressing "why" this time is different. Windows 8.1, 8 and 7 were all eventually discontinued and stopped receiving security updates, so what changed? It's because there is a critical mass of devices that ostensibly become e-waste, the moment security updates are no longer expected. Every version of Windows, prior to 11, could be upgraded to—provided the computer had the hardware to run it. Windows 11 breaks from "tradition" and says "if you don't have a TPM 2 module on your device, you cannot upgrade." It doesn't matter whether or not the computer can run Windows 11 as a matter of practicality; what matters is that it's not "secure enough".

Therefore, if someone were to sue Microsoft over the impending lack of security support, instead of demanding it on the grounds of "inconvenience" (which is what this lawsuit amounts to), they should sue because "even devices with TPM 2 hardware support are not substantially more secure than those without", or that the difference is not significant-enough to make millions of devices obsolete. Of course, this all rests on the assumption that we're talking about B2C or Business-to-Customer. Business-to-Business is very much going to be concerned about TPM 2 hardware support, because it affords enterprise a degree of CIA or "Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability". Most people don't care about this, because they don't store anything on their devices worth stealing, but laptops containing trade secrets worth millions are another story.

Actually this law suit has no merit, he agreed to the EULA which Microsoft now provides during OOBE setup. As for continuing upgrades, yes and no, my x2 3800 skt 939 won't run 10 64bit because it's missing instructions, but my Athlon 64 3200 AM2 can, lacking the necessary instructions that the new operating system requires is not a Microsoft fault, its simply technology has moved on.

 

[Coisa]

It is MS that needs Window 11, not you. It's their means of scrapping your use to train AI models, selling it back to you as AI, Selling MS Office services, advertising and so. The purported security necessity is a sham. Like this because you have too

 

[acrossthestars]

Actually this law suit has no merit, he agreed to the EULA which Microsoft now provides during OOBE setup

That's not really an objection.

It is my understanding that agreeing to the terms of an EULA is not the same thing as taking a pledge under oath, about the validity of your agreement with the terms listed. Which is to say, an EULA that contains anti-consumer clauses does not become "legal", just because you can either only "Agree" to the whole thing or simply not use the product. Company policies do not supersede the law. If a company puts unethical clauses in their contract, such as "you agree to enter into indentured servitude, by signing this document", that's not legally-enforceable.

Furthermore, EULAs are often extremely verbose and filled with technical jargon and legalese, for the express purpose of providing legal cover for the corporate entity. Most people don't or can't even read those things and a lot of companies bank on this probability, to hide dark patterns in their terms and conditions, and then use this lack of knowledge to go after customers, because "ignorance of the law is not an excuse". You might retort with "well, that's a you problem", but I disagree. Using people's lack of legal or technical understanding against them, is a manipulation tactic. EULAs should be easy to read, short and concise in their explanation of the terms of the product usage.

You should not require a law degree, to make an email account or install an operating system—especially if something like that is necessary just to function in society.

 

[acrossthestars]

It is MS that needs Window 11, not you. It's their means of scrapping your use to train AI models, selling it back to you as AI, Selling MS Office services, advertising and so. The purported security necessity is a sham. Like this because you have too

You have to have setup Windows 11 with a Microsoft account, for that to work, and turn on ALL telemetry. They still offer "local-only accounts" that do not include any of that, though they are doing their damnedest to bury this option.

The day that Microsoft discontinues local accounts outright and makes Microsoft accounts mandatory to even boot the OS, is the day "old Windows" dies.

 

[Coisa]

My 1st build and use of Win 11 finished last week. I set up a local user account, planning to use it almost all the time. But Lo! Behold! ... even after I set up the local acct, logged on and used it for several days, on shut down, I realized that all was not copacetic . The start screen tells I was logged on as my MS account. I had to change a second setting in Account. I know I am not familiar with 11 but the Outrage continues

 

[candle86]

That's not really an objection.

It is my understanding that agreeing to the terms of an EULA is not the same thing as taking a pledge under oath, about the validity of your agreement with the terms listed. Which is to say, an EULA that contains anti-consumer clauses does not become "legal", just because you can either only "Agree" to the whole thing or simply not use the product. Company policies do not supersede the law. If a company puts unethical clauses in their contract, such as "you agree to enter into indentured servitude, by signing this document", that's not legally-enforceable.

Furthermore, EULAs are often extremely verbose and filled with technical jargon and legalese, for the express purpose of providing legal cover for the corporate entity. Most people don't or can't even read those things and a lot of companies bank on this probability, to hide dark patterns in their terms and conditions, and then use this lack of knowledge to go after customers, because "ignorance of the law is not an excuse". You might retort with "well, that's a you problem", but I disagree. Using people's lack of legal or technical understanding against them, is a manipulation tactic. EULAs should be easy to read, short and concise in their explanation of the terms of the product usage.

You should not require a law degree, to make an email account or install an operating system—especially if something like that is necessary just to function in society.

That may be true but there's no way you can make an argument that Microsoft is legally obligated to continue to make security updates for a piece of software when the announcement of the into support was made for years ago. There has been notifications going out to every effective computer for the last year this is not a surprise.

 

[acrossthestars]

That may be true but there's no way you can make an argument that Microsoft is legally obligated to continue to make security updates for a piece of software when the announcement of the into support was made for years ago. There has been notifications going out to every effective computer for the last year this is not a surprise.

True. Especially when Microsoft is providing an additional year of security updates, but you have to subscribe to Windows Enterprise and use a Microsoft account. So, it's not like the option isn't available. Really, what this plaintiff is complaining about, and suing over, can be summarized as, "I shouldn't have to upgrade to Windows 11, nor should I have buy new computers that support it, or otherwise change my existing routine in anyway, shape or form."

But, like, if we're going to complain that Windows 10 is going away because Windows 11 is an inferior product worse, then the argument we should make is for Microsoft to re-release Windows 7 (what most people claim to be the "last good version of Windows"), but with Windows 11's security features and technical improvements: all of the benefits of both, none of the downsides of either.

 

[guillejp]

 

[Xelions]

Good luck to him! To be honest I couldn't give a f#$k about what advisors and consultants within the White House or outside for that matter would think about security or software. The end of the day having security patches for another 3+ years wouldn't harm Microsh#$ bank balance in any way. At least you'd keep millions of devices out of the trash. They essentially monopolized the system - forcing them to provide updates is a means of responsibility to that end.

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

If this guy wins, it's going to start affecting all contracts between customer and seller - buying a car, loans, etc. People will start suing "just because". Court needs to throw this case out and with all the frivolous law suits out there we don't need more.

 

[dualkelly]

Good luck to him! To be honest I couldn't give a f#$k about what advisors and consultants within the White House or outside for that matter would think about security or software. The end of the day having security patches for another 3+ years wouldn't harm Microsh#$ bank balance in any way. At least you'd keep millions of devices out of the trash. They essentially monopolized the system - forcing them to provide updates is a means of responsibility to that end.

no devices have to end up in the trash. windows 10 isnt going to stop magically working. There is a massive amount of machines in this country that are still running xp embedded and its working just fine.

 

[Underdog]

I don't need all the "new improved" carp that MS wants us to use. My home-built W7 machine serves my needs extremely well and hasn't gone up in flames for many years. Get off the upgrade bandwagon, free yourself from the bells and whistles that the tiny percentage of users actually need for their work.

 

[candle86]

I don't need all the "new improved" carp that MS wants us to use. My home-built W7 machine serves my needs extremely well and hasn't gone up in flames for many years. Get off the upgrade bandwagon, free yourself from the bells and whistles that the tiny percentage of users actually need for their work.

And what join you in the virus infested completely compromised world of computers? People like you that believe updating is wrong and bad is exactly why we had things like WannaCry. It's spread through unpatched computers because the patch should already been released to prevent it but so many organizations and people didn't install the security patches. Tell most of the world it was a wake-up call to you apparently it was a double down and keep doing the wrong thing. I'm glad you're not in charge of IT at any company or place of business.

 

[dangh]

Get an alternative, instead. Software supports ends. Don't like it, do not support the company. And after xp and 7, what would anyone expect?

 

[jpvalverde85]

Although the title seems to make it a crazy idea, the details are pretty reasonable, asking to maintain support up to when the OS reach less than 10% market share is a sensible point, maybe Microsoft has made so many branches on their tree than maintain a whole os remains expensive, but they put themselves in that spot and since the beginning the migration to 11 felt forced, isn't better, its just new and mostly fugly. Nowadays having to compromise to a certain GUI for the OS feels absurd, Microsoft could focus on the core OS and decouple the GUI to another branch to grown where the people feels it should, actually previous Windows versions favored personalization, want 11 25h2 with the look and feel of NT/2000, fine, it should be possible, its just the GUI... Want it XP flavored? why not? Want it 7 like with Aeroglass? Absolutely fine.

 

[AlexIL]

Do anyone remember that project Longhorn which was Windows 7 if I remember correctly supposed to be final and last installment of Microsoft Operating Systems.

Where these promises now.

 

[Xelions]

no devices have to end up in the trash. windows 10 isnt going to stop magically working. There is a massive amount of machines in this country that are still running xp embedded and its working just fine.

Once they get infected, your kind of f#$ked. Yeh. E-waste will increase significantly. The masses don't know how to get further security updates, or switch to Linux, or even afford to upgrade a machine partly or completely - most users are not tech savvy.

 

[LimyG]

Do anyone remember that project Longhorn which was Windows 7 if I remember correctly supposed to be final and last installment of Microsoft Operating Systems.

Where these promises now.

They absolutely did say similar about Windows 10. They even used a term, "Windows as a Service."

I remember when W11 came out, it was said on many tech sites that W11 shares a lot of the base code with W10.

MS just can't pedal all the bloatware they've come up with in the past few years on Windows 10.

About security, what a joke. They can and are continuing to patch Windows 10 for at least another two years. The patches will exist - just we have to pay them.

Telemetry. While there is a lot of it on W10, but not as much as W11, the thing is that with a little know how it's fairly easy to cut pretty much all telemetry from W10 by a variety of methods/hacks etc and maintain a faster and fully functional OS. MS don't like that one bit.

I am glad about the sueing of MS although it won't go anywhere. It highlights what kind of a corporation MS are - and none of it is positive.

It has to be Linux, time for me to start learning it.

 

[netman]

"User sues Microsoft over planned end of Windows 10 support"

About Time...!

 

[dualkelly]

Once they get infected, your kind of f#$ked. Yeh. E-waste will increase significantly. The masses don't know how to get further security updates, or switch to Linux, or even afford to upgrade a machine partly or completely - most users are not tech savvy.

lol windows 11 isnt going to lower your chances of getting infected. newer machines just have newer security holes there is no such thing as safe online. I have a xp machine that works just fine never once had an issue with infection. Also they make software to clean up infections. the big lie they sell is you is the constant upgrade machine. same with phones. Your phone works just fine till the hardware dies.

 

[FaTaL]

The user is an id*ot. Can't wait to see his crying fest after hes burned thru 1,000s in legal fees.

 

[subnex]

The issue is not necessarily the end of life of win10, but the tpm 2.0 requirement for win11 that renders a lot of capable computers outdated because they can't upgrade

 

[candle86]

The issue is not necessarily the end of life of win10, but the tpm 2.0 requirement for win11 that renders a lot of capable computers outdated because they can't upgrade

All supported CPUs also have a software tpm every single one, there is zero excuse besides incompetance.