The parties have reached a settlement valued at $34 million in a class action filed against Microsoft Corporation on behalf of consumers who, between January 3, 1996, and December 31, 2002, resided in Massachusetts and indirectly purchased Microsoft operating system, productivity suite, spreadsheet, or word processing software for use in Massachusetts. The action alleged that Microsoft violated Massachusetts’ antitrust and unfair competition laws by illegitimately using its monopoly power. Persons eligible to take part in the settlement may contact attorneys for the class for more information.

The settlement will make vouchers available to class members that may be used to buy any manufacturer's desktop, laptop and tablet computers; any software available for sale to the general public and used with those computer products; and specified peripheral devices for use with computers. The total number of vouchers issued will depend on the number of class members who claim vouchers.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Microsoft will provide half of the difference between $34 million and the value of vouchers issued to class members to Massachusetts' public school districts in the form of vouchers that may be used by the school districts to purchase a broad range of hardware products, Microsoft and non-Microsoft software, and professional development services. The vouchers will be made available to public school districts in which 50% or more of the students are eligible for reduced-fee or free meals under the National School Lunch Program.

The action alleged that Microsoft maintained a monopoly in the Massachusetts operating system software market since the introduction of its Windows 95 OS, that the monopoly was achieved by anticompetitive conduct, and that Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct eliminated competition in the operating system software market, deprived purchasers of the benefits of a free market, and injured consumers by forcing them by pay artificially high prices. Microsoft, the world’s leading supplier of operating systems software for personal computers, also allegedly engaged in conduct that eliminated or retarded the development of new software products that could support or become alternative platforms to Microsoft’s operating systems. Finally, the lawsuit alleged that Microsoft used its operating system monopoly to illegally leverage the Internet browser market by forcing equipment manufacturers to install its Internet Explorer exclusively. Because of these activities, the price that Massachusetts residents paid for their software was allegedly higher than it would have been in a normally competitive market.

Although federal law bars of a become indirect purchaser causes of action, Massachusetts, like every other state, with the exception of Maine and Michigan— allows class actions for indirect purchasers seeking redress against companies for antitrust violations.