Pfff, you are still willfully spreading misinformation and confirming my suspicion that you are either a troll or paid to spread this type of info so people just give up on their rights. Your source is 'trust me bro'.

More being realistic about outcome here, both predicted and desired. Either way, if you’re giving MS problems, all the more power to you. I just have big doubts any real lawyers looked over or were involved in this.

This is just your personal opinion and clearly shows you are pro-corporate. What do you gain from a corporation not being punished for the crimes they commit? You clearly do not know the law; then why spread negativity? What is your gain?

Furthermore, most phone calls to these type of organisations are recorded. Which if you did intend to take them to court, you could subpoena, if not just record, the call yourself (after confirming you’re in a one party consent country, otherwise inform the operator you are recording).

1. In the legal system, written contracts, official emails, and wet-ink signed documents are accepted as 'primary evidence.' Telephone conversations constitute verbal statements and rely on the parties' memories or subjective interpretations regarding 'what was said and understood,' courts always prioritize written documents. Poor telephone audio quality, background noise, or ambiguous statements open to multiple interpretations and can make it difficult for a judge or jury to reach a clear legal conclusion.

2. Across the US and generally in Europe, recording a telephone conversation requires the express consent of all parties involved. The support agent has the legal right not to consent to recording the call from our end, that is one. Second: Audio recordings can be edited, appended, AI-generated, or modified far more easily than written documents or signed official papers. A judge can dismiss an audio recordings under the claims it is difficult to prove the integrity of them.

3. You are willfully and completely ignoring the legal stance here: Locking the communication method to only 1 channel is illegal. Go read FTC Section 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45), ADA Title III, EAA Directive 2019/882, EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC, GDPR 2016/679 (Articles 5, 12, and 15), and PSD2 / PSD3 (Directive (EU) 2015/2366).

Or any of the multiple lawyers you’ve supposedly hired would send it, on your behalf, to Microsoft’s legal team, which is what lawyers are paid to do.

Still personal opinion and ignorance. That record is for regulatory bodies; if you had read the post, you would see that they contacted us after regulatory intervention. Which one is better: not responding to Microsoft's illegal response and giving regulatory bodies the ability to add to their file, 'Hey, we didn't write anything back to them,' or demanding their full name and title, and requesting escalation to the legal department and informing the involved body about it? Your assumption that we didn't send a notice via post after this correspondence is again baseless, purely your personal opinion. Come with facts instead of your silly 'I don't think this or that.' The law doesn't care about your personal opinion.

More likely, having received similar communications to this when I worked at an MSP, if it even gets to legal, it’d be closed and you’d simply get a polite request for lawyers to send any further correspondence. If there’s no letterhead it’s definitely not worth a lawyers salary to look over something that doesn’t contain a filed legal complaint or notice of intent.

Let me reflect your logic right back onto you: your claim of supposedly working at MSP is a lie, and you are being paid by Microsoft to spread misinformation. This would be my personal opinion, it is easy to spread misinformation just like you are doing here. Use your brain a bit, it's not that hard.

If this isn’t covered in the service agreement and you’ve not stated a disability to them I would be surprised if this goes anywhere. People with difficulty hearing and speaking can use relay services, wanna guess how I know? People have been locked out of accounts before, if no recovery email is set, no secondary MFA set and you refuse to call them, you’re probably shit out of luck. If you’ve got a relative/trusted person, you could have them take the call while you communicate whatever answers to the operators question.

Again, your 'trust me bro' personal opinion. ToS cannot force you to state your disability, as it is blatantly clear in the screenshot attached above; we challenge them on what their alternative ownership authentication methods are. Do you see a reply from them about that, or just ignorance by them? Have you ever heard of non-delegable obligations? All Microsoft needs to do is take the government-issued ID, cross-reference it with the payment systems I integrated into their wallets, and confirm whether they match or not. Steam can do this, Epic can do this. What is so special about Microsoft that they cannot do it? ToS is not above the law; even if it directly states I must disclose my disabilities if I have any, if it is not backed by the law, it is meaningless, which circles back to the point you ignore: locking the communication method to one channel.

Stop with your bullshit know-it-all mindset; you don't know shit. Come with legal facts if you want to defend corporate behavior and feed people the narrative, 'Hey, you shouldn't even file a complaint.