On several occasions, Microsoft had misled their users to forcefully install updates or unwanted programs (like Windows 10 on Windows 7 here, here, here, and here), it also has forcefully installed the new Edge chromium web browser on W10 computers, and now is forcefully installing office webapps.
Is this legal?
However, Microsoft's access is not unauthorized (my emphasis):
- Updates. The softwareperiodically [sic] checks for system and app updates, and downloads and installs them for you. You may obtain updates only from Microsoft or authorized sources, and Microsoft may need to update your system to provide you with those updates. By accepting this agreement, you agree to receive these types of automatic updates without any additional notice.
You agreed to this when you installed Windows 10.
As a law site - we don't consider whether things that are legal are ethical.
Dark Patterns are what the term is for those wilfully-misleading user interfaces like e.g. (Microsoft?) Google and Facebook's Privacy controls, Microsoft's update system assuming consent so casually, etc. No-one reads the EULA because it is too long and complex. Informed consent is a concept in law as well as implied contractual terms and opt-in opt-out are all concepts here. This looks suspect, for example, because it implies terms that are not explicitly stated, and can be changed at any time, plus requires an external website to be referred-to, which may not be available (e.g. if doing the safer method of offline installation before beefing-up security THEN installing Windows Updates et al, which is IMO the recommended method to have a known-clean system that physically-couldn't have been compromised over the internet).
Privacy; Consent to Use of Data. Your privacy is important to us. Some of the software features send or receive information when using those features. Many of these features can be switched off in the user interface, or you can choose not to use them. By accepting this agreement and using the software you agree that Microsoft may collect, use, and disclose the information as described in the Microsoft Privacy Statement (aka.ms/privacy), and as may be described in the user interface associated with the software features.
Explain how that can be informed consent, or actually lawful, when it is so hard to inform oneself as to the entirety of the terms of the contract? I am not a lawyer nor is this legal advice, but for example, in my jurisdiction (England and Wales), you cannot 'sign a blank cheque' to agree to unknown contract terms. They must be explicit or they are not enforceable.
Whilst the GDPR is opt-in, not opt-out, and requires consent to be informed. Naturally, Microsoft's business model, for decades now, has relied-upon user ignorance and blind compliance, thus is inherently a form of abstract Dark Pattern.
By definition, any legal matter is that which is bound by, permitted and written in law; since Microsoft's user has allowed "Microsoft to install software without" (additional) "user approval" (refer to Microsoft's software end user licence agreement), the act is legal.
This is akin to someone not trespassing on property when invited onto the property or agreed by an 'occupier' of the property to be on the property (which of course, expires when being asked to leave the property, and therefore trespassing thereafter).
In case of Microsoft's software, if you do not agree to the terms of installation, you are to uninstall the software.
