[ThoAppelsin]

I did not use my account for any commercial purposes, and I don't have much to say for the rest, read them like "you are a poor customer, who won't be able to afford, and should not afford a lawyer to recover your $100-300 loss, for your own interest". Sad that this is reality, or someone perpetuates this fact in such an acceptant manner.

[BjoernKW]

I don't endorse this behaviour at all I'm merely stating the facts (probably as outlined in the contract you've entered with Microsoft). If you feel you've been wronged you should certainly hire a lawyer. At the very least then you'll know what it is they think you did.

Another option would be talking to a consumer organization (not sure if this is applicable because a university licence might not qualify as a consumer licence).

Other than that: Caveat emptor. I know this sounds trite and doesn't really help in your current situation but when you entered that contract you very likely agreed to the terms Microsoft now uses against you.

[emodendroket]

> Other than that: Caveat emptor. I know this sounds trite and doesn't really help in your current situation but when you entered that contract you very likely agreed to the terms Microsoft now uses against you.

Yes of course, he should have simply not used e-mail.

[wongarsu]

Or use an email provider that offers better terms?

[emodendroket]

Such as?

[mirimir]

A few: Autistici, cock.li, CounterMail, ProtonMail, Riseup, ScryptMail, Tutanota, VFEmail.

[CaptSpify]

Don't forget self-hosted

[howard941]

But for some unusual but binding decisions applying the Fed Arbitration Act against consumers, situations where it's not cost effective to sue as an individual can be cost effective with private attorneys general, i.e., a class action attorney. Lacking that your only recourse may be your state equivalent to my state's division of Agriculture and Consumer Services or the FTC, neither likely to be effective or satisfying.