Broadcom vs Customer Lawsuits
The Emerging Legal Landscape Between Broadcom and Its Customers
Broadcom’s aggressive post-acquisition licensing changes have started to spark legal friction with its enterprise customers.
After Broadcom’s takeover of VMware in late 2023, many buyers saw sudden shifts: perpetual licenses revoked, products bundled together, and maintenance agreements upended. For additional insights, read our Broadcom Legal Strategy and VMware Litigation Risks.
While few disputes have yet reached final court verdicts, early complaints and contract showdowns are revealing clear patterns. These emerging cases offer a preview of the legal and regulatory battles that could define vendor-customer relationships going forward.
Enterprise procurement and legal teams are taking notice. Broadcom’s approach has drawn scrutiny not only from individual companies but also from industry coalitions and regulators. From the US to Europe, customers are pushing back through lawsuits, regulatory complaints, and collective actions.
The goal is not just to seek remedies for today’s issues, but to set the tone for fair treatment in future negotiations.
In the following case summaries, we break down the key disputes so far – what triggered them, how they’ve unfolded, and what strategic insights they offer to buyers preparing for their own Broadcom contract challenges.
Case 1 – Collective Complaint by European Cloud Providers
Objective:
A coalition of European cloud service providers banded together to challenge Broadcom’s new VMware licensing regime. Acting through their trade association, they filed a collective complaint to European regulators on behalf of hundreds of affected customers.
Trigger:
Immediately after the VMware acquisition, Broadcom imposed sweeping changes: forcing previously separate VMware products into bundles and eliminating pay-as-you-go deals. Prices for some cloud providers skyrocketed overnight – many reported 800% to 1500% increases in licensing costs.
The bundling meant companies had to pay for products they didn’t need, under multi-year subscriptions they hadn’t planned for. Facing what they saw as an unacceptable “take-it-or-leave-it” scenario, these smaller cloud firms pooled their grievances.
Legal Ground:
The collective complaint alleges abuse of market dominance under EU competition law. VMware’s virtualization software is deeply entrenched, and Broadcom’s control over it post-merger created a near monopoly situation.
By leveraging that dominance to enforce unfair terms – like mandatory bundles and drastic price hikes – Broadcom is accused of anti-competitive conduct. The trade association argues that Broadcom’s practices constitute anti-competitive tying and excessive pricing, harming both cloud providers and their end-customers.
Outcome:
European regulators have formally acknowledged the complaint and begun reviewing Broadcom’s VMware licensing actions.
This is an early-stage regulatory challenge rather than a lawsuit; it aims to pressure authorities to intervene before lengthy court battles are needed. The European Commission is now scrutinizing whether Broadcom’s post-merger behavior violates competition rules, a sign that the collective approach is gaining traction.
Insight:
Buyers are beginning to use collective complaints as leverage, rather than waiting years for individual lawsuits to conclude. Banding together elevates the issue to regulators and the court of public opinion faster.
The sheer scale of a united front (in this case, dozens of cloud providers speaking as one) puts pressure on Broadcom to justify its practices or face broader regulatory action.
Pro Tip: If multiple customers share similar grievances, coordination amplifies your negotiating power. Consider joining forces through industry groups or alliances – a united voice is harder for a vendor to ignore or intimidate.
Read how to build your audit team, Building an Internal Software Audit Defense Task Force.
Case 2 – German IT Association’s Regulatory Challenge
Objective:
In Germany, an enterprise IT user association stepped in as a proxy for individual customers who felt wronged but were hesitant to confront Broadcom directly.
This national group took the lead in filing a formal competition complaint, shielding individual companies while still escalating the issue.
Trigger:
Broadcom’s termination of VMware perpetual licenses – and its refusal to honor traditional renewal terms – set off alarms among German enterprises. Long-standing customers found that as their perpetual license support contracts expired, Broadcom denied the usual renewal or extension options.
Instead, they were told to shift into three-year subscriptions at much higher costs, with little negotiation room. Many also experienced extremely short renewal windows and delayed responses from Broadcom sales teams, leaving them pressured to agree to new terms or risk service lapses. This heavy-handed approach spurred the German IT association to act on behalf of its members.
Outcome:
The association’s complaint was submitted to the European Commission, and EU regulators accepted it for review. By doing so, they signaled that the allegations – including unfair bundling, exorbitant price increases, and squeezing out customer renewal flexibility – are serious enough to investigate at the continental level.
While no decision has been reached yet, the case’s acceptance alone serves as a warning shot. It validates customers’ concerns and forces Broadcom to respond in a high-profile arena, rather than behind closed doors with individual clients.
Insight:
Industry associations can provide a safe channel for legal pressure. Companies that fear direct retaliation or lack the resources for a solo legal fight can still seek redress by working through a collective body.
In this case, the German association’s move not only protects its members’ anonymity but also leverages the credibility of a national voice to draw regulatory attention.
Recommendation: Join or monitor regional user groups and trade associations. These bodies often signal regulatory sentiment early – if they’re gearing up to challenge a vendor’s practices, it’s a strong hint that you should be reviewing your own contracts and risks.
Case 3 – Perpetual License Access & Support Disputes
Objective:
This case category highlights how Broadcom’s operational decisions – like cutting off support or updates – are spilling into legal disputes. It shows where a technical licensing change can quickly become a contract fight.
Trigger:
Enterprises that bought VMware software under perpetual license models found themselves in a bind post-acquisition. Broadcom announced it would no longer honor ongoing support or updates for those perpetual licenses unless customers migrated to the new subscription model.
Some organizations that tried to remain on their existing licenses suddenly lost access to critical updates and patches.
In extreme instances, Broadcom sent cease-and-desist letters to customers running VMware products without an active subscription, essentially warning them to stop using software updates they had previously paid for. This tactic – using support termination as leverage – was jarring for long-time VMware clients.
Observation:
A pattern emerged where support or portal access was revoked to compel renewals. One high-profile example involved a large U.S. telecom provider that balked at a 1000%+ price increase. When they initially declined Broadcom’s new terms, they faced an imminent cut-off of support for thousands of virtual machines running critical systems.
The customer resorted to seeking an injunction in court to prevent the support termination. Meanwhile, in Europe, at least one major industrial firm ended up in a legal showdown after Broadcom claimed the customer’s attempt to extend support revealed “unlicensed” use – leading to a copyright infringement lawsuit.
In each situation, Broadcom’s push to enforce subscription compliance by curtailing technical access led directly to legal action.
Insight: These disputes illustrate how operational disruption can become legal exposure for the vendor. If a supplier’s policy change suddenly threatens a customer’s business continuity (for example, no access to security updates or license keys), the customer may allege breach of contract or seek emergency relief.
For Broadcom, every such incident carries legal risk – not just in court, but also to its reputation with other clients who are watching closely.
Pro Tip: Treat any loss of functionality or support access as potential breach evidence.
If a vendor disables features, portals, or updates you previously had rights to, document it in detail. Keeping a paper trail of these incidents – support tickets, communications, screenshots of disabled portals – can strengthen your position if you need to claim the vendor didn’t uphold its end of the contract.
Case 4 – Co-Termination & Renewal Pressure Complaints
Objective:
Multiple customers have reported Broadcom using contract timing as a pressure tactic. This case theme explores how forcing co-termination of licenses and squeezing renewal timelines can verge on contractual coercion, even if it hasn’t (yet) led to many courtroom showdowns.
Trigger:
After absorbing VMware, Broadcom moved many clients to co-terminating agreements – aligning all their VMware license renewals to the same date.
On the surface, “portfolio simplification” was the rationale. In practice, it became a leverage point: Broadcom could insist that an entire stack of products be renewed en masse, often on short notice.
Some customers saw their renewal notification periods shrink dramatically – for example, being told just a few weeks (or even days) before expiry that they must commit to a costly, multi-year renewal or face service cut-off.
Additionally, Broadcom often bundled renewals with new subscriptions, telling customers they had to upgrade all at once. These “must-renew now” ultimatums, coupled with the threat of losing support for all VMware environments at once, left customers feeling cornered.
Risk:
From a legal perspective, such hardball tactics raise the specter of “economic duress”.
In contract law, if one party can show they were forced to sign an agreement under severe financial pressure (like the risk of their systems being unsupported and shutting down), they might later claim that contract is voidable.
Even if no one has openly sued Broadcom on this basis yet, the groundwork is there. Internally, many enterprises have started to document these pressure-filled interactions, viewing them as potential evidence that any agreement was not truly voluntary.
Insight: These renewal coercion patterns may never see a courtroom if customers ultimately acquiesce. However, they create silent leverage in negotiations.
Broadcom’s legal advisors know that overly aggressive timing and bundling demands could be challenged in court under duress doctrines. That knowledge alone can give well-prepared customers more power at the negotiating table – if you signal that you’re aware of your rights, the vendor may dial back the pressure.
Recommendation: Document every instance of compressed renewal timelines or “all-or-nothing” deal messages. If a sales rep emails saying you must renew by an arbitrary date or purchase an entire bundle, save it. These records could later support a claim of unfair pressure, or at least give you ammunition to negotiate extensions and exceptions.
Case 5 – Audit Disputes Escalating to Settlement or Arbitration
Objective:
When licensing compliance reviews turn contentious, they can escalate from back-room negotiations to legal arenas. This case examines how Broadcom’s audits of customers sometimes lead to hefty claims, and how those conflicts are resolved (or avoided).
Trigger:
Broadcom is known for taking a tough stance in software audits. After the VMware acquisition, this meant some customers were subjected to detailed usage reviews.
In certain cases, Broadcom’s auditors claimed massive license shortfalls based on new interpretations of entitlements – demanding payments in the millions. For instance, counting every deployment and core, often under the new bundled licensing rules, could suddenly make a customer look “out of compliance” even if they had followed older contracts.
Companies that believed they were compliant were presented with surprise bills or required purchases, essentially saying, “Buy more licenses (or subscriptions) or face penalties.”
Status:
Most of these audit-triggered disputes never become public lawsuits; they’re typically handled quietly via settlements or arbitration. Big enterprises often have arbitration clauses in their VMware contracts, meaning any dispute is settled behind closed doors rather than in open court.
As a result, Broadcom and the customer might negotiate a deal – perhaps the customer agrees to a new multi-year subscription (with some discount) and Broadcom drops the compliance claim. However, a few have spilled into the open.
One notable example was Broadcom’s clash with a major industrial manufacturer over alleged unlicensed use, which went as far as a lawsuit in a U.S. federal court before turning into a jurisdiction battle.
Another example is the dispute with a large telecom (mentioned earlier), which began as a contract compliance disagreement and ended in a settlement once a judge got involved.
These cases show the continuum from audit to arbitration to courtroom – and how Broadcom typically prefers to resolve issues before a definitive legal precedent is set.
Insight:
Audit outcomes are quietly shaping the vendor’s playbook. Each time Broadcom pushes a compliance claim and settles, it learns how far a customer can be pressured. If most clients pay up or convert to the new model under audit pressure, Broadcom gains confidence to use the same tactic elsewhere.
Conversely, if a customer mounts a strong defense or the dispute drags toward court, Broadcom may adjust its approach to avoid a binding legal loss.
For enterprise buyers, this means that every settlement your peers enter into (even if you don’t hear about it publicly) could influence how hard Broadcom pushes you in the next audit.
Pro Tip: Retain all audit communications and data. If Broadcom’s audit team provides a script or tool, note its exact parameters. Keep copies of audit findings, spreadsheets, and correspondence.
Future cases (yours or others’) may hinge on the exact language and methods used in these audits. If you ever need to challenge Broadcom’s claims, having that forensic record will be invaluable in showing patterns or inconsistencies in their audit practices.
Patterns Across All Cases
Across these early disputes, several common themes stand out. First, Broadcom’s strategy relies on centralizing licensing control after an acquisition.
By consolidating products and dictating new terms across the board, they remove the wiggle room that customers once had. Second, many of these changes are presented as “standardization” or efficiency moves – like simplifying bundles or aligning renewal dates – but they come with restrictive contract amendments that reduce customer flexibility.
Third, customers consistently describe a loss of control: whether it’s losing the ability to stick with a perpetual license, to renew on their own schedule, or to choose only the products they actually use. This suppression of flexibility is not accidental; it’s a calculated effort to lock in revenue and compliance.
The nascent legal battles reveal that Broadcom’s model often depends on customer compliance fatigue.
In other words, the company bets that most clients will not have the energy or unity to fight back – they’ll eventually accept the new fees and terms. However, these cases also show that legal awareness can disrupt that playbook.
Customers who understand their rights, coordinate with others, or involve regulators are forcing Broadcom to answer for its tactics. Even before final rulings emerge, the pushback is nudging the vendor to clarify policies and, in some instances, offer concessions to the most vocal challengers.
Insight:
Broadcom’s post-merger playbook thrives when customers feel they have no choice.
By recognizing the patterns above and preparing accordingly, enterprise buyers can avoid falling into “compliance fatigue” and instead engage on a more equal footing. Simply knowing that others have successfully pressed back – through legal channels or collective action – changes the dynamic of the next negotiation.
5 Actionable Recommendations for Buyers
To proactively prepare for these challenges, enterprise buyers should treat Broadcom’s VMware licensing shift as a call to action for internal readiness.
Here are five steps to consider right now:
- Launch a Legal Readiness Review: Assemble your legal, procurement, and IT asset management teams to audit all existing VMware/Broadcom contracts. Flag any clauses about unilateral changes, forced co-termination, or termination rights. Knowing your baseline will help you identify if Broadcom later oversteps its contractual bounds.
- Maintain a Dispute Evidence File: Start an archive for all relevant communications and documents. Log every price increase notice, support ticket about access issues, policy change email, and audit letter. This file will be your evidence repository – useful whether you need to negotiate a concession or support a legal claim. Having a chronological record of Broadcom’s actions and your responses can make your case far stronger.
- Coordinate with Peer Enterprises: Don’t navigate this storm alone. Join user groups, forums, or industry coalitions that discuss Broadcom/VMware licensing. Peers are already sharing negotiation experiences and, as seen in Europe, even filing collective complaints. By coordinating (formally or informally), you gain leverage and early insight. Collective knowledge about Broadcom’s tactics is a powerful tool – it can reveal what concessions are possible and signal when a broader pushback is gaining momentum.
- Escalate Early: If Broadcom presents new subscription terms or a “take it or leave it” offer that concerns you, involve legal counsel immediately – before signing anything. Early legal review can spot red flags such as non-standard restrictions or hidden penalties (for example, clauses that waive your rights to certain remedies). In cases where perpetual licenses are being converted, have your lawyers assess whether you’re relinquishing any rights. Pushing back on problematic terms before you’re locked in is far easier than trying to escape them later.
- Integrate Legal Oversight into Renewals: Treat every Broadcom/VMware renewal or true-up as a cross-functional project. Your legal team should be at the table for renewal discussions, alongside procurement and IT asset managers. Every term and clause – from post-termination support promises to audit provisions – should get legal scrutiny. This approach ensures that business leaders are aware of the risk implications, not just the pricing. By baking legal due diligence into the renewal process, you reduce the chance of agreeing to something that could bite you down the road.
By taking these proactive steps, enterprise customers can better safeguard their interests in the face of Broadcom’s aggressive licensing moves. The landscape is still evolving, but preparation and knowledge sharing are the best defenses.
With the right strategy, buyers can continue to get value from VMware technologies without unwittingly signing away their rights or budgets, and be ready to push back if necessary in this new era of vendor-customer relations.
Read about our Broadcom Audit Defense Service
