Microsoft sued by shareholders over Azure slowdown and AI spending



The number that anchors the case is a single day. On 29 January, Microsoft shares fell about 10%, the company’s steepest one-day drop in nearly six years, wiping out roughly $357bn in market value after a quarterly earnings report the previous evening.

A securities class action filed on 12 June in Seattle federal court argues that the fall was not a surprise so much as a reckoning, and that Microsoft had spent months keeping investors from seeing it coming.

The suit was brought in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington by the City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System, a Michigan pension fund, on behalf of shareholders who held the stock between 1 May 2025 and 28 January 2026.

It names Microsoft alongside several executives, including chief executive Satya Nadella and chief financial officer Amy Hood. The plaintiffs accuse the company of defrauding them and inflating the share price by failing to disclose two linked problems: that growth in its Azure cloud business was slowing, and that it would have to spend heavily on AI infrastructure to keep up.

The financial detail is where the complaint lives. Microsoft reported $37.5bn of capital spending in the quarter, up nearly 66% from a year earlier and above the $34.3bn analysts had projected. Azure revenue grew 39%, a strong figure in isolation but a deceleration from 40% the previous quarter, and management guided to 37% or 38% for the early months of 2026.

The lawsuit’s argument is that those numbers, taken together, told a story Microsoft had been reluctant to tell: growth easing while costs surged.

The reason the company gave for the slowdown is, according to the complaint, the heart of the problem. Microsoft attributed Azure’s cooling growth to capacity constraints, having diverted computing resources, central and graphics processing units, toward AI research and development and toward its Copilot assistant, whose rivals include Google’s Gemini and OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

The plaintiffs frame that diversion as a material fact investors were entitled to know earlier than they did.

The backdrop is a company spending at a scale that has tested even its own shareholders’ patience. Microsoft has committed A$25bn to AI infrastructure in Australia alone, won $250bn in fresh Azure commitments tied to its OpenAI arrangement, and begun building its own in-house models to reduce its dependence on a single partner.

The capital intensity of the AI build-out is the industry’s defining wager, and this lawsuit asks a narrower question: not whether the spending is wise, but whether Microsoft described it honestly while it was happening.

Microsoft has not yet filed a response, and the allegations remain untested. Securities class actions of this kind frequently follow a sharp share-price drop, and they face a high bar: the plaintiffs must show not merely that the stock fell but that the company knowingly misled investors about something material.

What comes next is procedural, a defence motion, a fight over whether the class is certified, the slow machinery of a securities case. The $357bn, by contrast, has already moved.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


Ghost CMS flaw abused to push ClickFix attacks on hundreds of sites

Pierluigi Paganini
May 25, 2026

Threat actors are actively exploiting a security flaw, tracked as CVE-2026-26980, in Ghost CMS that was fixed months ago in real attacks against unpatched websites. According to Qianxin, the campaign has already affected more than 700 sites, including well-known organizations and universities.

The vulnerability is an SQL injection issue in Ghost’s Content API that can let an attacker read data from the database without logging in. In the worst case, this can expose the Admin API key, which can allow attackers to take over the site.

That key matters because it can be used to change published content. In this campaign, attackers used it to edit articles on compromised Ghost sites and insert malicious JavaScript at the end of pages. The goal was not just defacement, but to turn trusted websites into launch points for further malware delivery.

“After an in-depth investigation and analysis, we determined that this was not a targeted intrusion against the customer, but rather a large-scale poisoning campaign by an in-the-wild attack group targeting Ghost CMS. Although CVE-2026-26980 was publicly disclosed as early as February 19, a large number of users did not patch and upgrade in time, providing an opportunity for attackers.” reads the advisory published by Qianxin. “At least two groups are currently actively conducting such poisoning operations, and some sites have even become the target of competition between the two parties, with different malicious code being implanted one after another within a single day.”

The inserted code led visitors through a two-step chain. First, the page loaded a remote script that checked the browser and decided what the visitor should see. Then real victims were redirected to a fake verification page that looked like a normal “I’m human” check.

This is where the ClickFix part began. The page told users to press Windows+R, paste a command, and hit Enter. In practice, that command downloaded and started a malware payload on the victim’s machine. It was a classic social engineering trick: make the user do the dangerous part themselves.

Qianxin says the first signs of this activity appeared in early May. The malicious code found in the campaign had a compilation date of February 16, the same day Ghost announced the fix for CVE-2026-26980. That suggests the attackers moved quickly once they saw how many sites had not been updated.

The affected websites cover a wide range of sectors. Roughly half are personal blogs or independent sites, but the list also includes technology blogs, AI sites, media outlets, crypto projects, and educational institutions. Qianxin researchers say victims include sites linked to Harvard, Oxford, and DuckDuckGo.

The attack chain was also designed to be flexible. The loaders could fetch different payloads depending on the target, and the operators changed infrastructure several times.

“entire attack process has obvious five-stage characteristics of “CMS Takeover → Page Poisoning → Two-stage Loading → Social Engineering Lure (FakeCaptcha/ClickFix) → Malware Delivery”, and the entire process is highly automated: bulk vulnerability scanning → automatic key extraction → bulk injection → dynamic C2 distribution.” states the report.

In some cases, they switched domains after detection, keeping the campaign alive even when part of the chain was blocked.

“Through feature scanning of publicly accessible pages, we have cumulatively identified more than 700 poisoned victim domains, and have proactively contacted the sites for which contact information could be obtained, notifying them of the poisoning.” continues the report.

Qianxin also believes at least two different groups are involved. In some cases, the same site was hit more than once, with one attacker replacing the code left by another. That makes the campaign harder to clean up and shows how attractive compromised Ghost sites have become for abuse.

For site owners, the advice is straightforward. Ghost should be updated immediately, all credentials should be rotated, and site logs should be reviewed for suspicious admin API activity. Any injected scripts should be removed from the database itself, not just from the visual editor. Visitors who may have reached a poisoned site should also be warned.

The report includes Indicators of Compromise (IoCs) for the attacks observed by the researchers.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, Ghost CMS)







Source link