PC SOFT: What to Take Away from the Linklaters Webinar on Legal Remedies and Collective Action

Did you miss the webinar organised by Linklaters on PC SOFT’s new pricing policy? I attended the session on Friday, 7 August 2026, and this article provides as faithful a summary as possible of the main points presented by the firm, the legal remedies being considered and, above all, the next steps in the collective action it is preparing.

The session lasted a little over an hour and was followed by a Q&A. Linklaters stated that it had received more than 200 registrations, showing that the issue goes far beyond a small number of isolated developers.

01Linklaters’ assessment of the situation

The firm did not use particularly neutral language to describe the situation. From the outset, the lawyers explained that they regarded the concerns caused by the new pricing policy as legitimate, highlighting four aspects: the amount of the new fees, the way they are calculated, the number of companies potentially affected and the speed with which the changes were announced.

Linklaters recalled that it has already worked for several years on comparable cases involving abuse of technological dependency and other software vendors, including VMware, Citrix and CA Technologies. The firm says it intends to build its strategy in the PC SOFT matter on that experience.

Regarding the new pricing policy itself, the lawyers relied on offers and accounts provided to them by various companies. They notably referred to:

• an increase in costs directly linked to WINDEV developers;
• the introduction of fees calculated according to the users or sessions of the applications developed;
• discounts conditional on rapidly accepting the new offers;
• alternative proposals based on a share of revenue, described during the webinar as potentially increasing from 3% to 6%, then 9% over successive years in some of the cases submitted to the firm;
• situations in which the overall increase announced would amount to several thousand percent.

The firm gave a deliberately striking example: a company spending around €10,000 per year on its contract could, according to the simulation presented, reach around €100,000 in direct fees and then close to €1 million once several thousand end users were taken into account. The purpose of the example was mainly to illustrate the change in scale that some companies say they discovered in their renewal proposals.

02Three categories of legal grounds

One of the most interesting parts of the webinar was the presentation of the different legal grounds Linklaters is considering. The firm grouped them into three broad categories.

1. Competition law

Linklaters considers that there are arguments to examine in relation to abuse of a dominant position and abuse of economic dependency. The practices mentioned during the presentation included excessive pricing, threatening to terminate an established commercial relationship in order to impose new pricing, and certain forms of tying.

2. Restrictive competition practices

The firm also referred to rules prohibiting attempts to obtain an advantage without consideration, a manifestly disproportionate advantage, or the imposition of obligations creating a significant imbalance.

3. General contract law

Finally, the lawyers presented several grounds arising from general contract law, including issues linked to perpetual commitments, coercion and the abuse of a dependency situation capable of affecting consent.

03Protecting contracts before the merits are decided

This was probably one of the most eagerly awaited answers: how can a company start legal proceedings if its contract expires within a few months and it cannot afford a service interruption?

Linklaters explained that it intends to seek interim and protective measures asking the court to maintain contracts for the time required by the proceedings.

The firm said that it is considering bringing proceedings before the Marseille Economic Activities Court, among other possible venues, and asking, where the legal conditions are met, for the temporary extension of licences and contracts so that a company is not forced to immediately accept a new offer merely to keep its operations running.

The lawyers presented several previous cases in which comparable measures had been obtained against other software vendors. They notably referred to a 2021 dispute in which a contractual extension was backed by a penalty payment of €100,000 per day against the vendor in order to ensure compliance.

04First strategy: securing enough time to migrate

The first option detailed by the firm concerns companies that no longer wish to remain permanently within the PC SOFT ecosystem.

In that situation, Linklaters is considering asking the court for enough time to carry out a migration without having to accept the disputed new renewal terms during that period.

The required period would obviously not be the same for every company. The firm therefore plans to document the technical reality of each migration with the help of IT experts: number of applications, dependencies, size of the application portfolio, available resources, rewriting time and the pace at which the need for licences can progressively decrease.

Where the use of PC SOFT products gradually falls during the migration, the lawyers also referred to the possibility of seeking a progressive reduction in price.

05Second strategy: staying with PC SOFT while challenging the price

Not every company wants to migrate. Some wish to continue using WINDEV or WEBDEV while rejecting the new pricing terms.

Linklaters presented two possible approaches.

In the second scenario, the firm stressed the importance of express reservations. The idea presented is to avoid giving the impression that a new offer has been freely and unconditionally accepted where the company believes that it does not realistically have enough time to migrate.

Again, this is not a universal formula: the appropriate response depends on the contract, deadlines, previous exchanges and the operational circumstances of each company.

06The French Competition Authority route

The second major front presented during the webinar concerns the French Competition Authority.

For Linklaters, this route is not an alternative to court action. On the contrary, it would be complementary.

The firm plans a two-part approach:

• a complaint on the merits so that the disputed practices can be examined;
• a request for interim measures in order to obtain rapid intervention before a final decision, if the legal conditions are met.

Among the measures Linklaters is considering requesting are the temporary suspension of certain new fees, the temporary continuation of previous terms, or other measures intended to address the urgency of the situation.

According to the lawyers, where urgency is established, interim proceedings before the Authority can result in a decision within a relatively short period, in the region of three to four months if the urgency justifies it.

The question of dominance

Linklaters explained at length why the firm considers that there are arguments to support the view that PC SOFT could be regarded as dominant on a sufficiently narrow relevant market linked to its proprietary ecosystem.

The lawyers nevertheless acknowledged that this is a point that must be demonstrated, including through economic analysis. They stated that they have already started this work and consider that there are solid arguments on which to build that demonstration.

They also compared the matter with several European cases concerning situations in which a dominant company was alleged to have captured value extending beyond the service or right it actually supplied.

07How to manage the commercial relationship with PC SOFT

The firm devoted an entire part of the presentation to a very practical question: what should companies do with their PC SOFT commercial contact while legal action is being considered?

The advice was fairly clear: do not cut off commercial dialogue.

Linklaters notably recommends:

• responding to proposals received;
• clearly stating when a price or calculation mechanism is disputed;
• remaining open to reasonable negotiations;
• requesting a renewal offer where no quotation has yet been provided;
• keeping all exchanges and proposals in order to document the case.

This serves two purposes. First, negotiations could potentially result in an acceptable solution without the litigation having to run its full course. Second, if proceedings become necessary, the firm wants to be able to show the court or the Authority that its clients did not simply refuse any commercial discussion as a matter of principle.

08Who can join the action?

The answer given by Linklaters was particularly broad.

The firm stated that, in principle, the following may express an interest:

• companies that have not yet accepted the new offers;
• companies that have already accepted them;
• companies whose contracts expire soon;
• companies with a more distant renewal date;
• companies based in France or abroad;
• WINDEV users;
• WEBDEV users;
• associations, including non-profit organisations.

According to the firm, having already signed a new offer does not automatically make all action impossible. The strategy may simply be different, for example involving a damages claim rather than a request intended to prevent the renewal from taking effect.

Linklaters also clarified that its action remains separate from any actions being prepared by other law firms. Lawyers are in contact and broader coordination is envisaged, but a company joining the action presented during this webinar would be represented by Linklaters.

09Key answers from the Q&A

Is WEBDEV included?

Yes. This question came up several times. Linklaters confirmed that the proposed action covers both WINDEV and WEBDEV, even though the pricing mechanisms are not strictly identical.

I have not yet received a price increase. Am I still concerned?

According to the firm, yes. For companies whose renewal is approaching, the lawyers even recommend requesting a quotation from PC SOFT now in order to know exactly what terms are being proposed and to have a concrete document for the file.

Can an association take part?

Yes. Linklaters confirmed that an association using WINDEV or WEBDEV may also be concerned.

Should everyone submit an individual report to the French Competition Authority?

This is a particularly important point given the discussions that have taken place within the community in recent days.

Linklaters’ answer was: it is not necessary.

The lawyers explained that individual reports remain possible and would not interfere with the collective approach, but that a competition authority does not generally commit its resources on the basis of a succession of isolated reports. In their view, a formal, structured and documented complaint combining the experiences of several companies is more likely to result in a genuine investigation.

What if my contract expires within a few days?

Linklaters deliberately did not give a generic answer. Where a deadline is only a few days away, the firm asks to be contacted directly so that the urgent measures appropriate to the contract in question can be examined.

How much will the action cost?

No amount has yet been announced.

The principle presented is to share a large part of the common legal work between the participating companies, supplemented by the work specific to each individual case.

The greater the number of participants, the more the cost of the common work can be spread. Linklaters is also working on a method of allocation that takes differences in company size into account. A more precise proposal, announced as a fixed-fee arrangement, is expected at the beginning of September.

10The announced timetable

• Monday, 10 August 2026: questionnaire sent to webinar participants.
• First question: in principle, are you interested in taking part in the collective action? A positive response does not yet constitute a final commitment.
• Information requested: contract expiry date and whether a new offer has already been accepted.
• Friday, 28 August 2026 at 11:00 a.m. Paris time: third Linklaters webinar session. Registration via communication.paris@linklaters.com.
• 1 September 2026: launch meeting with those who have expressed an interest.
• From September: announced launch of the first court actions and proceedings being considered before the French Competition Authority.

Linklaters clarified that some of the more detailed aspects of its strategy were deliberately not presented publicly during the webinar for confidentiality reasons. They are expected to be discussed with participants at the September meeting.

11What to prepare now

Even for those who were unable to attend the webinar, several straightforward actions emerge from the presentation.

• Find your current contract and identify its exact expiry date.
• Keep all previous licences, terms and conditions, quotations and invoices.
• Request a renewal quotation when the renewal date is approaching and no clear offer has yet been provided.
• Keep all commercial exchanges with PC SOFT.
• Document the financial impact of the new offer on your company and, where applicable, on your own customers.
• Identify whether a new offer has already been accepted and under what circumstances.
• Assess the time required for a migration if leaving the PC SOFT ecosystem is one of the options being considered.
• Do not wait if there is a risk of service interruption or an extremely close contractual deadline.

12What I personally take away from the presentation

I had already explained in my previous articles why I consider PC SOFT’s new policy to represent a major break with part of its ecosystem.

This webinar nevertheless provides something that had been missing until now: the beginnings of a structured legal strategy.

We are no longer dealing only with reactions on LinkedIn, discussions between developers or calculations of what a session might cost. A law firm is now publicly presenting several legal grounds, announcing its intention to bring proceedings before economic courts and the French Competition Authority, and building a shared action with the companies concerned.

That does not mean the case has already been won. Linklaters itself explains that some elements will need to be demonstrated, contractual situations analysed and the strategy adapted to each company.

But one thing has changed: those who wish to challenge the policy now have a more precise roadmap.

And for those who simply want to leave WINDEV or WEBDEV, one of the most interesting points may lie elsewhere: the proposed strategy is not necessarily intended to lock companies into an old contract forever. It could also be used to obtain the time needed to migrate properly without putting the company’s operations at risk in the meantime.

If you would like to take part in the collective action, express your interest or register for the next webinar session, contact Linklaters directly at: communication.paris@linklaters.com.