URGENT: CSP Direct Bill Termination due to Revenue Discrepancy / Visibility Gap Support Exhausted

**Update: CSP Direct Bill Eligibility – Escalation and Ongoing Concerns**

I wanted to provide another update as this situation has progressed further.

Microsoft has now confirmed that our Direct Bill eligibility determination is based on internal MSXi reporting, which shows our Direct Bill revenue at ~$892K. However, they have also stated they are unable to provide any breakdown of how revenue is classified between Direct Bill and Indirect Reseller at the tenant or subscription level.

Additionally, we have now been informed that Microsoft may proceed with termination under the partner agreement without providing further details or reconciliation of this discrepancy.

This raises a significant concern:

* We are being evaluated against data we cannot access or validate

* Microsoft has acknowledged a visibility gap in Partner Center for Direct vs. Indirect revenue

* We do not transact as an Indirect Reseller and have no distributor relationships

* No explanation or supporting detail has been provided for revenue classified as indirect

At this point, the issue is no longer just about the revenue threshold, but about the inability to verify or challenge the data being used to make a critical business decision.

If any partners have successfully escalated a similar situation—particularly where Microsoft was unwilling to provide classification detail—I would greatly appreciate any guidance on how you were able to get this properly reviewed.

Thank you
SW

I wanted to provide an update on this situation as it has progressed.

Microsoft has now confirmed that they are using an internal system to determine Direct Bill eligibility and that our calculated Direct Bill revenue is ~$892K. However, they have also stated that they are unable to provide a breakdown of how revenue is being classified between Direct Bill and Indirect Reseller.

This is creating a significant challenge for us, as:

Partner Center indicators and prior Microsoft guidance showed us meeting the requirement (~$1.7M at the PGA level)

• Microsoft has acknowledged a visibility gap where partners cannot see how revenue is classified internally
• We do not transact as an Indirect Reseller and have no distributor involvement
• We are being evaluated against data that we cannot access or validate

At this point, Microsoft has indicated they may proceed with termination under the partner agreement without providing further detail on the discrepancy.

Our concern is not just the outcome, but the process—specifically that partners may be held to requirements based on data they cannot independently verify, with no clear path to reconciliation.

If anyone has experienced a similar situation—particularly where Microsoft was unwilling or unable to provide classification details—any insight on how you navigated escalation or resolution would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for sharing this — that’s really helpful context.

What you’re describing aligns closely with what we’re seeing. In our case, we do have both Direct Bill and Indirect Reseller enabled under the same PGA, but we do not actively transact as an indirect reseller or work through a distributor.

However, Microsoft has indicated that part of our revenue is being classified as indirect, and that only ~$892K is being counted as Direct Bill toward the requirement. At the same time, Partner Center shows ~$1.7M at the PGA level, which appears to include both DB and IR revenue—similar to what you’re seeing.

So it seems like:

* Partner Center shows **combined TTM at the PGA level (DB + IR)**

* But eligibility is being evaluated using **Direct Bill-only revenue**, which we cannot see

Your point about Microsoft likely validating only DB revenue within the PGA is exactly what we’re trying to confirm.

Quick question for you:

Have you been able to see anywhere (reports, support, etc.) a clear breakdown of DB vs IR revenue, or has Microsoft provided that to you directly?

Appreciate the insight—this definitely seems like a broader visibility gap affecting multiple partners.

Hi swathen​ ,

here following my view for your info&help. We are a Direct Bill with 1.2 million TTM but we are transitioning customer from our Direct Bill PLA tenant A to our Indirect Reseller PLA tenant B, both under the same PGA. What we see is that TTM is evaluated at the PGA level so the revenues of both DB and IR are added together. The documentation to maintanin DB says: "At least USD $1 million in trailing 12 months (TTM) CSP transactional revenue at the Partner Global Account (PGA) level" but in another point says " TTM revenue is calculated at the Partner Global Account (PGA) level for all Direct Bill tenants under a PGA." Probably Microsoft verify only DB revenues inside PGA?

What we actually see in reality on the PGA partner center is that our our TTM includes both DB and IR revenues. Reading you post I understand that you have on the same tenant and partner center both DB  and IR enrolling at the moment, correct?

Fabrizio