I think it is possible that someone will make a convincing argument about how CrowdStrike was negligent in testing and rolling out updates. I have no idea wheth

I think it is possible that someone will make a convincing argument about how CrowdStrike was negligent in testing and rolling out updates. I have no idea whether this will result in significant court wins, but this case does seem a bit different than many other previous large-scale IT outages. Delta also considering to sue Microsoft is kinda ridiculous though, and does not give me a good impression. I can see blaming Microsoft for not providing better APIs for this kind of security software to be run in a safer manner, but that is more abstract and long term criticism. It is not something you can use to sue directly for damages. We all know that mistakes happen, even big ones. But the difference here is that Crowdstrike is running in the most privileged position possible in the OS, is very widely deployed in somewhat critical systems and receives frequent updates on very short notice. There has to be a much higher expectation and burden in cases like this to make this process as safe as possible, ensure a high level of testing and take all possible precautions when rolling out updates.