Alright, let's make this simple!

1. **Who:** Microsoft is being looked at by the FTC (like a referee in a game).
2. **What they're accused of:** Using tricks to keep people from choosing other companies' clouds (like Azure keeps people away from Google Cloud or Amazon Web Services).
3. **Why it's a problem:** It's like if you had a big lemonade stand, and then you say that anyone who comes to your stand has to promise not to go to the ice cream truck next door ever again.
4. **What might happen now:** The FTC will check if Microsoft is really doing these tricks. If they are, maybe they'll have to change their ways so people can choose freely between different clouds.

And that's it! It's like when you're playing with your toys, and a friend tells the teacher that you're not being fair. Now, the teacher (FTC) will check if what your friend said is true. Read from source...

Based on the provided text about Microsoft potentially facing an FTC investigation for anti-competitive practices in its cloud business, here are some points that could be considered as problematic or bias-prone:

1. **Lack of Sources**: While the report cites "people with direct knowledge of the matter," it would be more convincing if these sources were named, or at least their backgrounds and positions were specified.

2. **Use of Strong Language**: Phrases like " locking customers into its Azure cloud platform" and "making Office 365 products incompatible with competitor clouds" are strong accusations that could be perceived as biased without concrete evidence and context.

3. **Historical Context**: The article briefly mentions the FTC's previous attempt to halt Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard, but it doesn't provide much detail or analysis about why that lawsuit was unsuccessful, which could be relevant to understanding the current situation.

4. **Bias Towards Regulation**: The article seems to favor increased regulation and litigation against Big Tech companies. While this perspective is valid, the piece could benefit from presenting alternative viewpoints to maintain balance and fairness, such as arguments for the benefits of innovation driven by large tech companies or reasons why regulatory actions might not be effective.

5. **Emotional Language**: Phrases like "mega-cap technology company under regulatory scrutiny" and "extensive antitrust litigation against Big Tech names" could evoke strong emotional responses from readers, potentially influencing their interpretations of the facts presented.

6. **Lack of Alternatives**: The article presents only one side of the story – that Microsoft may be acting anti-competitively. It would be more balanced to include perspectives from Microsoft or other stakeholders in the industry who might defend the company's practices or offer opposing viewpoints.

Neutral. The article presents factual information about an ongoing situation and doesn't express a clear opinion or direction. It simply reports that the FTC is preparing to investigate Microsoft for potential anti-competitive behavior in its cloud business.