Because they boxed themselves in with legalese. Companies would definitely switch off Microsoft services if at all possible if the company's lawyers thought their trade secrets were getting sold off. So I think the "as necessary" framing does probably prevent them from doing some things.

As I laid out in my other comment, I think training AI in particular is covered under the "improving Microsoft products or services" bit of legalese. I do wonder how companies lawyers will respond to this though. They probably thought of that phrase as just allowing Microsoft employees access to documents to see how Word or other pieces of software were being used, or to fix crashes, etc.

I thought it was founded on Bill Gates’s mommy having strong connections to IBM that allowed little Bill to keep the rights to the source code they paid him to write. And the privileged position of having access to a computer at his school when 99.9% of the population did not.

Reminds me of “this call will be used for training and quality purposes.”