There are examples of similar scenarios in recent years. The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor was reportedly shut out of Microsoft applications following the imposition of US sanctions, for example. Other instances include Adobe cutting off Venezuelan customers in compliance with US sanctions against that country in 2019, while Microsoft temporarily blocked access to apps such as Teams and Outlook for Indian energy firm Nayara last year.
The creation of a separate legal entity is an attempt to mitigate such risks, but it’s unclear what protection it would provide in practice should the parent request the German subsidiary to take certain actions.
It’s an open question at this stage, said Dario Maisto, senior analyst at Forrester. “Cases will have to be tested in court before we can have a definite answer,” he said. “The legal ownership does matter, and this is one of the points that may not be addressed by the current setup of the AWS sovereign cloud.”
AWS’s European Sovereign Cloud represents one of several ways that European business can approach the challenge of digital sovereignty. Gartner identifies a spectrum that ranges from global hyperscaler public cloud services through to regional cloud services that are based on non-hyperscaler technology. Each has its own advantages and trade-offs.
Local partnerships
To address growing European customer concerns around digital sovereignty, some hyperscalers have partnered with European cloud providers — Google and Thales, for instance, or Microsoft and Bleu, a joint venture between Orange and Capgemini. This involves the hyperscaler providing access to its technology, while the two companies remain independent. Buest said the arrangement provides a higher level of “operational sovereignty” compared to AWS European Sovereign Cloud, though it still involves some level of technological dependence on the hyperscaler.
In the end, most customers will opt for strategies that comprise a mix of sovereignty levels depending on their needs.
