European Union regulators said on June 25, 2026, that Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure should be treated as Digital Markets Act gatekeepers after a seven-month investigation in Brussels found the two cloud platforms occupy entrenched positions in Europe’s cloud market. The finding is preliminary, but the direction of travel is unmistakable: Brussels is no longer treating cloud infrastructure as merely another enterprise procurement category. It is treating it as the control plane for AI, data mobility, software distribution, and Europe’s long-running argument over digital sovereignty. For Microsoft customers, Amazon customers, and the administrators who actually run these environments, the DMA may be moving from the phone screen and app store into the datacenter.
The Digital Markets Act was sold to the public through familiar consumer choke points: app stores, search engines, social networks, messaging platforms, browsers, and online marketplaces. Cloud computing was always in the statute’s orbit, but it did not have the same political immediacy as iPhone sideloading or Google search defaults. That changed as Europe’s AI debate became inseparable from where models are trained, where data is stored, and which provider’s stack becomes the default path from raw compute to finished product.
The Commission’s preliminary view is that AWS and Azure are not just large vendors. They are gateways between European businesses and their customers, even though the cloud services at issue reportedly do not meet the DMA’s usual quantitative thresholds in the same clean way as consumer-facing platforms. That distinction matters because Brussels is leaning on the law’s qualitative logic: a platform can be a gatekeeper if its role in the market gives it durable power, not merely because it crosses a neat user-count line.
For WindowsForum readers, Azure’s inclusion is the sharper story. Microsoft is not just a cloud infrastructure company; it is the vendor behind Windows Server, Active Directory’s successor story in Entra ID, Microsoft 365, GitHub, Visual Studio, SQL Server, Defender, Copilot, and a thickening layer of AI services. Azure is where many Microsoft shops now discover that “cloud choice” can be constrained by identity, licensing, management tooling, data gravity, and the simple fact that the shortest path usually runs through Redmond.
AWS, meanwhile, remains the reference architecture for public cloud at global scale. Its presence in the case prevents this from becoming a Microsoft-only morality play. Brussels is arguing that the market’s structure itself deserves intervention, and that the two largest cloud platforms can shape customer behavior even without the cartoonish lock-in mechanisms that made past antitrust fights easier to explain.
That is why cloud competition is different from choosing a browser. A consumer can install Firefox in the time it takes a sysadmin to find the change advisory template. A business moving production workloads from Azure to AWS, AWS to Google Cloud, or any of them to a European provider may be looking at months of re-architecture, compliance review, data transfer charges, retraining, procurement negotiation, and operational risk.
The Commission’s emphasis on interoperability and data portability goes directly at that real-world friction. Brussels is not likely to make a mission-critical SAP deployment or a data lake portable by decree. But it can pressure gatekeepers to avoid contractual, technical, and commercial practices that make migration more punishing than it needs to be.
That is where the case could become practical rather than symbolic. If the final designation survives challenge, customers may see more pressure on hyperscalers to document interfaces, reduce discriminatory treatment, loosen bundling tactics, and make switching or multi-cloud designs less of a hostage negotiation. The hard part is that cloud portability is often an architectural aspiration rather than a product feature. Regulators can ban the worst obstacles, but they cannot repeal the physics of data gravity or the economics of convenience.
But Microsoft’s problem is not only Azure’s market share. It is Azure’s role inside the broader Microsoft estate. The company has spent years making Azure the gravitational center of enterprise Microsoft life: Entra ID for identity, Intune for endpoint management, Defender for security telemetry, Sentinel for SIEM, Fabric for analytics, Power Platform for low-code workflows, GitHub for developers, and Copilot as the AI interface increasingly threaded through the stack.
That integration is useful. It is also exactly the kind of integration regulators study when they worry about self-preferencing. A Microsoft customer may choose Azure because it is technically good, commercially attractive, and familiar to the people already administering Windows and Microsoft 365. The harder question is whether Microsoft’s surrounding ecosystem makes alternatives artificially less attractive, less visible, or more expensive.
This is why the cloud DMA move lands differently from a traditional cloud market-share analysis. Azure is not merely competing for virtual machines. It is competing for the operating model of the modern enterprise. If identity, productivity, security, development, analytics, and AI assistants all point toward one cloud by default, the procurement decision becomes less open long before a CIO signs a cloud contract.
That default status is powerful even when customers have alternatives. A platform with more services, more documentation, more third-party tooling, and more trained engineers can win deals before formal evaluation begins. The very scale that makes AWS reliable and innovative also makes it hard for rivals to dislodge.
Amazon’s objection, according to the report, is that the EU already has cloud regulation through the Data Act and that layering the DMA on top risks discouraging investment and innovation. There is a serious policy tension there. Europe wants more competition, more portability, more sovereign capability, and more investment in cloud infrastructure. Regulation can support those goals if it reduces exclusionary behavior; it can undermine them if it creates uncertainty, compliance drag, or delayed product rollouts.
AWS will likely frame the case around customer choice and the diversity of cloud services available in Europe. That argument will resonate with many engineers, because the cloud market is not a barren duopoly. There are specialists, regional providers, private-cloud vendors, open-source stacks, colocation operators, and Google. But the Commission’s counterargument is that the existence of alternatives does not prove the market is contestable at the scale that matters.
This is where Microsoft’s OpenAI partnership and Amazon’s AI investments become more than background noise. Customers are not buying cloud simply to host workloads; they are buying the shortest credible path to AI-enabled products and internal automation. If the best AI tooling, preferred model access, optimized infrastructure, and enterprise integration all sit inside a hyperscaler’s walls, then cloud choice becomes AI choice.
Europe sees that dependency as both a competition issue and a sovereignty issue. The word “sovereignty” can sound like political theater until a hospital, bank, public agency, or defense contractor asks where its data lives, which jurisdiction can reach it, and which foreign platform controls the next generation of automation. The EU’s concern is not only that American firms are large. It is that the infrastructure layer for Europe’s AI economy may be governed by a few non-European companies whose incentives do not always align with European policy goals.
That does not mean European cloud providers are ready to replace AWS and Azure at hyperscale. In many cases, they are not. The uncomfortable reality is that Europe is regulating from a position of dependency, not dominance. The DMA designation is therefore both a competition tool and an admission: the cloud layer has become too strategic to leave entirely to procurement departments.
Cloud infrastructure is messier. Customers are sophisticated, contracts are negotiated, services are layered, and technical dependencies vary wildly by workload. A startup using managed AI APIs has a different relationship with a hyperscaler than a multinational running hybrid identity, reserved instances, backup, compliance tooling, and internal developer platforms.
That complexity will make enforcement difficult. A ban on self-preferencing is easier to state than to apply when a cloud provider naturally optimizes its own database, AI service, observability stack, or identity layer inside its own environment. Interoperability sounds straightforward until it collides with security boundaries, performance guarantees, proprietary accelerators, and support accountability.
Still, complexity is not a reason for regulators to abstain. It is precisely because cloud dependency is technical, cumulative, and hard to unwind that traditional competition remedies may arrive too late. The Commission’s gamble is that gatekeeper obligations can alter platform behavior before Europe’s AI infrastructure choices calcify for another decade.
That is still meaningful. Enterprise IT often experiences regulation not as a headline but as a new clause in a data processing agreement, a revised migration policy, a change in marketplace terms, or a procurement officer asking whether a workload has a credible exit strategy. The DMA could give large customers more leverage to demand portability, clearer interoperability commitments, and less punitive commercial treatment.
For Microsoft-heavy organizations, the licensing angle is especially important. Microsoft’s cloud licensing practices have already been a point of contention in Europe, with rivals and customers arguing that software terms can steer workloads toward Azure. Even if this DMA action is formally about cloud gatekeeper status, the broader regulatory mood is unlikely to ignore how Windows Server, SQL Server, Microsoft 365, and Azure economics interact.
For AWS customers, the most visible issues may center on data movement, managed service dependencies, and marketplace power. AWS has long argued that customers choose its services because they are better, broader, and more secure. Regulators will be asking when “better integrated” becomes “unfairly difficult to leave.”
That does not make the DMA move pointless. Competition law can create room for alternatives by limiting lock-in and abusive leverage. But industrial capability requires investment, talent, energy infrastructure, semiconductor access, software ecosystems, and customers willing to accept something other than the global default. Europe’s problem is not only that American platforms are too powerful. It is that European buyers often choose them for rational reasons.
This is where the debate becomes uncomfortable for both sides. The hyperscalers are right that heavy-handed regulation can chill investment or slow product availability. Brussels is right that leaving critical infrastructure to a handful of foreign platforms creates strategic risk. Both statements can be true, and the policy challenge is that Europe needs the hyperscalers even as it tries to discipline them.
The better test for the DMA will not be whether it punishes AWS and Azure. It will be whether it makes the market more contestable without making European cloud users second-class citizens in the global AI race. If compliance becomes a paperwork tax, the case will look performative. If it creates credible exit paths and fairer procurement conditions, it may become one of the DMA’s most consequential expansions.
Multi-cloud strategies are often oversold, but exit planning is not. A serious exit plan does not require every workload to be portable tomorrow. It does require knowing which services are proprietary, which data sets are expensive to move, which applications assume provider-specific identity or messaging, and which contracts would make a migration financially irrational.
For Microsoft environments, that means mapping the hidden joints between Windows endpoints, Entra ID, Intune, Defender, Azure, Microsoft 365, GitHub, and Copilot. The integration is valuable precisely because it removes friction. But every removed friction point on the way in can become a missing handle on the way out.
For AWS environments, the same exercise applies to managed databases, serverless functions, IAM policies, logging, analytics, AI services, and marketplace dependencies. The question is not whether AWS is good at what it does. It is whether your business understands the cost of deciding later that it needs another option.
Brussels Moves the DMA From the App Store to the Control Plane
The Digital Markets Act was sold to the public through familiar consumer choke points: app stores, search engines, social networks, messaging platforms, browsers, and online marketplaces. Cloud computing was always in the statute’s orbit, but it did not have the same political immediacy as iPhone sideloading or Google search defaults. That changed as Europe’s AI debate became inseparable from where models are trained, where data is stored, and which provider’s stack becomes the default path from raw compute to finished product.The Commission’s preliminary view is that AWS and Azure are not just large vendors. They are gateways between European businesses and their customers, even though the cloud services at issue reportedly do not meet the DMA’s usual quantitative thresholds in the same clean way as consumer-facing platforms. That distinction matters because Brussels is leaning on the law’s qualitative logic: a platform can be a gatekeeper if its role in the market gives it durable power, not merely because it crosses a neat user-count line.
For WindowsForum readers, Azure’s inclusion is the sharper story. Microsoft is not just a cloud infrastructure company; it is the vendor behind Windows Server, Active Directory’s successor story in Entra ID, Microsoft 365, GitHub, Visual Studio, SQL Server, Defender, Copilot, and a thickening layer of AI services. Azure is where many Microsoft shops now discover that “cloud choice” can be constrained by identity, licensing, management tooling, data gravity, and the simple fact that the shortest path usually runs through Redmond.
AWS, meanwhile, remains the reference architecture for public cloud at global scale. Its presence in the case prevents this from becoming a Microsoft-only morality play. Brussels is arguing that the market’s structure itself deserves intervention, and that the two largest cloud platforms can shape customer behavior even without the cartoonish lock-in mechanisms that made past antitrust fights easier to explain.
The Numbers Matter Less Than the Exit Door
The most important phrase in the Commission’s case is not “gatekeeper.” It is “high switching costs.” Enterprise cloud rarely traps customers with a single locked door. It traps them with hundreds of small dependencies that each seem rational at the time: a proprietary database here, a managed Kubernetes integration there, a logging pipeline, an identity policy, a reserved capacity deal, a disaster recovery design, a marketplace procurement path, and a staff certification plan built around one provider’s vocabulary.That is why cloud competition is different from choosing a browser. A consumer can install Firefox in the time it takes a sysadmin to find the change advisory template. A business moving production workloads from Azure to AWS, AWS to Google Cloud, or any of them to a European provider may be looking at months of re-architecture, compliance review, data transfer charges, retraining, procurement negotiation, and operational risk.
The Commission’s emphasis on interoperability and data portability goes directly at that real-world friction. Brussels is not likely to make a mission-critical SAP deployment or a data lake portable by decree. But it can pressure gatekeepers to avoid contractual, technical, and commercial practices that make migration more punishing than it needs to be.
That is where the case could become practical rather than symbolic. If the final designation survives challenge, customers may see more pressure on hyperscalers to document interfaces, reduce discriminatory treatment, loosen bundling tactics, and make switching or multi-cloud designs less of a hostage negotiation. The hard part is that cloud portability is often an architectural aspiration rather than a product feature. Regulators can ban the worst obstacles, but they cannot repeal the physics of data gravity or the economics of convenience.
Microsoft’s Problem Is That Azure Is No Longer Just Azure
Microsoft’s response reportedly pointed to Google Cloud and Gemini, arguing that ignoring Google’s growing strength could distort the market. That is not a frivolous argument. Google is a serious cloud provider, a leading AI lab, and a company with deep infrastructure advantages of its own. Any cloud regulation that pretends Google is a plucky outsider would be difficult to square with reality.But Microsoft’s problem is not only Azure’s market share. It is Azure’s role inside the broader Microsoft estate. The company has spent years making Azure the gravitational center of enterprise Microsoft life: Entra ID for identity, Intune for endpoint management, Defender for security telemetry, Sentinel for SIEM, Fabric for analytics, Power Platform for low-code workflows, GitHub for developers, and Copilot as the AI interface increasingly threaded through the stack.
That integration is useful. It is also exactly the kind of integration regulators study when they worry about self-preferencing. A Microsoft customer may choose Azure because it is technically good, commercially attractive, and familiar to the people already administering Windows and Microsoft 365. The harder question is whether Microsoft’s surrounding ecosystem makes alternatives artificially less attractive, less visible, or more expensive.
This is why the cloud DMA move lands differently from a traditional cloud market-share analysis. Azure is not merely competing for virtual machines. It is competing for the operating model of the modern enterprise. If identity, productivity, security, development, analytics, and AI assistants all point toward one cloud by default, the procurement decision becomes less open long before a CIO signs a cloud contract.
AWS Faces the Same Gatekeeper Label Without the Windows Baggage
AWS does not have Windows, Office, or Entra ID as its enterprise wedge, but it has its own lock-in machinery: breadth, maturity, managed services, partner ecosystems, marketplace relationships, and the accumulated comfort of teams that have spent a decade building around Amazon’s primitives. For many organizations, AWS is not one vendor among many. It is the default mental model for cloud.That default status is powerful even when customers have alternatives. A platform with more services, more documentation, more third-party tooling, and more trained engineers can win deals before formal evaluation begins. The very scale that makes AWS reliable and innovative also makes it hard for rivals to dislodge.
Amazon’s objection, according to the report, is that the EU already has cloud regulation through the Data Act and that layering the DMA on top risks discouraging investment and innovation. There is a serious policy tension there. Europe wants more competition, more portability, more sovereign capability, and more investment in cloud infrastructure. Regulation can support those goals if it reduces exclusionary behavior; it can undermine them if it creates uncertainty, compliance drag, or delayed product rollouts.
AWS will likely frame the case around customer choice and the diversity of cloud services available in Europe. That argument will resonate with many engineers, because the cloud market is not a barren duopoly. There are specialists, regional providers, private-cloud vendors, open-source stacks, colocation operators, and Google. But the Commission’s counterargument is that the existence of alternatives does not prove the market is contestable at the scale that matters.
AI Turns a Cloud Fight Into an Industrial Policy Fight
The Commission’s most revealing move is its attention to AI tools and partnerships as a decisive factor in cloud procurement. Five years ago, a cloud antitrust case might have centered on storage, compute, databases, and egress fees. In 2026, the strategic question is whether the cloud provider also controls the model catalog, the developer workflow, the enterprise AI assistant, the data platform, and the accelerator capacity.This is where Microsoft’s OpenAI partnership and Amazon’s AI investments become more than background noise. Customers are not buying cloud simply to host workloads; they are buying the shortest credible path to AI-enabled products and internal automation. If the best AI tooling, preferred model access, optimized infrastructure, and enterprise integration all sit inside a hyperscaler’s walls, then cloud choice becomes AI choice.
Europe sees that dependency as both a competition issue and a sovereignty issue. The word “sovereignty” can sound like political theater until a hospital, bank, public agency, or defense contractor asks where its data lives, which jurisdiction can reach it, and which foreign platform controls the next generation of automation. The EU’s concern is not only that American firms are large. It is that the infrastructure layer for Europe’s AI economy may be governed by a few non-European companies whose incentives do not always align with European policy goals.
That does not mean European cloud providers are ready to replace AWS and Azure at hyperscale. In many cases, they are not. The uncomfortable reality is that Europe is regulating from a position of dependency, not dominance. The DMA designation is therefore both a competition tool and an admission: the cloud layer has become too strategic to leave entirely to procurement departments.
The DMA’s Cloud Expansion Will Test the Law’s Elasticity
The DMA was designed to be faster and more prescriptive than classic antitrust enforcement. Instead of spending a decade proving abuse after the market has tipped, the law imposes obligations on designated gatekeepers in advance. That model makes sense when the target is a well-defined platform service with clear end users, business users, and repeatable conduct patterns.Cloud infrastructure is messier. Customers are sophisticated, contracts are negotiated, services are layered, and technical dependencies vary wildly by workload. A startup using managed AI APIs has a different relationship with a hyperscaler than a multinational running hybrid identity, reserved instances, backup, compliance tooling, and internal developer platforms.
That complexity will make enforcement difficult. A ban on self-preferencing is easier to state than to apply when a cloud provider naturally optimizes its own database, AI service, observability stack, or identity layer inside its own environment. Interoperability sounds straightforward until it collides with security boundaries, performance guarantees, proprietary accelerators, and support accountability.
Still, complexity is not a reason for regulators to abstain. It is precisely because cloud dependency is technical, cumulative, and hard to unwind that traditional competition remedies may arrive too late. The Commission’s gamble is that gatekeeper obligations can alter platform behavior before Europe’s AI infrastructure choices calcify for another decade.
The Practical Impact May Arrive Through Contracts Before Code
Administrators should not expect Azure Portal or the AWS Console to change overnight. The Commission’s findings are preliminary, and Amazon and Microsoft can respond before a final decision. If the designation is confirmed, the companies would have a compliance window, and the real effects would likely emerge through contract language, product documentation, API commitments, licensing behavior, and procurement negotiations.That is still meaningful. Enterprise IT often experiences regulation not as a headline but as a new clause in a data processing agreement, a revised migration policy, a change in marketplace terms, or a procurement officer asking whether a workload has a credible exit strategy. The DMA could give large customers more leverage to demand portability, clearer interoperability commitments, and less punitive commercial treatment.
For Microsoft-heavy organizations, the licensing angle is especially important. Microsoft’s cloud licensing practices have already been a point of contention in Europe, with rivals and customers arguing that software terms can steer workloads toward Azure. Even if this DMA action is formally about cloud gatekeeper status, the broader regulatory mood is unlikely to ignore how Windows Server, SQL Server, Microsoft 365, and Azure economics interact.
For AWS customers, the most visible issues may center on data movement, managed service dependencies, and marketplace power. AWS has long argued that customers choose its services because they are better, broader, and more secure. Regulators will be asking when “better integrated” becomes “unfairly difficult to leave.”
Europe’s Sovereignty Push Has a Credibility Problem It Cannot Regulate Away
There is a paradox at the heart of this case. Europe wants open, fair, competitive cloud markets partly because it wants more European technological sovereignty. But sovereignty cannot be conjured by designating foreign hyperscalers as gatekeepers. If European firms cannot match the scale, service breadth, developer mindshare, and AI infrastructure of AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud, then regulation alone will not create a European hyperscaler by administrative order.That does not make the DMA move pointless. Competition law can create room for alternatives by limiting lock-in and abusive leverage. But industrial capability requires investment, talent, energy infrastructure, semiconductor access, software ecosystems, and customers willing to accept something other than the global default. Europe’s problem is not only that American platforms are too powerful. It is that European buyers often choose them for rational reasons.
This is where the debate becomes uncomfortable for both sides. The hyperscalers are right that heavy-handed regulation can chill investment or slow product availability. Brussels is right that leaving critical infrastructure to a handful of foreign platforms creates strategic risk. Both statements can be true, and the policy challenge is that Europe needs the hyperscalers even as it tries to discipline them.
The better test for the DMA will not be whether it punishes AWS and Azure. It will be whether it makes the market more contestable without making European cloud users second-class citizens in the global AI race. If compliance becomes a paperwork tax, the case will look performative. If it creates credible exit paths and fairer procurement conditions, it may become one of the DMA’s most consequential expansions.
Windows Shops Should Read This as a Procurement Warning
The immediate lesson for IT teams is not to panic-migrate workloads out of Azure or AWS. The lesson is to stop treating cloud dependency as an abstract governance concern. Regulators are now saying aloud what many architects already know: once an organization standardizes deeply on a hyperscaler’s identity, data, AI, and management stack, “we can always move later” becomes a comforting fiction.Multi-cloud strategies are often oversold, but exit planning is not. A serious exit plan does not require every workload to be portable tomorrow. It does require knowing which services are proprietary, which data sets are expensive to move, which applications assume provider-specific identity or messaging, and which contracts would make a migration financially irrational.
For Microsoft environments, that means mapping the hidden joints between Windows endpoints, Entra ID, Intune, Defender, Azure, Microsoft 365, GitHub, and Copilot. The integration is valuable precisely because it removes friction. But every removed friction point on the way in can become a missing handle on the way out.
For AWS environments, the same exercise applies to managed databases, serverless functions, IAM policies, logging, analytics, AI services, and marketplace dependencies. The question is not whether AWS is good at what it does. It is whether your business understands the cost of deciding later that it needs another option.
The Cloud Gatekeeper Case Leaves IT With Fewer Excuses
The preliminary designation is not a final ruling, but it is already a useful forcing function. It tells boards, CIOs, architects, and procurement teams that cloud concentration is no longer a niche concern for policy lawyers. It is now part of mainstream technology risk management.- AWS and Microsoft Azure are facing preliminary EU gatekeeper designation under the Digital Markets Act because regulators believe they function as critical gateways in Europe’s cloud market.
- The Commission is focusing on entrenched market position, switching costs, operational scale, investment levels, AI tooling, and ecosystem lock-in rather than only on simple user-count thresholds.
- A final designation would likely affect contracts, interoperability commitments, data portability practices, and procurement leverage before it produces obvious user-interface changes.
- Microsoft customers should pay particular attention to the way Azure is tied into identity, endpoint management, security, developer tooling, productivity software, and Copilot-era AI services.
- AWS customers should scrutinize managed service dependencies, data movement costs, marketplace relationships, and assumptions that workloads can be moved easily later.
- The EU’s broader sovereignty goal will depend not only on restraining hyperscalers but also on whether credible European alternatives can win real workloads on capability, cost, and trust.
References
- Primary source: mediaselangor.com
Published: Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:51:57 GMT
EU targets Amazon, Microsoft cloud units for Big Tech 'gatekeeper' rules
Designation under Digital Markets Act obligates world's two largest cloud providers to adhere to self-preferencing limits aimed at curbing market powermediaselangor.com - Related coverage: competition-policy.ec.europa.eu
Commission reaches preliminary position that Amazon's and Microsoft's market leading cloud services should be designated under the DMA
Commission reaches preliminary position that Amazon's and Microsoft's market leading cloud services should be designated under the DMAcompetition-policy.ec.europa.eu - Related coverage: eunews.it
- Related coverage: europapress.es
Bruselas quiere someter la computación en la nube de Amazon y Microsoft a la ley digital antimonopolio
La Comisión Europea ha concluido de manera preliminar que los servicios en computación de las...www.europapress.es
- Related coverage: finanza.repubblica.it
- Related coverage: euronews.com
Brussels tightens rules on US cloud providers as it pushes for tech sovereignty | Euronews
The European Commission has decided that Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services should face strict rules to improve cloud competition. The move risks angering Washington as Brussels pushes the European tech sovereignty agenda.www.euronews.com
- Related coverage: investing.com
Amazon, Microsoft cloud computing services should fall under EU tech rules, EU regulators say By Reuters
Amazon, Microsoft cloud computing services should fall under EU tech rules, EU regulators saywww.investing.com - Related coverage: brusselstimes.com
The Brussels Times
www.brusselstimes.com
- Related coverage: thenextweb.com
Brussels moves to put AWS and Azure under its toughest tech rules
The Commission’s preliminary view: Amazon’s and Microsoft’s cloud arms should be DMA gatekeepers, even though neither meets the usual thresholds.thenextweb.com - Related coverage: elpais.com
Bruselas plantea que los servicios en la nube de Amazon y Microsoft se sometan a reglas comunitarias más estrictas | Economía | EL PAÍS
En una conclusión preliminar que se puede apelar, la Comisión considera que AmazonWeb Services y Microsoft Azure deben designarse como guardianes de acceso conforme a la Ley de Mercados Digitaleselpais.com - Related coverage: excello.digital
EU Expected to Issue DMA Gatekeeper Preliminary Findings Against AWS and Azure as Soon as Next Week
DevOps and Infrastructure Agency
excello.digital
