The European Commission is expected as early as this week to issue preliminary findings that Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure qualify as cloud “gatekeepers” under the Digital Markets Act, extending Europe’s platform competition regime from consumer apps into enterprise infrastructure. The decision would not be final, and Brussels has not confirmed the reported timetable. But if the finding holds, the most important cloud fight in Europe will no longer be about who has the biggest data centers. It will be about whether the economic plumbing of the cloud has become a regulated bottleneck.
The Digital Markets Act was built for a world in which digital power looked like search, app stores, social networks, messaging, marketplaces, and operating systems. Its political target was the platform owner that sat between business users and customers, extracting terms from both sides because nobody could afford to leave. Cloud infrastructure has always been harder to fit into that picture because it is not usually experienced as a consumer gate.
That distinction is now wearing thin. AWS and Azure may sell primarily to enterprises, governments, developers, and software companies, but the services running on top of them are what European citizens actually use. If a bank’s app, an airline’s check-in system, a hospital portal, or a public-sector workflow depends on a hyperscaler, the cloud provider is not merely a vendor in the background. It is part of the route by which businesses reach users.
That is why the Commission’s reported move matters. It suggests Brussels is prepared to treat infrastructure as a gate in its own right, not just as a neutral utility underneath more visible platforms. The DMA’s language about “important gateways” was never limited to glossy consumer interfaces, but until now enforcement has been.
The novelty is not that AWS and Microsoft are already large. Everyone in enterprise IT knows that. The novelty is that regulators appear ready to say the lock-in created by data gravity, proprietary APIs, committed spending, licensing terms, and migration friction can be just as competition-relevant as the lock-in created by an app store.
Cloud breaks the neatness of that model. A single European manufacturer with a multi-year Azure contract may support millions of customers, but it does not resemble a monthly active user in the consumer-platform sense. A software vendor that builds its SaaS product on AWS may have thousands of downstream business customers, but AWS’s direct contractual relationship is with the vendor, not each end user.
That mismatch gave hyperscalers an obvious defense: cloud is not the kind of intermediation the DMA was written to police. Amazon has argued publicly that cloud services do not sit between business users and end users in the way the DMA requires, and has pointed to multi-cloud adoption as evidence that customers already have choice. Microsoft has framed Azure as operating in a highly competitive market and has said it will cooperate with regulators.
The Commission’s answer is the qualitative market investigation. The DMA allows Brussels to look beyond the numerical shortcut when a service may still function as a durable gateway. That is the important legal move here: the Commission does not need to prove that cloud looks exactly like mobile app distribution. It needs to prove that, in practice, AWS and Azure have become unavoidable enough for business users that normal market discipline does not work.
If that reasoning survives, cloud regulation becomes less about counting logins and more about measuring dependence. That is where the hyperscalers are vulnerable, because dependence is what their best products are designed to create.
The fee itself is only part of the story. Moving tens of terabytes can cost thousands of dollars in transfer charges before an engineer rewrites a single line of code. Moving petabytes can become a board-level cost. More importantly, routine cross-cloud traffic can become expensive enough that a “multi-cloud strategy” exists more convincingly in PowerPoint than in production.
Hyperscalers have softened the sharpest edge of this criticism. AWS says it waives data transfer out charges for customers leaving its cloud, and the EU Data Act already pushes providers toward freer switching in migration scenarios. Google Cloud made similar competitive noise around egress fee removals. The industry can plausibly claim that the old hostage-taking caricature is outdated.
But Brussels is not only looking at the ceremonial exit. The more consequential question is whether normal cloud operation is economically portable. If an enterprise wants to replicate data continuously, run active-active workloads across providers, or shift parts of an application over time, the distinction between migration egress and ordinary egress becomes crucial.
A one-time waiver helps a customer leave after deciding to absorb the pain. It does not necessarily make competition live inside day-to-day architecture. That is the difference between opening the emergency door and making the building genuinely interoperable.
AWS IAM is not interchangeable with Microsoft Entra ID. Azure Functions is not a drop-in equivalent for AWS Lambda. DynamoDB, Cosmos DB, EventBridge, Service Bus, CloudFormation, ARM templates, managed Kubernetes integrations, observability tools, and AI services all encode assumptions that live inside application logic and deployment pipelines. The customer is not just storing data in someone else’s building. It is writing software in someone else’s dialect.
That is why migration cost often dwarfs transfer cost. A CIO can model data movement in a spreadsheet. Rewriting authentication, permissions, event routing, compliance logging, CI/CD templates, operational runbooks, and incident response processes is more like renovating a city while people still live in it.
The DMA’s possible interoperability obligations are therefore more radical than the egress debate suggests. If regulators require standardized interfaces, documented APIs, and meaningful portability between cloud services, they are not merely asking AWS and Azure to lower a price. They are asking them to expose parts of their architecture in ways that reduce the strategic advantage of ecosystem depth.
That will be the hardest fight. Cloud providers can discount bandwidth faster than they can commoditize their managed-service moats. The very features that make hyperscalers attractive to developers are also the features that make switching painful.
On October 20, AWS suffered a major US-EAST-1 incident rooted in DNS resolution problems around DynamoDB endpoints, with cascading effects across dependent services. The disruption rippled through consumer apps, enterprise services, and Amazon’s own operations. AWS later described a recovery that began with the DynamoDB DNS issue but continued through impaired internal subsystems and throttled operations as the platform stabilized.
Nine days later, Microsoft Azure suffered a broad Azure Front Door incident tied to configuration problems affecting availability for customers and Microsoft services using the global front-door layer. Airlines, public services, websites, and enterprises felt the failure because many of them had placed critical traffic behind the same cloud-scale routing fabric.
Neither incident proves that AWS or Azure is legally a DMA gatekeeper. Outages happen to every infrastructure provider, including smaller and regional ones. But politically, the back-to-back failures gave regulators a vivid demonstration of concentration risk: a software bug or configuration error in a hyperscaler can become a public event across borders and sectors.
That is the point European cloud advocates have tried to make for years. Cloud dependence is not only a pricing issue. It is a resilience issue, a sovereignty issue, and a bargaining-power issue. The outages converted an abstract competition file into something transport ministers, parliament administrators, airline executives, and banking regulators could understand.
That is what makes the DMA route attractive. It does not require Brussels to pretend European providers already match the hyperscalers service for service. Instead, it attacks the structural features that make alternatives harder to adopt: transfer costs, licensing terms, interoperability gaps, procurement inertia, and technical coupling.
OVHcloud, Hetzner, Scaleway, and other European providers stand to benefit if the rules lower switching costs and make hybrid architectures less punitive. But this is not simply an industrial-policy subsidy in legal clothing. The stronger argument is that European customers should not have to choose between using best-in-class infrastructure and surrendering practical exit rights.
Microsoft’s position is especially delicate because Azure is entangled with Microsoft’s enterprise software estate. Windows Server, SQL Server, Microsoft 365 identity, developer tooling, security products, and licensing rules all shape cloud decisions. Critics have long argued that Microsoft’s software licensing terms make running Microsoft workloads on rival clouds more expensive or cumbersome than running them on Azure.
That means any DMA cloud remedy aimed at Azure could collide with older Microsoft competition themes: bundling, licensing leverage, platform preference, and enterprise dependency. For WindowsForum readers, this is the familiar Microsoft story translated from desktop operating systems to cloud control planes.
That does not make the EU’s case illegitimate. Europe has every right to regulate markets serving European customers, especially where critical infrastructure, public services, and enterprise dependency are involved. But it does mean the cloud gatekeeper designation will be harder to separate from wider fights over tariffs, data transfers, AI regulation, cybersecurity certification, and sovereign cloud procurement.
The hyperscalers will argue that Europe risks damaging a competitive market in the name of fixing it. They will point to Google Cloud, Oracle, IBM, regional providers, private cloud, colocation, Kubernetes portability, and multi-cloud adoption as evidence that customers have options. They will also argue that forced interoperability could reduce security, slow innovation, and create ambiguous compliance duties in systems where reliability depends on tight integration.
Those arguments should not be dismissed. Cloud infrastructure is not a social network with a cleaner export button. It is a sprawling stack of networking, identity, compute, storage, databases, acceleration hardware, observability, support contracts, and compliance guarantees. Regulators can easily write elegant obligations that produce messy engineering outcomes.
But the opposite risk is greater: accepting technical complexity as a permanent shield against competition law. If cloud has become critical infrastructure, its opacity cannot be the reason it remains ungovernable.
A more plausible regime would distinguish between switching, interoperability, and ordinary consumption. Regulators may require free or near-free egress for migration and portability use cases, clearer contract terms, documented transfer processes, and technical support for customers moving workloads. They may also scrutinize committed-spend contracts and discount structures that punish customers for distributing workloads across providers.
Interoperability obligations will be even more nuanced. The Commission could push for standardized documentation, API access commitments, compatibility requirements for identity and data services, or marketplace neutrality rules. It could also require hyperscalers to stop using licensing or commercial terms that make third-party clouds systematically less attractive.
The danger for customers is that remedies become performative. A cloud provider can publish more documentation while the real switching cost remains untouched. It can waive one class of egress while preserving others. It can promise portability for data while leaving application logic stranded in proprietary services.
That is why enforcement detail matters more than designation drama. The cloud market does not need another compliance theater. It needs remedies that change procurement math.
The first task is to map dependency. That means identifying where workloads rely on proprietary managed services, where data egress would become material, where identity and access management are cloud-specific, and where committed-spend obligations make migration economically irrational. Many organizations will discover that their declared multi-cloud strategy is mostly a disaster recovery plan plus a second vendor contract.
The second task is to price optionality. Portability is not free; it requires architectural discipline, duplicated skills, and sometimes foregoing the most convenient managed service. The question is not whether every workload should be cloud-agnostic. The question is which workloads are important enough that exit rights deserve engineering investment.
For Windows-heavy shops, the Azure review should be especially granular. Microsoft’s cloud is often adopted not as a standalone infrastructure choice but as the gravitational center of Entra ID, Microsoft 365, Defender, Intune, Windows Server, SQL Server, DevOps tooling, and compliance workflows. That integration can be a strength, but it can also blur where normal convenience ends and strategic dependency begins.
The best CIO response is not panic migration. It is leverage. A credible exit plan changes negotiation dynamics even if the organization never uses it.
That bargain is now under review. The Commission’s cloud investigations imply that infrastructure power can become platform power, even when the platform is mostly invisible to end users. That is a profound shift in how digital competition law understands the modern internet.
AWS and Azure are not villains for building compelling ecosystems. Enterprises adopted them because they work, because developers know them, and because their service catalogs compress years of infrastructure labor into APIs. The problem is that success at hyperscale can transform useful integration into market structure.
The European question is whether that structure remains contestable. If a customer can choose AWS or Azure freely, move away without punitive costs, interoperate with rivals, and negotiate without licensing traps, then the hyperscalers’ dominance is less troubling. If not, then cloud has become the next platform layer where regulators will insist on exit, neutrality, and portability.
Brussels Moves the DMA Down the Stack
The Digital Markets Act was built for a world in which digital power looked like search, app stores, social networks, messaging, marketplaces, and operating systems. Its political target was the platform owner that sat between business users and customers, extracting terms from both sides because nobody could afford to leave. Cloud infrastructure has always been harder to fit into that picture because it is not usually experienced as a consumer gate.That distinction is now wearing thin. AWS and Azure may sell primarily to enterprises, governments, developers, and software companies, but the services running on top of them are what European citizens actually use. If a bank’s app, an airline’s check-in system, a hospital portal, or a public-sector workflow depends on a hyperscaler, the cloud provider is not merely a vendor in the background. It is part of the route by which businesses reach users.
That is why the Commission’s reported move matters. It suggests Brussels is prepared to treat infrastructure as a gate in its own right, not just as a neutral utility underneath more visible platforms. The DMA’s language about “important gateways” was never limited to glossy consumer interfaces, but until now enforcement has been.
The novelty is not that AWS and Microsoft are already large. Everyone in enterprise IT knows that. The novelty is that regulators appear ready to say the lock-in created by data gravity, proprietary APIs, committed spending, licensing terms, and migration friction can be just as competition-relevant as the lock-in created by an app store.
The User-Count Problem Was Always a Legal Detour
The DMA’s quantitative thresholds were designed to make gatekeeper designation administratively manageable. A company that reaches major EU revenue or market-capitalization thresholds and controls services with tens of millions of users can be presumed to have gatekeeper power. That works reasonably well for search engines, social networks, video platforms, and operating systems.Cloud breaks the neatness of that model. A single European manufacturer with a multi-year Azure contract may support millions of customers, but it does not resemble a monthly active user in the consumer-platform sense. A software vendor that builds its SaaS product on AWS may have thousands of downstream business customers, but AWS’s direct contractual relationship is with the vendor, not each end user.
That mismatch gave hyperscalers an obvious defense: cloud is not the kind of intermediation the DMA was written to police. Amazon has argued publicly that cloud services do not sit between business users and end users in the way the DMA requires, and has pointed to multi-cloud adoption as evidence that customers already have choice. Microsoft has framed Azure as operating in a highly competitive market and has said it will cooperate with regulators.
The Commission’s answer is the qualitative market investigation. The DMA allows Brussels to look beyond the numerical shortcut when a service may still function as a durable gateway. That is the important legal move here: the Commission does not need to prove that cloud looks exactly like mobile app distribution. It needs to prove that, in practice, AWS and Azure have become unavoidable enough for business users that normal market discipline does not work.
If that reasoning survives, cloud regulation becomes less about counting logins and more about measuring dependence. That is where the hyperscalers are vulnerable, because dependence is what their best products are designed to create.
Egress Fees Are the Toll Booth Everyone Pretended Was Plumbing
The most politically legible part of the cloud lock-in argument is egress pricing. Inbound data is typically free. Outbound data is not. That asymmetry is so familiar to cloud architects that it can sound like weather, but from a competition perspective it looks like a toll booth placed at the exit.The fee itself is only part of the story. Moving tens of terabytes can cost thousands of dollars in transfer charges before an engineer rewrites a single line of code. Moving petabytes can become a board-level cost. More importantly, routine cross-cloud traffic can become expensive enough that a “multi-cloud strategy” exists more convincingly in PowerPoint than in production.
Hyperscalers have softened the sharpest edge of this criticism. AWS says it waives data transfer out charges for customers leaving its cloud, and the EU Data Act already pushes providers toward freer switching in migration scenarios. Google Cloud made similar competitive noise around egress fee removals. The industry can plausibly claim that the old hostage-taking caricature is outdated.
But Brussels is not only looking at the ceremonial exit. The more consequential question is whether normal cloud operation is economically portable. If an enterprise wants to replicate data continuously, run active-active workloads across providers, or shift parts of an application over time, the distinction between migration egress and ordinary egress becomes crucial.
A one-time waiver helps a customer leave after deciding to absorb the pain. It does not necessarily make competition live inside day-to-day architecture. That is the difference between opening the emergency door and making the building genuinely interoperable.
The Real Lock-In Lives Above the Storage Bucket
Egress fees make the politics easy. Proprietary service integration makes the engineering hard. The deeper an enterprise goes into managed services, the less the cloud resembles rented hardware and the more it resembles an application platform.AWS IAM is not interchangeable with Microsoft Entra ID. Azure Functions is not a drop-in equivalent for AWS Lambda. DynamoDB, Cosmos DB, EventBridge, Service Bus, CloudFormation, ARM templates, managed Kubernetes integrations, observability tools, and AI services all encode assumptions that live inside application logic and deployment pipelines. The customer is not just storing data in someone else’s building. It is writing software in someone else’s dialect.
That is why migration cost often dwarfs transfer cost. A CIO can model data movement in a spreadsheet. Rewriting authentication, permissions, event routing, compliance logging, CI/CD templates, operational runbooks, and incident response processes is more like renovating a city while people still live in it.
The DMA’s possible interoperability obligations are therefore more radical than the egress debate suggests. If regulators require standardized interfaces, documented APIs, and meaningful portability between cloud services, they are not merely asking AWS and Azure to lower a price. They are asking them to expose parts of their architecture in ways that reduce the strategic advantage of ecosystem depth.
That will be the hardest fight. Cloud providers can discount bandwidth faster than they can commoditize their managed-service moats. The very features that make hyperscalers attractive to developers are also the features that make switching painful.
Two October Outages Turned Architecture Into Politics
The Commission’s cloud investigations were not born solely from market-share charts. The timing followed two major outages in October 2025 that made cloud concentration visible to the public in a way procurement complaints rarely do.On October 20, AWS suffered a major US-EAST-1 incident rooted in DNS resolution problems around DynamoDB endpoints, with cascading effects across dependent services. The disruption rippled through consumer apps, enterprise services, and Amazon’s own operations. AWS later described a recovery that began with the DynamoDB DNS issue but continued through impaired internal subsystems and throttled operations as the platform stabilized.
Nine days later, Microsoft Azure suffered a broad Azure Front Door incident tied to configuration problems affecting availability for customers and Microsoft services using the global front-door layer. Airlines, public services, websites, and enterprises felt the failure because many of them had placed critical traffic behind the same cloud-scale routing fabric.
Neither incident proves that AWS or Azure is legally a DMA gatekeeper. Outages happen to every infrastructure provider, including smaller and regional ones. But politically, the back-to-back failures gave regulators a vivid demonstration of concentration risk: a software bug or configuration error in a hyperscaler can become a public event across borders and sectors.
That is the point European cloud advocates have tried to make for years. Cloud dependence is not only a pricing issue. It is a resilience issue, a sovereignty issue, and a bargaining-power issue. The outages converted an abstract competition file into something transport ministers, parliament administrators, airline executives, and banking regulators could understand.
Europe’s Sovereignty Argument Now Has a Competition-Law Vehicle
European cloud policy has long been caught between aspiration and dependence. Brussels wants digital sovereignty, but European enterprises often choose AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud because the services are mature, globally available, richly documented, and deeply integrated with the software stacks their teams already use. No amount of policy rhetoric changes the fact that hyperscalers solve real engineering problems.That is what makes the DMA route attractive. It does not require Brussels to pretend European providers already match the hyperscalers service for service. Instead, it attacks the structural features that make alternatives harder to adopt: transfer costs, licensing terms, interoperability gaps, procurement inertia, and technical coupling.
OVHcloud, Hetzner, Scaleway, and other European providers stand to benefit if the rules lower switching costs and make hybrid architectures less punitive. But this is not simply an industrial-policy subsidy in legal clothing. The stronger argument is that European customers should not have to choose between using best-in-class infrastructure and surrendering practical exit rights.
Microsoft’s position is especially delicate because Azure is entangled with Microsoft’s enterprise software estate. Windows Server, SQL Server, Microsoft 365 identity, developer tooling, security products, and licensing rules all shape cloud decisions. Critics have long argued that Microsoft’s software licensing terms make running Microsoft workloads on rival clouds more expensive or cumbersome than running them on Azure.
That means any DMA cloud remedy aimed at Azure could collide with older Microsoft competition themes: bundling, licensing leverage, platform preference, and enterprise dependency. For WindowsForum readers, this is the familiar Microsoft story translated from desktop operating systems to cloud control planes.
Washington Will See a Cloud Rule as a Trade Fight
The transatlantic politics are unavoidable. AWS and Microsoft are not just large cloud providers; they are strategic American technology companies. Any EU move that forces changes to their pricing, APIs, or contract terms will be read in Washington as another front in Brussels’ campaign against US tech dominance.That does not make the EU’s case illegitimate. Europe has every right to regulate markets serving European customers, especially where critical infrastructure, public services, and enterprise dependency are involved. But it does mean the cloud gatekeeper designation will be harder to separate from wider fights over tariffs, data transfers, AI regulation, cybersecurity certification, and sovereign cloud procurement.
The hyperscalers will argue that Europe risks damaging a competitive market in the name of fixing it. They will point to Google Cloud, Oracle, IBM, regional providers, private cloud, colocation, Kubernetes portability, and multi-cloud adoption as evidence that customers have options. They will also argue that forced interoperability could reduce security, slow innovation, and create ambiguous compliance duties in systems where reliability depends on tight integration.
Those arguments should not be dismissed. Cloud infrastructure is not a social network with a cleaner export button. It is a sprawling stack of networking, identity, compute, storage, databases, acceleration hardware, observability, support contracts, and compliance guarantees. Regulators can easily write elegant obligations that produce messy engineering outcomes.
But the opposite risk is greater: accepting technical complexity as a permanent shield against competition law. If cloud has become critical infrastructure, its opacity cannot be the reason it remains ungovernable.
The Likely Remedy Is Less Dramatic Than the Rhetoric
The phrase “forcing an egress fee overhaul” sounds like a clean strike against a hated line item. The real outcome will probably be more incremental and more contested. Brussels is unlikely to simply ban every outbound transfer fee in every context overnight.A more plausible regime would distinguish between switching, interoperability, and ordinary consumption. Regulators may require free or near-free egress for migration and portability use cases, clearer contract terms, documented transfer processes, and technical support for customers moving workloads. They may also scrutinize committed-spend contracts and discount structures that punish customers for distributing workloads across providers.
Interoperability obligations will be even more nuanced. The Commission could push for standardized documentation, API access commitments, compatibility requirements for identity and data services, or marketplace neutrality rules. It could also require hyperscalers to stop using licensing or commercial terms that make third-party clouds systematically less attractive.
The danger for customers is that remedies become performative. A cloud provider can publish more documentation while the real switching cost remains untouched. It can waive one class of egress while preserving others. It can promise portability for data while leaving application logic stranded in proprietary services.
That is why enforcement detail matters more than designation drama. The cloud market does not need another compliance theater. It needs remedies that change procurement math.
CIOs Should Treat the Probe as a Contract Review Trigger
Enterprises should not wait for a final designation to start acting. Even if AWS and Microsoft challenge the Commission, the direction of travel is clear: cloud lock-in is now a board-level regulatory issue in Europe. Procurement teams that still treat exit clauses as legal boilerplate are behind the curve.The first task is to map dependency. That means identifying where workloads rely on proprietary managed services, where data egress would become material, where identity and access management are cloud-specific, and where committed-spend obligations make migration economically irrational. Many organizations will discover that their declared multi-cloud strategy is mostly a disaster recovery plan plus a second vendor contract.
The second task is to price optionality. Portability is not free; it requires architectural discipline, duplicated skills, and sometimes foregoing the most convenient managed service. The question is not whether every workload should be cloud-agnostic. The question is which workloads are important enough that exit rights deserve engineering investment.
For Windows-heavy shops, the Azure review should be especially granular. Microsoft’s cloud is often adopted not as a standalone infrastructure choice but as the gravitational center of Entra ID, Microsoft 365, Defender, Intune, Windows Server, SQL Server, DevOps tooling, and compliance workflows. That integration can be a strength, but it can also blur where normal convenience ends and strategic dependency begins.
The best CIO response is not panic migration. It is leverage. A credible exit plan changes negotiation dynamics even if the organization never uses it.
The Cloud’s Antitrust Era Has Finally Arrived
For more than a decade, cloud buyers accepted a bargain. Hyperscalers would deliver scale, speed, global infrastructure, and managed services at a pace few organizations could match internally. In return, customers would tolerate complexity, opaque pricing, and a slow accumulation of dependency.That bargain is now under review. The Commission’s cloud investigations imply that infrastructure power can become platform power, even when the platform is mostly invisible to end users. That is a profound shift in how digital competition law understands the modern internet.
AWS and Azure are not villains for building compelling ecosystems. Enterprises adopted them because they work, because developers know them, and because their service catalogs compress years of infrastructure labor into APIs. The problem is that success at hyperscale can transform useful integration into market structure.
The European question is whether that structure remains contestable. If a customer can choose AWS or Azure freely, move away without punitive costs, interoperate with rivals, and negotiate without licensing traps, then the hyperscalers’ dominance is less troubling. If not, then cloud has become the next platform layer where regulators will insist on exit, neutrality, and portability.
The Practical Meaning of a Gatekeeper Cloud
The coming months will be filled with legal language, industry lobbying, and carefully worded statements about cooperation. Underneath that fog, the practical stakes are straightforward.- AWS and Azure could become the first cloud infrastructure services brought under the DMA’s gatekeeper obligations, moving EU platform regulation below consumer apps and into enterprise infrastructure.
- The Commission’s strongest case is not just market share but dependency, including egress charges, proprietary APIs, licensing practices, and the operational difficulty of moving mature workloads.
- One-time migration waivers will not settle the issue if ordinary cross-cloud operation remains expensive or technically constrained.
- European enterprises should review cloud contracts now for egress exposure, committed-spend penalties, proprietary service dependencies, and Microsoft software licensing assumptions.
- The most meaningful remedies will be the ones that lower real switching costs, not the ones that merely add documentation, dashboards, or policy language.
- Legal challenges could delay implementation, but they are unlikely to reverse the broader regulatory conclusion that cloud concentration has become a competition and resilience issue.
References
- Primary source: Tech Times
Published: Sun, 21 Jun 2026 17:43:21 GMT
Loading…
www.techtimes.com - Related coverage: digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu
Commission launches market investigations on cloud computing services under the Digital Markets Act
The European Commission opened three market investigations on cloud computing services under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu
- Related coverage: computerweekly.com
European Commission launches AWS and Microsoft-focused cloud competition probes | Computer Weekly
The European Commission has launched three investigations into how the continent's cloud market operates, with two focused specifically on Microsoft and Amazon Web Serviceswww.computerweekly.com - Related coverage: investing.com
EU probes Amazon, Microsoft’s cloud services for potential curbs By Reuters
EU probes Amazon, Microsoft’s cloud services for potential curbswww.investing.com - Related coverage: 2eu.brussels
EU wants stricter cloud rules: Amazon and Microsoft investigated for dominant position
The European Commission has opened three market investigations targeting cloud services from Amazon (AWS) and Microsoft (Azure). Brussels is analyzing whether they should be designated as "gatekeepers" under the DMA, even if they don't meet standard size thresholds, and is...2eu.brussels
- Related coverage: digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu
Loading…
digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu
- Related coverage: brusselstimes.com
Loading…
www.brusselstimes.com - Related coverage: agenceurope.eu
Cloud sector could soon be subject to strictest DMA obligations | AGENCE EUROPE
The European Commission investigates Amazon and Microsoft's cloud services.agenceurope.eu
- Related coverage: thenextweb.com
Loading…
thenextweb.com - Related coverage: ciodive.com
Loading…
www.ciodive.com - Related coverage: zonebourse.com
Loading…
www.zonebourse.com - Related coverage: marketscreener.com
Loading…
www.marketscreener.com - Related coverage: itpro.com
Google drops cloud complaint against Microsoft | IT Pro
Anticompetitive concerns aren't gone, but Google is leaving the battle to the EC insteadwww.itpro.com - Related coverage: techradar.com
Dozens of European cloud CEOs call for real tech sovereignty ahead of Cloud and AI Development Act
CISPE warns of "sovereignty washing"www.techradar.com
- Related coverage: news.alaskaair.com
Loading…
news.alaskaair.com - Related coverage: geekwire.com
Loading…
www.geekwire.com - Related coverage: tomsguide.com
Loading…
www.tomsguide.com - Related coverage: techinformed.com
Loading…
techinformed.com - Related coverage: tomshardware.com
Loading…
www.tomshardware.com - Related coverage: pcgamer.com
Loading…
www.pcgamer.com - Related coverage: cis1912.org
Loading…
www.cis1912.org - Related coverage: pages.awscloud.com
Loading…
pages.awscloud.com - Related coverage: datatracker.ietf.org
Loading…
datatracker.ietf.org