Alphabet’s Google has withdrawn its formal EU antitrust complaint alleging that Microsoft’s cloud licensing practices locked customers into Microsoft Azure, a move timed immediately after the European Commission launched a broad market investigation into the cloud sector under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) — an investigation that could lead to gatekeeper designation for both Microsoft’s Azure and Amazon Web Services (AWS).
Background
In late 2024 Google filed a formal complaint with EU competition authorities, arguing that certain Microsoft licensing terms made it economically unattractive for businesses to run workloads off Azure and that those terms effectively reinforced Azure’s market position. The complaint followed years of industry friction over licensing for Windows Server, SQL Server and related Microsoft products when run on rival cloud platforms.Separately, a coalition of European cloud providers led by CISPE (Cloud Infrastructure Service Providers in Europe) pursued its own complaint against Microsoft; that dispute resulted in a July 2024 memorandum of understanding in which Microsoft committed to commercial remedies and product changes intended to ease licensing frictions for European hosters. Progress on those commitments has been uneven, and European cloud providers have continued to press regulators and pursue alternative remedies.
On 18 November 2025 the European Commission announced it had opened three market investigations under the DMA focused on cloud computing services: two targeted inquiries to determine whether AWS and Microsoft Azure should be designated as DMA gatekeepers for their cloud services, and a third examination into whether the DMA’s toolkit is effective to tackle cloud-specific competition problems like interoperability, data access and contractual imbalances. The Commission set an approximate one-year timeframe for those probes.
On 28 November 2025 Google publicly withdrew its complaint. The company said the withdrawal was made “in light of the recent announcement that the EC will assess problematic practices affecting the cloud sector under a separate process,” signaling a strategic shift away from a standalone complaint and toward engagement with the Commission’s broader market process.
Overview: what changed and why it matters
The withdrawal is notable for three reasons:- It removes a high-profile private actor complaint from active agency docket while leaving regulatory scrutiny intact via the Commission’s market investigations.
- It consolidates attention on the DMA process, which carries the possibility of pre-emptive, ex ante rules and obligations that can be applied to designated gatekeepers.
- It reframes the dispute from a bilateral contractual/competition fight to a sector-wide regulatory assessment that could reshape how cloud services are governed across the EU.
The DMA mechanism and what “gatekeeper” could mean for cloud providers
What is a gatekeeper under the DMA?
The Digital Markets Act is an EU rulebook designed to impose ex ante obligations on digital platforms that act as important gateways between businesses and end users. Gatekeeper designation is normally triggered by quantitative thresholds (turnover and user counts) and qualitative assessment of market position and durability. Designated gatekeepers are then subject to a prescriptive set of dos and don’ts intended to prevent self-preferencing, ensure interoperability, and protect business user access to data and tools.Why the Commission can investigate cloud services even if thresholds aren’t met
The Commission’s November 2025 decision shows the DMA process can accommodate market investigations into specific service categories — like cloud computing — to assess whether a core platform service should be treated as a gatekeeper function even when a parent company might not meet all generic thresholds. In practice, this means the Commission can evaluate whether features of the cloud sector — strong network effects, lock-in, data advantages, and limited multi-homing — warrant applying the DMA’s ex ante toolbox to cloud platforms such as AWS or Azure.Key DMA obligations that would matter for cloud
If a cloud service is designated as a gatekeeper for cloud computing, the following obligations could become relevant:- No self-preferencing — cloud providers could be prohibited from giving preferential treatment to their own cloud-native services or bundled software.
- Interoperability and portability — obligations to enable third-party services and to facilitate data portability and migration.
- Transparency of terms — business users must receive clear, non-discriminatory contractual terms and information.
- Restrictions on tying and conditionality — inability to require use of a provider’s own identity, payment or ancillary services as a condition for accessing core cloud capabilities.
- Access to performance and measurement tools — business users and advertisers must be able to verify performance metrics and access necessary data on FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms.
Market snapshot: who stands where
Recent industry numbers show a large lead for AWS, followed by Microsoft and Google. The rough global market shares frequently cited in reporting are:- AWS: approximately 30%
- Microsoft Azure: approximately 20%
- Google Cloud: approximately 13%
Why Google withdrew: strategic and tactical drivers
Google’s formal withdrawal of its complaint can be read through multiple, non-exclusive lenses:- Regulatory leverage: a market investigation under the DMA is broader and potentially more powerful than a single complaint. Google’s withdrawal signals a preference to let the Commission lead a systemic inquiry rather than litigate a discrete issue that could be subsumed by a larger process.
- Resource allocation: antitrust litigation is expensive and slow. Advancing public-policy and engagement efforts around the DMA process can deliver more systemic remedies at lower marginal legal cost.
- Coalition dynamics: some rival cloud providers and industry groups had already negotiated or settled with Microsoft (notably CISPE in mid-2024). Google was not part of that deal. With the Commission now running a sector-wide probe, Google may gain the benefits of a regulatory approach without needing to sustain a standalone complaint that other European providers declined to support.
- Reputational positioning: withdrawing the complaint does not mean capitulation; Google’s public messaging continues to emphasize choice and openness in the cloud market, keeping pressure on Microsoft while avoiding duplicative procedural filings.
What the EU probes are likely to examine
The Commission’s market investigations are expected to probe a range of cloud-specific phenomena that can reinforce market power:- Contractual terms and licensing: whether licensing clauses impose financial disincentives or penalties that make switching away from a particular cloud uneconomic.
- Interoperability barriers: whether technical or commercial obstacles prevent customers from moving workloads across clouds or running hybrid architectures.
- Data access and portability: whether cloud platforms restrict business users’ access to operational data needed to migrate or interoperate.
- Bundling and tying: whether cloud providers tie essential cloud services to other products in a way that disadvantages rivals.
- Platform design and default settings: how platform-level integrations (identity systems, management tools) affect multi-cloud adoption.
Strategic implications for stakeholders
For Microsoft
- If Azure is designated a gatekeeper, Microsoft could face binding obligations to open up certain platform interfaces, revise contractual terms, and make data portability easier.
- Compliance would require engineering work, product changes and potentially rethinking commercial incentives — a material operational and financial cost.
- Conversely, an adverse regulatory finding could also bring certainty: a clear set of rules could remove asymmetric litigation risk and create stable ground rules for competition.
For AWS
- AWS, with the largest market share, is an obvious regulatory target. A gatekeeper finding could impose duties on AWS that fundamentally alter how it competes in enterprise infrastructure and platform services.
- AWS may push back — through arguments about user choice, technical feasibility of mandated interoperability, and the risk of undermining cloud economics.
For Google Cloud
- Google’s withdrawal signals a shift to a regulatory strategy: the company looks to shape policy outcomes through the DMA process rather than through its own formal antitrust filing.
- If the DMA produces remedies favorable to smaller cloud players, Google could benefit from changes that reduce Microsoft’s and AWS’s structural advantages.
For European cloud providers and customers
- Smaller European cloud hosters have long complained about licensing terms that allegedly favor hyperscalers. A DMA-driven outcome could level the competitive playing field, but enforcement and product-level changes may take time.
- Enterprises should expect contract renegotiations, new interoperability tools, and potential changes to how cloud vendors package software licenses.
Strengths and weaknesses of the regulatory approach
Strengths
- Systemic scope: a DMA market investigation addresses sector-wide features rather than isolated instances, increasing the chance of durable remedies.
- Ex ante rules: DMA obligations can prevent harms before they occur, unlike ex post antitrust enforcement which reacts after harm is established.
- Enforcement teeth: significant fines and the prospect of structural remedies give the Commission leverage to secure compliance.
Weaknesses and risks
- One-size-fits-all friction: the DMA’s rules were written for platform gatekeepers like app stores and search engines; cloud services are technically and commercially different. Applying DMA obligations to cloud may produce unintended consequences or blunt tools that fail to account for operational realities of infrastructure.
- Implementation complexity: interoperability in cloud environments is technically complex and costly; mandating it at scale could produce high compliance burdens with uncertain benefits.
- Regulatory overreach risk: heavy-handed remedies could disincentivize investment in unique integrations, potentially slowing innovation in areas like AI infrastructure.
- Legal uncertainty and delays: market investigations and any follow-on designation or remedies can take months or years — during which the status quo largely persists.
Practical guidance for IT and procurement teams
Enterprises should treat this regulatory moment as an opportunity to reduce risk and build resilience. Recommended actions:- Inventory dependencies: document which workloads, data flows, and services are bound to specific cloud vendor features or licensing regimes.
- Negotiate escape clauses: when negotiating contracts, seek clear migration support, data export guarantees, and transitional licensing terms.
- Design for portability: favor containerized and cloud-agnostic architectures where feasible; adopt standards-based storage and identity frameworks.
- Consider multi-cloud as insurance, not strategy: multi-cloud can mitigate vendor risk, but avoid an architecture that multiplies operational overhead.
- Monitor regulatory developments: track the Commission’s market investigation milestones and adjust vendor negotiation tactics to emerging legal expectations.
- Engage legal and finance early: potential refunds, credits or new license models may arise from regulatory outcomes — be ready to claim or contest them.
What outcomes to expect and a timeline
- The Commission set a roughly one-year window for the market investigations. That does not mean a sudden corrective action will appear in exactly 12 months; findings could trigger designation recommendations, consultations, and phased obligations.
- Possible outcomes include:
- No gatekeeper designation: the Commission may find the DMA unsuitable for cloud specifics and rely instead on traditional competition tools.
- Gatekeeper designation for AWS and/or Azure: triggers DMA obligations tailored to the cloud services named in the decision.
- Sectoral remedies: even without gatekeeper designation, the Commission could recommend or impose behavioural remedies under antitrust rules if it finds specific abuses.
- Follow-on litigation and appeals: any designation or structural remedy will almost certainly be challenged in court, extending timelines.
Risks to watch closely
- Ecosystem fragmentation: poorly designed obligations could force major vendors to restrict interoperability in alternative ways, fragmenting rather than opening markets.
- Innovation chill: mandates that require open interfaces or data sharing may reduce incentives for vendors to invest in differentiating features.
- Regulatory capture and political signaling: decisions may reflect political priorities as much as competition economics, particularly where regional strategic autonomy and AI infrastructure policy are implicated.
- Patchwork compliance: different interpretations by national authorities or inconsistent enforcement could create compliance complexity for multinational customers.
Final analysis: what the withdrawal tells us about cloud competition politics
Google’s withdrawal is not a retreat so much as a strategic repositioning. The company is redirecting its enforcement energy toward a process that can deliver systemic remedies and reshape the sector in ways a single complaint could not. For Microsoft and AWS, the Commission’s investigations create a regulatory overhang: the possibility of obligations that will touch licensing, interoperability and contractual fairness.For enterprises and European cloud providers, the investigations promise potential relief from restrictive practices — but also new layers of regulatory complexity. The DMA offers powerful tools, yet its adaptation to cloud infrastructure remains an open question. The coming months will clarify whether EU policymakers can craft tailored, technically sophisticated remedies that open up competition without undermining the engineering foundations of modern cloud platforms.
The immediate takeaway for IT leaders is pragmatic: treat the regulatory process as a factor to manage, not a magic fix. Strengthen migration playbooks, insist on contractual portability, and design systems with vendor flexibility in mind. The regulatory landscape will shift; the most resilient organizations will be those that reduce lock-in through architecture, negotiation and careful supplier governance.
The cloud market is entering a period of regulatory experimentation. The outcomes will reverberate across software licensing, enterprise costs, and the competitive dynamics that will shape the next generation of cloud-based innovation.
Source: Tuoi Tre News | The News Gateway to Vietnam Google ditches EU antitrust complaint about Microsoft cloud amid EU probe
