According to TheRegister.com, European cloud providers represented by CISPE have issued strong criticism of the EU’s Cloud Sovereignty Framework, claiming its vague “sovereignty score” system may inadvertently favor US hyperscalers over local operators. The trade association argues that the framework’s broad criteria could allow foreign providers to achieve high scores without delivering genuine European sovereignty, potentially enabling public sector bodies to maintain existing contracts with AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. This industry pushback highlights fundamental tensions in Europe’s quest for digital independence.
Table of Contents
Understanding Cloud Sovereignty Fundamentals
Cloud sovereignty represents more than just data localization—it encompasses legal jurisdiction, operational control, and immunity from foreign legislation like the US CLOUD Act. The concept has gained urgency as European governments recognize their critical dependence on American cloud infrastructure for essential services. True sovereignty requires that data, operations, and legal control remain subject exclusively to European law, free from extraterritorial claims by foreign governments. This distinction between mere compliance and genuine sovereignty forms the core of the current debate.
Critical Regulatory Challenges
The fundamental flaw in the EU’s framework approach lies in attempting to quantify sovereignty through scoring mechanisms rather than establishing clear binary standards. As CISPE correctly notes, sovereignty is inherently binary—either European law has exclusive jurisdiction or it doesn’t. The scoring system creates ambiguity that sophisticated global providers can exploit through technical compliance without substantive sovereignty. This mirrors past regulatory failures where complex frameworks became check-box exercises rather than meaningful protections.
Another critical oversight involves the practical reality of global supply chains. Most European businesses operate internationally and require cloud services that function seamlessly across jurisdictions while maintaining European control. The current framework fails to adequately address this tension between global operational needs and sovereign requirements, potentially creating solutions that are either too restrictive for practical business use or too permissive to guarantee genuine sovereignty.
Market and Competitive Implications
The upcoming Cloud III procurement represents a crucial test case that could shape Europe’s cloud landscape for years. With only four providers selected and contracts spanning six years, the decisions made under this framework will either create meaningful competition or cement the dominance of US hyperscalers under a sovereignty veneer. European providers face significant disadvantages in scaling and resource allocation compared to AWS, Microsoft, and Google, who can afford extensive compliance teams and legal resources to navigate complex frameworks.
The timing coincides with increased geopolitical tensions and growing recognition of digital infrastructure as critical national infrastructure. European businesses and governments are increasingly wary of dependencies that could be exploited during international disputes. However, the technical debt and integration costs of migrating from established cloud platforms create significant inertia that even well-crafted sovereignty requirements may struggle to overcome.
Future Outlook and Solutions
The success of Europe’s digital sovereignty ambitions will depend on developing clearer, more enforceable standards that prioritize substantive control over procedural compliance. CISPE’s work on distinct labels for Sovereign Cloud and Operationally Resilient Cloud services represents a more pragmatic approach that acknowledges different use cases while maintaining clear sovereignty definitions. The European Commission must balance urgency with precision—rushed frameworks that fail to achieve genuine sovereignty could do more harm than good by creating false confidence in compromised solutions.
Looking ahead, the most likely outcome involves a tiered cloud market where genuinely sovereign solutions coexist with globally integrated services, each serving different regulatory and operational needs. However, achieving this balance requires regulatory clarity that the current framework lacks. The coming months will be critical as industry stakeholders and regulators negotiate definitions that protect European interests without isolating European businesses from global digital ecosystems.
