European Commission moves to designate Amazon and Microsoft as cloud gatekeepers

[Alfonso Maruccia]

Cloudy Europe: After a relatively brief investigation, the European Commission reached a preliminary conclusion regarding Amazon's and Microsoft's cloud businesses. The executive body believes the two US companies should also be designated as "gatekeepers" for their cloud services, though both will have an opportunity to respond before a final decision is made.

Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure are now so important to Europe's digital economy that they may be required to comply with additional rules when doing business with customers in the EU. Otherwise, they could face hefty fines.

The Commission launched its investigation into the cloud market in 2025, gathering feedback from business customers, competitors, and other stakeholders. Amazon and Microsoft had already been designated as gatekeepers for other services and products. Despite not meeting the Digital Markets Act's quantitative thresholds for designation, the Commission said the companies have become key gateways connecting third-party businesses with customers across the EU.

Google, Amazon, and Microsoft have long been considered the "big three" of the global cloud computing industry. The Commission said AWS and Azure are now the largest and second-largest cloud service providers operating in the EU, respectively. Unlike Google, however, the two US companies have an outsized influence on the European cloud market.

Brussels is proposing the new gatekeeper designation because AWS and Azure generate significant revenue and could outpace competitors thanks to their operational scale and investment capacity. The Commission also argues that both companies have built vast customer ecosystems with strong lock-in effects, making it difficult for users to switch to competing cloud providers.

The European Commission is also considering the growing importance of AI tools and partnerships, which it now views as a "decisive" factor for customers signing new cloud contracts. AI-driven services are fueling demand for cloud infrastructure, while AWS and Azure are retaining a significant share of that new demand within their own ecosystems.

European authorities warn that being designated as a gatekeeper in a major market carries significant obligations. The Digital Markets Act requires gatekeepers to refrain from certain unfair practices, ensure data portability and interoperability, and prevent abusive conduct toward advertisers, publishers, and business users. Companies that fail to comply with the DMA could face fines of up to 10% of their global annual turnover.

According to Henna Virkkunen, the European Commission's Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, cloud services have become a cornerstone of Europe's economy and a prerequisite for AI development.

"Given their central role in Europe's digital future, these services must operate in fair, open and competitive markets that foster trust and secure Europe's tech sovereignty," Virkkunen said.

After receiving the Commission's preliminary findings, Amazon argued that the DMA's regulatory burden could undermine Europe's competitiveness. Microsoft, meanwhile, expressed concern that the Commission had overlooked the growing importance of Google Cloud and Google's Gemini AI services.

Either way, Amazon and Microsoft can now formally respond to the Commission's preliminary findings before a final decision is made. If the new gatekeeper designation is upheld, the two US companies will have six months to ensure their cloud businesses fully comply with the DMA's stricter rules.

Permalink to story:

European Commission moves to designate Amazon and Microsoft as cloud gatekeepers

 

[NumberNine]

I would love to hear Microsoft attempt to assert that they are not cloud gatekeepers after their decade-long full-throttle push to get their customers off their on-prem infrastructure and onto Microsoft servers.

Popcorn mode.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

If they are gatekeepers, the reason is:
1. They have the best products
2. No one wants to deal with the work of moving services ANYWHERE after they're set up. This has nothing to do with Amazon and Microsoft

The solution is something that already exists: multi-cloud environments. Google describes how this works: https://cloud.google.com/learn/what-is-multicloud

Multicloud solutions, built on top of open source technologies like Kubernetes, provide the flexibility and portability to migrate, build, and optimize applications across multiple clouds and computing environments.

In addition, multicloud environments work well with DevOps development practices and other cloud-native application technologies that enable portability, such as containers and microservices architecture.

Any IT department worth their salt will be doing this. If they are not, it's not Amazon and Microsoft's faults.

Fun fact: multicloud technologies like Kubernetes and Docker were developed by American technology companies, not the European Commission. I can't imagine the European Commission doing anything nearly as helpful to eliminate "gatekeepers" in the cloud.

 

[SRB]

I don't understand why U.S. companies bow or even entertain these not so anti competition rules. If it weren't for AI requiring all of their "excess" capital, they should just tell the EU to get stuffed. Call their bluff, dump the EU cold. I bet it wouldn't be 24 hours before the EU backs down. The EU is in this position for the same reasons the U.S. has manufacturing and raw material issues, the short sighted idea that we can get it somewhere else for less. That mindset only goes so far, and puts you at the mercy of the providers. But only if you exercise it. Otherwise, you let the inmates run the asylum.

 

[Endymio]

This is a new low for the already sewer-dwelling EU regulators. A "gatekeeper" designation implies that, if you want cloud services, you must procure them from Amazon or Microsoft. But of course there are many hundreds, even thousands of smaller cloud providers that also provide these services and customers could easily choose them-- if they actually wanted to.

 

[Art C]

Remember, Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Nothing will ever change that.

 

[LordVile95]

I don't understand why U.S. companies bow or even entertain these not so anti competition rules. If it weren't for AI requiring all of their "excess" capital, they should just tell the EU to get stuffed. Call their bluff, dump the EU cold. I bet it wouldn't be 24 hours before the EU backs down. The EU is in this position for the same reasons the U.S. has manufacturing and raw material issues, the short sighted idea that we can get it somewhere else for less. That mindset only goes so far, and puts you at the mercy of the providers. But only if you exercise it. Otherwise, you let the inmates run the asylum.

Can’t, stock price would tank and the CEO would be fired. Also Europe makes the tools that all this infrastructure is built with. I’m sure the US would love them to start selling to China

 

[toooooot]

Their cloud businesses should be broken apart. 10-20 companies fiercely fighting for clients.
No business in the US benefits from these two monopolizing this market.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Their cloud businesses should be broken apart. 10-20 companies fiercely fighting for clients.
No business in the US benefits from these two monopolizing this market.

I don't think you know firsthand of any business that uses AWS, Azure, or GCP, huh? Almost every company that uses them loves them. Besides, there are tons of cloud companies fighting for customers, and there is no monopoly. You could argue there's an oligarchy, but even that's dead wrong considering the number of independent, open-source multicloud tools that allow you to quickly switch between any vendor with your tech stack. Just read about containers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containerization_(computing)

 

[Alfonso Maruccia]

If they are gatekeepers, the reason is:
1. They have the best products
2. No one wants to deal with the work of moving services ANYWHERE after they're set up. This has nothing to do with Amazon and Microsoft

"Embrace, extend, and extinguish."

 

[Puiu]

This is a new low for the already sewer-dwelling EU regulators. A "gatekeeper" designation implies that, if you want cloud services, you must procure them from Amazon or Microsoft. But of course there are many hundreds, even thousands of smaller cloud providers that also provide these services and customers could easily choose them-- if they actually wanted to.

When you are too lazy to do your research on the laws and why they chose these companies, you just say things out of your ars, just like pedo trump, the fascist pedophile you love to support.

Go talk to Andrew Tate, trump's favorite american rapist and pedophile that his administration saved. That would be more productive than lying and spreading disinformation here.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

I don't understand why U.S. companies bow or even entertain these not so anti competition rules.

US companies gave up their intellectual property to get into the Chinese market...which is way worse than accepting simply burdensome regulations. The reason is $$$. They will bend over backwards if they think the market is big and will make them big bucks.

Europe has over 700 million people, with about 500 million of them within the EU. The market is very big.

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

Considering the EU doesn't really own any data centers directly but uses colocation says it all. The U.S. owns and operates 4000 data centers around the world and the EU is getting flustered. They can't compete so they will regulate. Maybe it's time for a new Government in the EU to move them forward instead of remaining in the dark. And being that the member Countries are fragmented doesn't make it any easier. Is it really about privacy and sovereignty? Or just an excuse?

 

[p51d007]

LOL, I wouldn't let Amazon & Microsoft be a gatekeeper for ANYTHING!

 

[dangh]

Considering the EU doesn't really own any data centers directly but uses colocation says it all. The U.S. owns and operates 4000 data centers around the world and the EU is getting flustered. They can't compete so they will regulate. Maybe it's time for a new Government in the EU to move them forward instead of remaining in the dark. And being that the member Countries are fragmented doesn't make it any easier. Is it really about privacy and sovereignty? Or just an excuse?

Of course there are eu data centers, and there are cloud companies with their own, multiple eu based and owned data centers. Considering you have no idea about this simple fact, I don't think you should be trying to tell eu gov what to do. If I were you I would rather be worry about your own gov, really.

 

[dangh]

If they are gatekeepers, the reason is:
1. They have the best products
2. No one wants to deal with the work of moving services ANYWHERE after they're set up. This has nothing to do with Amazon and Microsoft

The solution is something that already exists: multi-cloud environments. Google describes how this works: https://cloud.google.com/learn/what-is-multicloud

Any IT department worth their salt will be doing this. If they are not, it's not Amazon and Microsoft's faults.

Fun fact: multicloud technologies like Kubernetes and Docker were developed by American technology companies, not the European Commission. I can't imagine the European Commission doing anything nearly as helpful to eliminate "gatekeepers" in the cloud.

The fun fact: Docker was created in france, but dont let facts destroy your illusions

 

[bandit8623]

If they are gatekeepers, the reason is:
1. They have the best products
2. No one wants to deal with the work of moving services ANYWHERE after they're set up. This has nothing to do with Amazon and Microsoft

The solution is something that already exists: multi-cloud environments. Google describes how this works: https://cloud.google.com/learn/what-is-multicloud

Any IT department worth their salt will be doing this. If they are not, it's not Amazon and Microsoft's faults.

Fun fact: multicloud technologies like Kubernetes and Docker were developed by American technology companies, not the European Commission. I can't imagine the European Commission doing anything nearly as helpful to eliminate "gatekeepers" in the cloud.

What a joke comment. Microsoft and Google Amazon offering free data space then recsind and charge for it after they have the market...

 

[Endymio]

What a joke comment. Microsoft and Google Amazon offering [sic] free data space then recsind [sic] and charge for it after they have the market...

You've aptly described your own comment. Countless European firms offer free or reduced-rate initial plans to gain customers, including Europe's largest cloud provider -- OVHCloud.

 

[pnntmp]

What kind of id1ocy is that?
Nobody is keeping any gates, anyone is free to choose between lots of providers, have their own cloud etc.

Will the EU bureaucracy ever do something meaningful, like to figure out why no major tech company appeared in Europe in the last 20+ years, and try to prevent Europe completely disappearing from the tech landscape in the next 20?

 

[Puiu]

Considering the EU doesn't really own any data centers directly but uses colocation says it all. The U.S. owns and operates 4000 data centers around the world and the EU is getting flustered. They can't compete so they will regulate. Maybe it's time for a new Government in the EU to move them forward instead of remaining in the dark. And being that the member Countries are fragmented doesn't make it any easier. Is it really about privacy and sovereignty? Or just an excuse?

Is it really that hard to believe that there are data centers in the EU? I know it's hard to google, but seriously... US company supporters sure love to lie.

You should be trying to do what the EU is doing, trying to get laws that protect you, but instead you think a higher GPD is better at all cost. This includes insane levels of data center development, in the complete detriment of the local communities and many times built without regard of the US laws, the few laws that still exist that protect ppl.

Did you know that US companies can now buy votes in local elections in some US states? That they can vote as "people"? When it reaches this level of BS, you know that there's something wrong with the US and its "profits above human life" policy.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Did you know that US companies can now buy votes in local elections in some US states? That they can vote as "people"? When it reaches this level of BS, you know that there's something wrong with the US and its "profits above human life" policy.

I presume you’re talking about this? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/d...-vote-in-some-municipal-elections/ar-AA24czym

This is rare and limited to Delaware. It is not new either. Companies actually offering any incentives to vote is illegal per federal regulations: https://legalclarity.org/vote-buying-and-bribery-of-voters-statutes-and-penalties/

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

The fun fact: Docker was created in france, but dont let facts destroy your illusions

Ahh I missed that. It was created in Paris by an American in 2008, and the company got created in the US in 2010. It seems the founder grew up in France before returning to the US. The actual software debuted in 2013, so most of it was developed in the US.

Either way, within a few years every major cloud company adopted it, which goes against the idea that they’re anticompetitive. The idea that American cloud companies lock you into using them is absurd.

 

[Au Contraire]

I would love to see financial disclosure files for each of the regulators.

When they say "Despite not meeting the Digital Markets Act's quantitative thresholds for designation, the Commission said the companies have become key gateways ...", it sounds to me like just an excuse to impose fees, fines, and taxes.

Which leaves me wondering how quickly the regulators' portfolios and bank accounts accumulate profits.

 

[Puiu]

I presume you’re talking about this? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/d...-vote-in-some-municipal-elections/ar-AA24czym

This is rare and limited to Delaware. It is not new either. Companies actually offering any incentives to vote is illegal per federal regulations: https://legalclarity.org/vote-buying-and-bribery-of-voters-statutes-and-penalties/

If it's possible in one place then it will become possible in others too. The US basically operates on precedents. How the hell does that even turn into law where a company can vote in local elections if it owns land/is registered there...

On a more lighter note:

"Well, there was a bit of a stir when it was decided that since corporations are people, they could technically run for president. But President Walt Disney-Pepsi-Comcast has done wonders for the economy... given that it's... now the economy."
—Hellsing Ultimate Abridged

 

[Endymio]

Did you know that US companies can now buy votes in local elections in some US states?

Where would the fascist Left be without lies and disinformation, eh? No one can "buy votes" in the US ... except liberals who make campaign promises like, "vote for me, and I'll make the rich pay your healthcare bills!" or "vote for me, and I'll make the rich pay off your college loans!".

And despite your laughable miscomprehension of @Plutoisaplanet 's link, no corporation can vote "as a person", either. The court reaffirmed the long-standing right of one single tiny Delaware township to allow all tax-paying property-owners to vote in municipal elections. If a business owns property in that town, it has a say in how its property taxes will be spent.