But it probably started as a way to comply with EU laws more easily, so it works on multiple levels.
I really hope that Europe will get its act together rather than relying on this half-hearted solution.
I think Europe should push for its own solutions rather than fuel oligarchy/authoritarianism, if they are serious about their own security and preserving liberal values.
I wouldn't trust Amazon with my data if I was an EU citizen. As a US citizen I don't even trust Amazon with my own data. This is why I support de-Google, de-Microsoft, and de-Apple computing.
I know at least one major European bank made it a requirement upon AWS to provide essentially this service. I believe back around 2020 or maybe a bit earlier.
Appears to be in Massen: https://www.lr-online.de/lausitz/finsterwalde/investition-in...
> Two market investigations will assess whether Amazon and Microsoft should be designated as gatekeepers for their cloud computing services, Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure, under the DMA, in other words whether they act as important gateways between businesses and consumers, despite not meeting the DMA gatekeeper thresholds for size, user number and market position.
Anyway, the entire structure and premise of this business is that they cannot do that. A court cannot put a CEO in jail just because partner businesses do not follow his orders. Do you think it is maybe remotely possible, that Amazons lawyers and architects understand this a little bit better than you do?
I'm thinking they checked it out, they checked it out a couple of times.
There are some details in this comment from the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46641592
Transcribed (not translated): https://www.senat.fr/compte-rendu-commissions/20250609/ce_co...
Video: https://videos.senat.fr/video.5460497_6847c70b82594
Reports by third parties:
https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/25/microsoft_admits_it_c...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2025/07/22/micro...
Edit/note: The main point AWS makes is indeed by whom/where this offering is operated. But, Microsoft stated that even though they made an environment so that the data lives entirely within the EU they may be compelled to transmit the data back.
Or they just want to make lots of money
In the US, rule of law does not matter any more in practice. That is the problem. You can't even say it's "rule by mob" - at least the mob had an honor codex, the current administration doesn't give a single flying fuck about anything any more. Might makes right.
They’ll get a national security letter for sure, but no one’s going to jail.
But for context the head of the FED is currently investigated for criminal charges, governors, mayors, judges etc. Why is a CEO of a company so special? Within hours the board can appoint another one.
Thinking Amazon is going to be some sort of resistance is just incredibly naive. They are an extension of US power, not an independent entity.
The US is not s country with rule of law anymore. It is a country that is rules by power.
This avoids any difficulties later.
If that orange clown stays in power it won’t belong before we are at war and then you will lose access to everything overnight and all your data is theirs
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/whitepapers/latest/aws-fault-iso...
Normal AWS (`aws`) traces to `us-east-1`. AWS GovCloud (US) (`aws-us-gov`) is distinct, based in `us-gov-west-1`. AWS in China (`aws-cn`) is distinct again, based in `cn-north-1`.
The AWS European Sovereign Cloud is implemented as a distinct partition – `aws-eusc` based in `eusc-de-east-1` – so it has exactly as much in common with normal AWS as AWS GovCloud (US) or AWS in China.
> The AWS European Sovereign Cloud will be capable of operation without dependency on global AWS systems so that the AWS European Sovereign Cloud will remain viable for operating workloads indefinitely even in the face of exceptional circumstances that could isolate the AWS European Sovereign Cloud from AWS resources located outside the EU, such as catastrophic disruption of transatlantic communications infrastructure or a military or geopolitical crisis threatening the sovereignty of EU member states.
I find it fascinating that the goal is to staff this exclusively with EU citizens, thereby excluding non-citizen residents of the EU.
> Replicating a broadly practiced mitigation mechanism that is established in EU institution and government hiring practices, operational control and access will be restricted to EU citizens located in the EU to ensure that all operators have enduring ties to the EU and to meet the needs of our customers and partners.
- https://www.aboutamazon.eu/news/aws/aws-european-sovereign-c...
Seems like a lot of work to still have data that can be exfiltrated by the US.
Another goal with this is to muddy the waters on the word "sovereign" in relation to tech e.g. "cloud". This is a big reason why they've chosen this exact name. Now every discussion regarding it is more prone to devolve into "but what does it really mean!? Amazon has a 'sovereign cloud'!!". Taking time away from discussing the core and actual sovereign cloud.
It's the umpteenth despicable play by US big tech. It doesn't matter what guarantees they give, the US is in charge of anything remotely related to Amazon, even if they set up "independent subsidiaries", do everything through "local partners" and what not.
Since it is a US company, it is still subject to cloud act, US intelligence full access, and Trumps ability to ignore any and all laws and contracts. Microsoft execs, who have similar offerings, have confirmed this under oath.
So either this is a valiant attempt by AWS that is ultimately misguided, or it is an attempt to capture customers without even a hint of legal expertise.
AWS, Azure and GC stand to lose all EU customers in the next years. They simply must, given that no data with them is secure from Trump’s admin or industrial espionage. This does not help that
Perhaps one could sue them for that.
That's been the (very successful) business model of all those GDPR "consent management" providers.