As cloud computing continues to solidify its role as a vital engine for Europe’s economic future, discussions are intensifying over how to best maintain the cloud sector’s competitive dynamics. During a timely panel at the 2026 European Digital Competition Day, various experts debated whether the Digital Markets Act (DMA) is the right tool for a sector that functions as a critical business-to-business (B2B) backbone.
The discussion resolved around whether cloud services should be treated similarly to consumer-facing platforms or recognised as a distinct infrastructure market that requires a more tailored approach. As the European Commission assesses whether to designate any cloud providers as ‘gatekeepers’ under the DMA, some are warning that applying the DMA’s framework to complex B2B realities could create a regulatory misfit with costly, unintended consequences.
1. Focusing on lifecycle choice over rigid intervention
Providing an economic framework for the discussion, Matthias Bauer, Director at ECIPE, opened the conversation by reframing the debate. He challenged the premise of looking strictly at market shares, asking the panel: “What does Europe actually need in order to promote competition in cloud markets?” He argued that regulators should look beyond mere snapshots of concentration and focus instead on “whether customers – cloud users – retain credible choice over the full lifecycle of cloud use and deployment, starting from onboarding to operations… switching and exiting services if needed.”
Bauer emphasised that vendor lock-in is driven by two distinct factors: technology and contracts. Consequently, regulators should step in only “when market behaviour disproportionately restricts lifecycle choice” in his view. This includes artificially high switching costs, discriminatory contractual terms, and practices that prevent customers from building multi-cloud or hybrid solutions. However, he urged extreme caution regarding prescriptive technical interventions. “Cloud services markets, as any other technology-intensive market, tend to be very complex, at the same time very fast-moving and very deeply integrated,” Bauer warned, noting that mandating interoperability features without caution could lead to severe security loopholes.
Praising the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) for its balanced focus on customer choice and ongoing dialogue when it comes to the cloud space, Bauer concluded that the DMA’s model is largely incompatible with the sector. “Cloud markets are digital markets, but they are not just another consumer-facing platform market. When we look at cloud markets, we see enterprise markets, infrastructure markets,” he emphasised.
2. A dynamic ecosystem and the DMA’s ‘misfit’ for cloud
Building directly upon Bauer’s call to avoid rigid interventions, Chris Meyers (Associate General Counsel EU Competition Law at Amazon) underscored the cloud sector’s inherently competitive nature and track record of innovation. “When we entered into this category 20 years ago… we were the ones who were basically [the disruptors] trying to get customers to come to us from their on-premises IT services,” Meyers noted, arguing that the cloud model “continues today to be open, to support customer choice.”
To address market concerns regarding switching and interoperability, Meyers pointed out that Amazon removed egress fees two years ago to comply with the Data Act, and continues to invest heavily in facilitating multi-cloud environments. “We just released a product called AWS Interconnect Multi-Cloud, which is specifically designed to make it easy for cloud providers to connect to each other,” he explained. Meyers painted a picture of a highly vibrant landscape featuring classic providers, robust European players like OVHcloud and SAP, and a new wave of competitors. The market, he noted, has been further accelerated by the AI boom, giving rise to ‘neoclouds’ – a new breed of cloud providers custom-made for AI workloads, which are successfully challenging established firms.
Meyers underlined what he views as structural flaws in applying the DMA to this sector. He stressed the “misfit of the DMA to cloud, which is not a platform. It’s a B2B service with building blocks that businesses put together.” Distancing cloud architecture from consumer-facing apps that make up the majority of services in scope of the DMA, he clarified: “We’re not intermediating between customers and business users; we just have business users.” From his perspective, the existing regulatory landscape is more than sufficient. He warned that “trying to jam the DMA on top of this area is going to increase the incoherence that you have under the regulation and not end up really driving good outcomes for consumers.”
3. The role of National Competition Authorities
While industry representatives like Meyers advocate for relying on existing market dynamism, the regulatory perspective highlights the role of ongoing scrutiny. To understand how existing frameworks might address these complexities without resorting to new ex-ante rules, Pedro Hinojo, Head of Market Studies at the Spanish National Markets and Competition Commission (CNMC), provided insights from the perspective of a national enforcer.
Noting that the CNMC currently has an ongoing market study into the cloud sector, Hinojo shared that preliminary stakeholder views frequently mention “potential lock-in dynamics or interoperability concerns and some barriers to switching.” However, he underscored that traditional antitrust tools remain a highly relevant mechanism for addressing these specific bottlenecks. “The DMA is very specific in its recitals that conduct can infringe both competition policy and the DMA or both,” he explained. “Since conduct can infringe competition policy, then there is an obvious role for national competition authorities in addressing some of the issues in digital markets, including cloud.”
While centralised European enforcement is a hallmark feature of the DMA, Hinojo pointed out that national parliaments can empower authorities to monitor DMA compliance locally. “In the case of Spain, this has been the case. We are also empowered to monitor non-compliance with the DMA in our territory, but in that case, only the European Commission can initiate formal proceedings.” Ultimately, Hinojo advocated for strong complementarity between the DMA and competition policy, suggesting that rigorous ex-post enforcement is already well-equipped to handle any possible market failures in the cloud computing market.
4. Addressing the imbalance for European business users
To understand why authorities like the CNMC are conducting such studies, one must look at the demand side. Representing these users, Daniëlle Jacobs of BELTUG voiced the concerns of Chief Information Officers from large companies and public institutions who navigate these markets daily. “We absolutely see an imbalance when it comes to the relations between business users and the cloud providers,” Jacobs said, pointing to restrictive practices and a lack of fair negotiation power.
Jacobs highlighted that business users face significant bottlenecks, specifically calling out “bundling, contractual things, [and] pricing” as major hurdles. She noted that while new overarching frameworks are coming into play, immediate relief is expected from targeted sectoral legislation. “We expect a lot from the first of January when the egress fees will be gone,” she stated, referencing the implementation of the EU Data Act.
However, Jacobs expressed reservations about the competence and alignment of national regulators tasked with its enforcement, adding “we do not believe the Data Act is the only answer.” BELTUG’s CEO also emphasised that resilience is now a top priority for European companies. “You need to be able to leave [a cloud provider] to be resilient,” she argued, noting that businesses must have the ability to move sensitive data back on-premises or to a European cloud if necessary.
Conclusion
The panel’s reflections highlight a fundamental debate over whether cloud markets are too structurally distinct from the consumer-facing platforms that the DMA was optimised to regulate. While business users face legitimate hurdles regarding contractual clarity and seamless cloud switching, existing tools – such as the ex-post competition policy championed by Hinojo and the incoming Data Act – already appear to be shifting the landscape to empower users of cloud services.
Both Bauer and Meyers argued that prematurely layering rigid ex-ante rules like the DMA onto the dynamic B2B infrastructure of cloud risks unintended consequences and unnecessary regulatory fragmentation. In their view, for Europe’s digital ecosystem to thrive, policymakers should prioritise ongoing dialogue, leverage current regulatory frameworks, and avoid disrupting complex technical architectures with ill-fitting legislation.
However, with demand-side representatives and some market players continuing to signal structural challenges, the question remains: will the Commission ultimately deem an evolution of the DMA’s scope necessary?
