An organisation can secure a good price for cloud services, then discover years later that changing provider requires an entire project. The deal may have improved performance and reduced spending while making some later decisions more expensive. That cost belongs in the assessment before the contract is signed.
Dependence builds up in the details: applications using provider-specific functions, data that is difficult to move, and teams accustomed to particular tools. Migration requires adapting systems, retraining staff and testing the new service while keeping the old one running. A contract may permit departure, yet the cost of carrying it out can make delay the more likely choice.
The problem is familiar in the cloud market. The British investigation in 2025 identified data egress fees and technical barriers that restrict switching or using several providers. [1]
In the European Union, the Data Act requires the removal of switching charges, including data egress charges, from 12 January 2027. This is an obligation on the provider. It does not remove the organisation’s own costs of adapting systems, training staff and maintaining service continuity. These European rules do not automatically apply in Morocco or the Gulf. [2]
Choosing a single provider can still be rational. Unified tools can speed up delivery. Distributing systems across several providers can raise operating costs and complicate responsibility when something fails. Flexibility has a price too. Assessing a deal requires weighing the gains from concentration against the cost of changing direction, according to the service’s importance and expected lifetime.
The difficulty emerges when the assumptions behind the decision change: prices rise, licensing terms shift or a new requirement falls outside the current offer. An organisation able to move part of its activity has more room to negotiate. An alternative that demands extensive rebuilding can exist in the market while remaining impractical to use.
In April 2026, the European Commission awarded a sovereign cloud services contract to four providers using a sovereignty assessment framework. Having several providers in a procurement contract does not, by itself, establish that every service can move easily. That must be checked in the systems that will actually operate. [3]
For a state, critical public services call for a wider assessment: migration time, interruption risk and expertise that must remain within the institution. For an investor, the same costs affect margins when the price of technology on which a project depends changes. A contract profitable on today’s terms may be less attractive when renegotiated.
Decision makers need to know which options they are closing and the cost of keeping some available. Today’s visible discount should be assessed alongside the price the organisation might pay to change its choice tomorrow.
