Bjonay

There’s nothing to indicate that Microsoft was legally obligated to suspend their service in this case, is my point.

They’re not legally obligated to deny their services to customers who have legal disputes totally unrelated to their contract with Microsoft.

It’s like getting the power company to cut your electricity because you have unpaid parking tickets - It’s probabkly a great way to get parking offenders to pay what they owe, but it undermines trust in general, yes?

It’s the way it should work. A private company can only be compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. Ensures trust through transparency.

If both US and EU foreign policy can dictate who suddenly gets cut off from Microsoft services, trust in those services will erode.

After denying Outlook access to Khan due to (non-judicial) US sanctions against the ICC, multiple European public and private orgs are implementing exit strategies from Microsoft and all providers with a US presence.

The reason leveraging Microsoft as a foreign policy weapon works is because they dominate the market, and Eorope have grown complacent since end of WW2. All thta seems to now be changing.

Enforcing sanctions is not Microsoft’s purview though. Unless their TOS specifically cover rthis scenario, which I doubt.

The article implies Microsoft is prepared to admit breach of contract terms, rather than risk EU distrust (or further distrust, after the Khan/ICC debacle).

Aren’t French authorities quite ahed on FOSS adoption in their platform? I.e. https://lasuite.numerique.gouv.fr/en