FTC Cloud Computing Competition Inquiry

Cloud computing replaced many on-site data centers. Businesses store data, run websites, and train AI models on shared infrastructure billed by usage.

AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud dominate enterprise infrastructure outside China. Once a company builds on one provider's proprietary tools, migration can mean rewriting applications and paying data transfer ('egress') fees.

Critics say egress fees and bundled discounts discourage multi-cloud strategies. Microsoft faced separate complaints in Europe that licensing terms for SQL Server and Office made running Microsoft software on AWS or Google artificially expensive.

The FTC inquiry reportedly uses 6(b) orders to collect contracts, pricing schedules, and customer communications. It mirrors concerns raised by UK communications regulator Ofcom and the European Commission's cloud competition discussions.

Cloud providers respond that switching is always possible with planning, that egress fees fund network investment, and that security and integration benefits justify bundled offerings.

Startups and open-source groups argue lock-in chokes rival platforms and raises prices for the whole economy because every app ultimately pays cloud bills.

Because this is an inquiry—not a finished lawsuit—treat claims as hypotheses under study. The FTC may later sue individual companies or publish guidance short of litigation.

Cloud bills are a hidden cost in many services you use; less competition can mean higher SaaS prices.

Small startups may pick AWS by default and never realistically switch, shaping which apps survive.

Government agencies and hospitals depend on cloud uptime; lock-in affects public procurement too.

US and EU moves together could change licensing and data-transfer pricing globally.

Hyperscalers possess durable market power in infrastructure-as-a-service.

Egress fees and technical barriers raise rivals' costs and customer switching costs.

Software licensing may tie enterprise products to the vendor's own cloud.

Discount structures and committed spend contracts foreclose smaller cloud entrants.

Providers say competition among three US hyperscalers is vigorous and prices have fallen over time.

They argue egress fees prevent free-riding on network capacity.

They maintain customers negotiate enterprise agreements with exit options.

They caution regulation could slow innovation in AI infrastructure.

If you run a business, document cloud spend and exit costs before signing long commitments—the inquiry may eventually affect standard contract terms.

Employees at SaaS vendors feel cloud lock-in when their employer cannot cheaply test rival infrastructure.

Consumers rarely see cloud bills directly, but higher infrastructure costs can flow into subscription prices.

No US order yet requires fee cuts or forced interoperability—watch FTC announcements.