Cloudwashing vs. sovereign cloud: What’s the real difference?

The term “sovereign cloud” has gained serious momentum. For industries dealing with critical infrastructure, personal data, or national services, it’s becoming more than a buzzword, it’s a hard requirement. But as demand rises, so does misrepresentation. Enter cloudwashing: the art of marketing traditional cloud services with just enough local flavor to sound sovereign, without actually delivering on its promises.

At the surface, these platforms look convincing. They advertise local hosting, checkboxes for compliance, and use terms like “European cloud” or “data sovereignty.” But behind the branding, many are still tied to the operational models and legal frameworks of global tech giants. That gap has real consequences.

So what exactly makes a cloud sovereign and why should business leaders care?

Storing data locally is not the same as keeping it sovereign.

Many cloudwashed solutions offer local data centers, but they are often operated by companies that are subject to foreign jurisdictions. For example, a U.S.-headquartered provider with a European data center is still subject to U.S. law, including the CLOUD Act. This means U.S. authorities can compel access to that data, even if stored entirely within Europe.

Sovereign cloud, on the other hand, ensures that:

This matters especially for industries bound by regulations like GDPR, NIS2, the European Health Data Space, or national security frameworks.

True sovereignty extends beyond data. It includes technological control, operational autonomy, and transparency.

Ask:

Cloudwashing typically fails in these areas. You may get a European region, but the orchestration layer is run from elsewhere, often via proprietary software you can’t inspect, manage, or modify. That creates hidden dependencies and vendor lock-in.

Sovereign cloud should enable open architectures, preferably based on open source, so you maintain portability, observability, and resilience.

A sovereign cloud helps meet more than just regulatory checklists. It reduces strategic risk over the long term.

For example:

Cloudwashing might pass today’s compliance audit, but it won’t protect against future investigations, supply chain breaches, or contractual disputes where sovereignty is a precondition.

Global cloud providers often ask customers to trust in legal safeguards like Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) or Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs). But trust is not control.

After Schrems II, we know these safeguards can fall apart under real-world scrutiny. The ruling emphasized that even strong contractual language is insufficient if providers remain exposed to foreign surveillance laws.

With sovereign cloud, trust is backed by architecture. Encryption keys remain in your control. Legal jurisdiction aligns with your national laws. Governance is transparent, and operations are auditable.

This gives decision makers a stronger foundation to engage with regulators, auditors, and customers, not just defensively, but with confidence.

When assessing vendors, go beyond the marketing claims. Here’s a practical list of due diligence questions:

If any of these answers are unclear, or rely solely on marketing claims, you’re likely dealing with cloudwashing.

Sovereign cloud is more than a compliance checkbox, it’s becoming a strategic differentiator. It gives your organization leverage in a world where digital autonomy is increasingly tied to economic and political resilience.

It’s about building cloud infrastructure that respects local laws, supports open standards, and empowers your team to operate with transparency and confidence.

Cloudwashing may offer convenience today, but sovereignty offers control, trust, and future-proofing.

The difference isn’t just technical, it’s foundational.