Legal Analysis · AWS Service Terms EN vs British Law

LEX

LEGAL ANALYSIS · PUBLIC DOCUMENT

◆◆◆

AWS SERVICE TERMS
ENGLISH VERSION (MAY 2026)
vs BRITISH LAW

◆

(hereinafter "Terms" · Standard Terms and Conditions within the meaning of UCTA 1977 and CRA 2015)

◆

The English version is the sole contractually binding version.
Several clauses conflict with UCTA 1977, CRA 2015,
the Competition Act 1998 and UK GDPR.

◆◆◆

1Binding version

11Clauses analysed

6UK statutes invoked

0Proceedings pending

◆

Source EN: aws.amazon.com/service-terms/ · Last updated: 22 May 2026
UK Switching Addendum: expressly incorporated under Section 1.30
The AWS Service Terms constitute standard terms and conditions
subject to UCTA 1977, CRA 2015, and the Competition Act 1998.

Amine RAITI
Infrastructure Architect & SRE

◆◆◆

Public document · CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 · Not legal advice
Intended for submission to the CMA · ICO · Ofcom

CENTRAL FINDINGS · CRITICAL

UNFAIR TERMS · EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY · LOCK-IN

AWS Service Terms (22 May 2026) · Standard Terms subject to UCTA 1977 · CRA 2015

◆

⚠ FUNDAMENTAL FINDING

The AWS Service Terms are the sole contractually binding version. Unlike the French and German analyses, there is no translation gap to examine — every clause is directly enforceable in its English form. The analysis therefore focuses on the substantive lawfulness of these terms against British statute and case law. Five categories of violations emerge: (1) exclusion or restriction of liability contrary to UCTA 1977; (2) unfair terms contrary to CRA 2015 Schedule 2; (3) clauses restricting switching contrary to the UK Cloud Switching Addendum (s. 1.30) and Competition Act 1998 s. 18; (4) data processing clauses contrary to UK GDPR; (5) terms contrary to the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Notably, AWS explicitly incorporates a UK Switching Addendum (s. 1.30) — a significant advantage over GCP — but this does not cure the underlying contractual defects.

◆ CLAUSE 1 · NON-CANCELLABLE RESERVED INSTANCES · Section 5.4.2CRITICAL · UCTA 1977 · CRA 2015

🇬🇧 AWS SERVICE TERMS EN (22 May 2026) — Section 5.4.2 :

"Savings Plans, EC2 Reserved Instances and EC2 Dedicated Host Reservations are noncancellable [...] you will be charged for the duration of the term you selected, even if you terminate the Agreement. All amounts paid [...] are nonrefundable, except that if we terminate the Agreement other than for cause [...] we will refund you a pro-rata portion of any upfront fees paid."

🏛 BRITISH LAW — Applicable provisions :

UCTA 1977 s. 3: Where a party deals on the other's written standard terms, that party cannot restrict its liability for breach or render a substantially different performance, unless the clause satisfies the reasonableness test (s. 11 + Sch. 2). CRA 2015 s. 62 + Sch. 2 para. 1(e): A term requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil their obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum as compensation is unfair.

◆ CONFLICT · PARTIAL — PRO-RATA EXCEPTION NOTED

The noncancellable nature of Reserved Instances engages UCTA 1977 s. 3 — AWS renders a substantially different performance (charges persist even after termination) unless the reasonableness test is satisfied. Under the CRA 2015 Sch. 2 para. 1(d), a term permitting a trader to retain sums paid where the trader terminates the contract is presumptively unfair. The pro-rata refund provision (where AWS terminates without cause) partially mitigates this — and constitutes a significant advantage over GCP. However, no equivalent protection exists where the customer terminates due to AWS's own material breach. Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto [1989]: onerous terms not fairly brought to attention may be unenforceable.

◆ CLAUSE 2 · CAPACITY BLOCKS · Section 5.5CRITICAL · NO REFUND · NO EXCEPTION

🇬🇧 AWS SERVICE TERMS EN — Section 5.5 :

"AWS Capacity Blocks cannot be canceled nor can they be modified, and the full price of a Capacity Block is nonrefundable. [...] During the last 30 minutes of a Capacity Block, we may terminate your instances without notice and prevent the launch of new instances in your reservation."

🏛 BRITISH LAW :

UCTA 1977 s. 3(2)(b): AWS claims the right to render a performance substantially different from that reasonably expected (terminating instances in the last 30 minutes of a fully paid, nonrefundable block) — only valid if reasonable. Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943: where a contract is frustrated, sums already paid are recoverable. A "nonrefundable" clause cannot override this statutory right.

◆ CONFLICT · MORE SERIOUS THAN 5.4.2 · NO PRO-RATA EXCEPTION WHATSOEVER

Unlike s. 5.4.2, there is no pro-rata refund even where AWS terminates. The combination of full non-refundability plus AWS's right to terminate the last 30 minutes without notice fails the UCTA 1977 s. 11 reasonableness test on its face. CRA 2015 s. 62: a term that causes significant imbalance in parties' rights to the detriment of the consumer is unfair. Hadley v Baxendale [1854]: AWS's unilateral termination without notice during an active, prepaid reservation period constitutes a foreseeable breach causing direct loss — no contractual term can exclude this liability where it results from negligence (UCTA 1977 s. 2(1)).

ANALYSIS · CLAUSES 3, 4, 5 & 6 · CRITICAL / HIGH

LIABILITY · SUSPENSION · BEDROCK · JURISDICTION

◆

◆ CLAUSE 3 · EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY · Section 5.8 + Beta s. 2.6CRITICAL · UCTA 1977 s. 2

🇬🇧 AWS SERVICE TERMS EN — Section 5.8 :

"IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE USE OF AMAZON EC2, YOU AGREE THAT YOUR AMAZON EC2 RESOURCES MAY BE TERMINATED OR REPLACED DUE TO FAILURE, RETIREMENT, OR OTHER AWS REQUIREMENTS."

🇬🇧 Section 2.6 (Beta Services) :

"AWS AND ITS AFFILIATES AND LICENSORS [...] DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES [...] INCLUDING ANY WARRANTIES THAT THE BETA SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, ERROR-FREE OR HARMFUL-COMPONENT FREE."

🏛 BRITISH LAW :

UCTA 1977 s. 2(1): A person cannot by reference to any contract term exclude or restrict his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence. s. 2(2): In the case of other loss, liability for negligence can only be excluded if reasonable. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s. 13: implied term that services will be carried out with reasonable care and skill — non-excludable against consumers (CRA 2015 s. 49).

◆ CONFLICT · BLANKET DISCLAIMER FAILS UCTA REASONABLENESS TEST

AWS's all-caps disclaimer of warranties and its right to terminate EC2 resources without meaningful restriction engage UCTA 1977 s. 2(2). The disclaimer of all warranties for Beta Services — including those paid for — is subject to the reasonableness test. A blanket exclusion covering AWS's own negligence is unlikely to satisfy UCTA 1977 Sch. 2 (bargaining positions, inducements, customer's knowledge). Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] (HL): exclusions of liability for negligence must satisfy the reasonableness requirement strictly.

◆ CLAUSE 4 · SUSPENSION WITHOUT NOTICE · Section 1.4CRITICAL · UCTA 1977 · CRA 2015

🇬🇧 AWS SERVICE TERMS EN — Section 1.4 :

"we may remove or disable access to any Prohibited Content without prior notice in connection with illegal content, where the content may disrupt or threaten the Services or in compliance with applicable law or any governmental, regulatory or court order or request."

🏛 BRITISH LAW :

CRA 2015 s. 62 + Sch. 2 para. 1(b): unfair if it has the effect of permitting the trader to terminate the contract on discretionary grounds while the consumer remains bound. Competition Act 1998 s. 18: terms giving a dominant undertaking the unilateral right to suspend service without objective justification may constitute an abuse of dominant position.

◆ CONFLICT · UNILATERAL SUSPENSION ON AWS'S OWN ASSESSMENT

The provision grants AWS unilateral, subjective discretion to suspend services — including where content is deemed merely to "threaten" services, a standard AWS itself defines. CRA 2015 Sch. 2 para. 1(b): allowing a trader to terminate at will while the consumer remains bound is a presumptively unfair term. Competition Act 1998 s. 18: if AWS holds a dominant position in the relevant cloud services market (a contested but plausible finding given CMA market studies), unilateral suspension without objective criteria may constitute an abuse.

ANALYSIS · CLAUSES 3, 4, 5 & 6 · CRITICAL / HIGH

LIABILITY · SUSPENSION · BEDROCK · JURISDICTION

◆

◆ CLAUSE 5 · BEDROCK LOCK-IN · Sec. 50.12.3CRITICAL · CRA 2015

🇬🇧 Section 50.12.3 :

"Provisioned throughput commitments are not transferable or refundable. Therefore, you will be charged for the duration of the term you selected even if you terminate this Agreement."

🏛 British Law :

CRA 2015 Sch. 2 para. 1(e): requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil their obligations to pay a disproportionately high sum. AWS may modify pricing at any time for future commitments while existing commitments remain locked and non-refundable.

◆ CONFLICT · MAXIMUM IMBALANCE

AWS reserves the unilateral right to modify pricing while the customer has no exit right. CRA 2015 s. 62: significant imbalance to consumer's detriment = unfair. UK Cloud Switching Addendum (s. 1.30): expressly incorporated — but does not address this pricing asymmetry.

◆ CLAUSE 6 · JURISDICTION · AWS Customer AgreementHIGH · CONFLICT OF LAWS

🇬🇧 AWS Customer Agreement — Governing Law :

The AWS Customer Agreement (incorporated by reference into the Service Terms) specifies that disputes involving AWS EMEA SARL are governed by Luxembourg law and courts — for UK customers post-Brexit, this raises direct conflict-of-laws issues.

🏛 British Law :

UK Consumer Rights Act 2015 s. 65: liability for death or personal injury from negligence cannot be excluded. Contractual choice of foreign law cannot deprive a UK consumer of protections afforded by UK mandatory law.

◆ CONFLICT · POST-BREXIT EXPOSURE

Post-Brexit, EU Regulation Brussels I bis no longer applies in the UK. UK consumers retain protection under Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 and Rome I Regulation (retained): mandatory UK consumer protections cannot be displaced by a choice of Luxembourg law.

ANALYSIS · CLAUSES 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 · HIGH / MEDIUM / COMPLIANT

DATA · COMPETITION · TRAINING · SWITCHING · ADDENDUM

◆

◆ CLAUSE 7 · DATA PROCESSING — USAGE DATA · Section 1.20HIGH · UK GDPR

🇬🇧 AWS SERVICE TERMS EN — Section 1.20 :

"We may use information about your use of and interactions with the Services to improve the Services."

🇬🇧 Section 50.3 (AI Services — CodeGuru, Comprehend, Lex, Polly, Rekognition, Textract, Transcribe, Translate) :

"(a) we may use and store AI Content [...] to develop and improve the applicable Amazon AI Service and its underlying technologies; (b) we may use and store AI Content that is not personal data to develop and improve AWS and affiliated machine learning and AI technologies."

🏛 BRITISH LAW :

UK GDPR Art. 5(1)(b) (purpose limitation): data may only be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes. "Improving services" is insufficiently specific. UK GDPR Art. 6: legitimate interest under Art. 6(1)(f) requires a documented balancing test — absent here. ICO Guidance on AI and data protection: training AI models on customer data requires explicit consent or a documented legitimate interest, not a broad contractual consent buried in standard terms.

◆ CONFLICT · UK GDPR PURPOSE LIMITATION · ICO ENFORCEMENT RISK

The combination of s. 1.20 (general usage data) and s. 50.3 (AI Content for model training) constitutes a broad, open-ended consent to data processing for purposes that are neither specific nor explicitly stated. UK GDPR Art. 5(1)(b): purpose limitation violated. UK GDPR Art. 13: information provided at the time of data collection must include the specific purposes — "improve the Services" does not satisfy this. The ICO has issued guidance specifically addressing AI training data and consent requirements.

◆ CLAUSE 8 · MARKET DOMINANCE · s. 50.5 + 50.6HIGH · CA 1998 s. 18

🇬🇧 Sections 50.5 + 50.6 :

"You will not use, or allow a third party to use, AI Services [...] to develop or improve a similar or competing product or service." [s. 50.6] "You may not use AI Services to generate Content for the express purpose of training an AI model." [s. 50.5]

🏛 British Law :

Competition Act 1998 s. 18: abuse of dominant position — restricting competition by preventing customers from using data or outputs to develop competing services. CMA has specifically investigated cloud market competition (2023 cloud market study).

◆ POTENTIAL ABUSE · CMA SCRUTINY

Clauses preventing use of outputs for competitive development are directly within the scope of the CMA's cloud market investigation. CA 1998 s. 18: if AWS holds a dominant position, these restrictions on downstream competition may constitute an abuse. Trade Marks Act 1994 s. 10: benchmarking restrictions (s. 1.8) raise additional IP law concerns.

◆ CLAUSE 9 · TRAINING FEES · Sec. 67.2.1HIGH · CRA 2015

🇬🇧 Section 67.2.1 :

"Prepaid funds are nonrefundable and expire at the end of the period specified in the applicable Order."

🏛 British Law :

CRA 2015 s. 62 + Sch. 2 para. 1(d): a term permitting the trader to retain sums paid where the trader does not provide the service — presumptively unfair. Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013: right of withdrawal of 14 days for services not yet commenced.

◆ CONFLICT · CRA 2015 SCH. 2

Prepaid training funds that expire with no refund even if AWS modifies or withdraws training offerings fails CRA 2015 Sch. 2 para. 1(d). AWS reserves the right to modify training content — removing courses already paid for. Consumer Contracts Regs 2013 reg. 29 may apply.

ANALYSIS · CLAUSES 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 · HIGH / MEDIUM / COMPLIANT

DATA · COMPETITION · TRAINING · SWITCHING · ADDENDUM

◆

◆ CLAUSE 10 · UK SWITCHING ADDENDUM · Section 1.30COMPLIANT · EXPRESSLY INCORPORATED

🇬🇧 AWS SERVICE TERMS EN — Section 1.30 :

"These Service Terms incorporate the AWS UK Switching Addendum for customers that have an eligible account, as defined in the AWS UK Switching Addendum."

🏛 BRITISH LAW — Context :

The AWS UK Switching Addendum is a direct response to the CMA's cloud market investigation (2023). It commits AWS to providing customers with reasonable assistance to switch or multi-cloud, reducing egress fees, and providing data portability. The CMA's market study identified cloud switching barriers as a primary competition concern.

◆ SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE OVER GCP · BUT ADDENDUM SCOPE IS LIMITED

This is a material positive distinction: AWS explicitly incorporates a UK switching commitment; GCP does not have an equivalent UK-specific addendum. However, the Addendum does not cure the substantive defects in ss. 5.4.2, 5.5 and 50.12.3 — noncancellable commitments continue to operate as switching barriers regardless of the Addendum's portability provisions. Competition Act 1998 s. 18: the CMA may still scrutinise these residual switching costs as a systemic barrier.

◆ CLAUSE 11 · SPOT INSTANCES WITHOUT NOTICE · Section 5.3HIGH · UCTA 1977

🇬🇧 AWS SERVICE TERMS EN — Section 5.3 :

"We may terminate, stop, or hibernate Spot Instances at any time and without any notice to you if we determine that the current Spot Price [...] equals or exceeds the maximum price you specified."

🏛 BRITISH LAW :

UCTA 1977 s. 3: AWS cannot by standard terms entitle itself to render a substantially different performance from that reasonably expected, unless the clause satisfies the reasonableness test. The market-pricing logic of Spot Instances provides some objective justification — but the extension to Spot Blocks (fixed-duration) is harder to defend.

◆ PARTIAL CONFLICT · SPOT BLOCKS MORE PROBLEMATIC THAN SPOT INSTANCES

For true Spot Instances (variable pricing), the no-notice termination reflects the agreed market-pricing model — likely to satisfy the UCTA 1977 s. 11 reasonableness test in a B2B context. However, the same clause applies to Spot Blocks (fixed-duration purchases) — where the economic justification is weaker and the clause is more likely to fail reasonableness. Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto [1989]: onerous terms in standard contracts require specific, prominent notice to be binding.

SYNTHESIS · LEGAL CONCLUSION

COMPARATIVE TABLE · CONCLUSION · AWS vs GCP vs BRITISH LAW

◆

Clause / Section

AWS Terms (May 2026)

British Law Position

Primary Authority

Severity

s. 5.5 · Capacity Blocks — non-refundable, terminate without notice

No refund · No exception

Unlawful — fails reasonableness

UCTA 1977 s. 3 · CRA 2015 s. 62 · Hadley v Baxendale

CRITICAL

s. 5.4.2 · Reserved Instances — noncancellable

Noncancellable · pro-rata if AWS terminates

Partial conflict — pro-rata mitigates

UCTA 1977 s. 3 · CRA 2015 Sch. 2 · Interfoto

CRITICAL

s. 5.8 + s. 2.6 · Blanket liability disclaimers

All-caps disclaimer of all warranties

Unlawful for negligence without reasonableness

UCTA 1977 s. 2 · SGSA 1982 s. 13 · Smith v Bush

CRITICAL

s. 1.4 · Suspension without notice

At AWS's sole discretion

Presumptively unfair — no objective criteria

CRA 2015 Sch. 2 para. 1(b) · CA 1998 s. 18

CRITICAL

s. 50.12.3 · Bedrock — lock-in with unilateral pricing

Non-refundable · AWS modifies price at will

Unfair — maximum imbalance

CRA 2015 s. 62 · CA 1998 s. 18

CRITICAL

s. 1.20 + s. 50.3 · Data for AI training — vague purpose

Broad consent embedded in Terms

Conflict with purpose limitation

UK GDPR Art. 5(1)(b) · Art. 6 · ICO Guidance

HIGH

s. 50.5–50.6 · No competing product from AI outputs

Broad restriction on downstream use

Potential abuse of dominance

Competition Act 1998 s. 18 · CMA Cloud Study 2023

HIGH

s. 67.2.1 · Prepaid training — nonrefundable

No refund if AWS modifies offering

Presumptively unfair

CRA 2015 Sch. 2 para. 1(d) · CCR 2013

HIGH

s. 5.3 · Spot Blocks — terminate without notice

No notice · fixed-duration blocks

Partial — Spot Instances defensible, Spot Blocks not

UCTA 1977 s. 11 · Interfoto [1989]

HIGH

s. 5.4.2 · Pro-rata refund if AWS terminates without cause

Present ✓

Compliant · advantage over GCP

UCTA 1977 s. 11 · ✅ Mitigating

MITIGATING

s. 1.30 · UK Switching Addendum

Expressly incorporated ✓

Compliant · significant advantage

CA 1998 s. 18 · CMA 2023 · ✅ Compliant

COMPLIANT

◆ LEGAL CONCLUSION · AWS vs GCP · BRITISH LAW

The AWS Service Terms, as the sole binding version, contain two structural levels of conflict with British law. The first is statutory: blanket liability disclaimers, noncancellable commitments and unilateral suspension clauses fail the reasonableness test under UCTA 1977 s. 3 and s. 11, and constitute presumptively unfair terms under CRA 2015 s. 62 and Sch. 2. The Capacity Blocks clause (s. 5.5) is the most problematic — no refund, no exception, plus unilateral termination without notice in the last 30 minutes. The second is regulatory: restrictions on downstream competitive use (ss. 50.5–50.6) and embedded AI training consents (ss. 1.20, 50.3) engage Competition Act 1998 s. 18 and UK GDPR respectively — areas of active CMA and ICO focus. AWS is materially better than GCP in two respects: (1) the pro-rata refund mechanism where AWS terminates without cause; (2) the explicit incorporation of the UK Switching Addendum (s. 1.30) — a direct CMA-responsive commitment absent from GCP's terms. These are significant differentiators but do not cure the underlying substantive defects.

Source EN: aws.amazon.com/service-terms/ · 22 May 2026 · UK Switching Addendum: incorporated under s. 1.30
Statutes: UCTA 1977 · CRA 2015 · CA 1998 · SGSA 1982 · UK GDPR · Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013
Cases: Hadley v Baxendale [1854] · Interfoto v Stiletto [1989] · Smith v Eric S Bush [1990]
Nemo supra legem est
Public document · CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 · Not legal advice · Amine RAITI