The Contractual War Machine — CMA Version

MACHINA

🇬🇧 ENGLISH VERSION · RECIPIENT: CMA · FCA · ICO

◆◆◆

THE CONTRACTUAL
WAR MACHINE
Complete Anatomy · English Version

◆

Systemic deconstruction of hyperscaler vendor lock-in
based on nineteen legal analyses of AWS · GCP · Azure terms
addressed to the CMA · FCA · ICO · European regulators

◆◆◆

UK LEGAL BASIS

◆ UCTA 1977 s. 3 (reasonableness test)

◆ CRA 2015 s. 62 (unfair terms)

◆ SGSA 1982 s. 13 (implied terms)

◆ Competition Act 1998 s. 18

◆ Hadley v Baxendale [1854]

◆ Interfoto v Stiletto [1989]

◆ Smith v Eric S Bush [1990]

◆ CMA Cloud Market Study 2023

◆ EU Data Act (2023/2854) art. 23 · 25

◆ UK GDPR art. 5 · 6 · 13-14

◆◆◆

Amine RAITI · Infrastructure Architect & SRE · SIPS/BCE · Paris
Public document · CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 · Not legal advice

GRADUS I · FOUNDATION & GRADUS II · ARCHITECTURE

DESIGN PRINCIPLE · THREE-LAYER ARCHITECTURE · CAPTIVITY CYCLE

◆

⚠ CORE FINDING

These contracts are not poorly drafted. They are perfectly drafted for a precise objective that is not the customer's: to maximise exit costs while minimising entry costs. This is not a side effect — it is the primary function. Every clause analysed becomes immediately explicable when read with this objective in mind rather than through the lens of a good-faith buyer.

01Contractual

Non-cancellability · Language clause · Unilateral modification · Waiver of legal rights

02Pricing

Egress fees 0.08–0.12 $/GB · Entry/exit asymmetry · Early termination fees 12% (Azure)

03Technical

Proprietary APIs · Managed services · Superlinear portfolio dependency

◆ INTERACTION PRINCIPLE

A customer who negotiates a cancellable contract remains locked in by egress fees. A customer who circumvents egress fees remains locked in by non-cancellable commitments. A customer who builds an open architecture remains locked in by monthly Product Terms updates. Exit is systematically costly regardless of strategy.

CAPTIVITY CYCLE — 5 PHASES

ENTERSFree credits · Excellent APIs · Zero entry cost

→

SETTLESGood services · Perfect docs

→

DEPENDSAPIs in codebase · Teams certified

→

COMMITS−30% over 3 yrs · Non-cancellable

→

DISCOVERSToo late · Three layers active

◆ THE RATIONAL CHOICE THAT BECAME A TRAPSTRUCTURAL

Reserved Instances cost 30–40% less than on-demand. The saving is real. It comes at the price of non-cancellability. The customer trades freedom for a price reduction — a rational short-term choice that becomes a medium-term trap. UCTA 1977 s. 3: unreasonable exclusion of liability = unenforceable. CRA 2015 Sch. 2: terms creating significant imbalance = unfair. EU Data Act art. 25: contractual obstacles to switching cloud providers = unenforceable.

GRADUS III · MECHANICS — MECHANISMS I TO IV

LANGUAGE · CASCADE INCORPORATION · NON-CANCELLABILITY · PRICE ASYMMETRY

◆

◆ MEC. I · LANGUAGE CLAUSE — 3 STRATEGIES, 1 RESULTCRITICAL · ALL HYPERSCALERS

AWS (header of every page — FR version):

"The following translation is provided for informational purposes only. [...] the English version will prevail." — Gap: 37 days · Explicit · Unlawful.

GCP (Section 14.18, frozen August 2023):

"[...] the English text will govern." — FR gap: 2 yrs 9 mths · 13 missed updates · Concealed.

Azure MOSA (6-layer fragmentation, monthly Product Terms):

"Published February 1, 2026 in English, translated February 9, 2026." — Self-admitted · Documentary dissolution.

◆ LEGAL BASIS

Interfoto v Stiletto [1989]: onerous terms must be drawn to attention · CRA 2015 Sch. 2 para. 1(i) · EU Data Act art. 23

◆ MEC. II · CASCADE INCORPORATION — CLAUSE OUTSIDE SIGNED DOCUMENTHIGH

EES Microsoft · "About this Document" (EN version only):

"Updates that Microsoft makes from time to time to Use Rights apply to Customer as set forth in Customer's agreement." — Absent from French version. Enforceable via incorporation by reference.

◆ LEGAL BASIS

Interfoto v Stiletto [1989] · UCTA 1977 s. 3: customer must be given fair notice of terms · CRA 2015 s. 68: terms must be transparent and prominent

◆ MEC. III · SELECTIVE NON-CANCELLABILITY — THE CORE LOCK-INCRITICAL · AWS + AZURE

AWS Section 5.5 · Capacity Blocks:

"cannot be canceled nor modified [...] full price nonrefundable [...] last 30 minutes we may terminate your instances without notice."

Azure EES · Savings Plan (identical FR + EN):

"noncancellable. Customer will owe the amount charged [...] even if the Agreement is terminated."

◆ LEGAL BASIS

UCTA 1977 s. 3: reasonableness test · Hadley v Baxendale [1854] · CRA 2015 Sch. 2 · EU Data Act art. 25

◆ MEC. IV · PRICE ASYMMETRY — SUPPLIER MODIFIES, CUSTOMER LOCKEDCRITICAL

AWS Section 50.12.3 · Bedrock:

"modify the pricing [...] at any time. [...] charged for the duration [...] even if you terminate this Agreement."

GCP Section 2.6 (absent from FR version 2023):

"Google may change the Fees at any time." — Unknown to French customers but enforceable.

◆ LEGAL BASIS

UCTA 1977 s. 3 · CRA 2015 s. 62 · Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] · CA 1998 s. 18 (abuse of dominant position)

GRADUS III · MECHANISMS V–VII + GRADUS IV · PRICING LAYER

SUSPENSION · RIGHTS WAIVER · RATCHET EFFECT · EGRESS FEES

◆

◆ MEC. V · SUSPENSION WITHOUT NOTICEHIGH

AWS Section 1.4:

"remove or disable access [...] without prior notice."

The threat of suspension is sufficient to deter any challenge. Azure MOSA Section 3.c provides 30 days' notice for non-payment — the one point where Azure outperforms AWS on this criterion. CA 1998 s. 18 · CRA 2015 Sch. 2 para. 1(b): right to suspend must not be exercised in a disproportionate manner.

◆ MEC. VI · WAIVER OF EU RIGHTS — ENGLISH VERSION ONLYCRITICAL · EES MICROSOFT

EES Microsoft — ENGLISH VERSION ONLY (Jan + Jun 2026):

"Customer agrees to waive any and all entitlements [...] under the European Electronic Communications Code (Directive 2018/1972) Article 102 paras 1, 3, 5 ; Article 105 para 1 ; Article 107 paras 1 and 3."

◆ LEGAL BASIS

The French Ministry of Education waives EU legal protections without this waiver being presented to it in its own language. Interfoto v Stiletto [1989]: onerous clauses must be explicitly drawn to the other party's attention before or at the time of contracting.

◆ MEC. VII · RATCHET EFFECT — CONTRACT WRITTEN AFTER SIGNINGCRITICAL · AZURE

EES Microsoft · Summary of Changes · June 1, 2026:

"New terms added for Azure Capacity Blocks." — Absent from Jan/Feb/Apr 2026 versions. Applied automatically to all existing contracts.

◆ LEGAL BASIS

UCTA 1977 s. 3 · Interfoto v Stiletto [1989] · CMA Cloud Market Study 2023: identified switching barriers as primary competition concern.

GRADUS IV · EGRESS FEES — THE WALL OUTSIDE THE CONTRACT

Provider

Egress/GB

100 TB

In T&Cs?

AWS

$0.08–0.09/GB

£7–8k

NO

GCP

$0.08–0.12/GB

£7–10k

NO

Azure

$0.07–0.09/GB

£6–8k

PARTIAL

1 Petabyte

£70,000–90,000 before technical migration

Not contractualised

Entry is free, exit is priced. The machine deliberately separates contractual from pricing to maximise opacity at signature. EU Data Act art. 25 · CA 1998 s. 18: obstacle to switching = potentially unenforceable.

GRADUS V · TECHNICAL & GRADUS VI · REASONS & GRADUS VII · CONCLUSION

TECHNICAL LAYER · FOUR REASONS · COMPARATIVE TABLE · CONCLUSION

◆

◆ GRADUS V · TECHNICAL LAYER

Proprietary APIs: Lambda/Cloud Functions/Azure Functions = non-standardised. Migration requires full rewrite.
Managed services: BigQuery/Redshift/Azure Synapse = proprietary SQL dialects. 10 years of queries = months of migration.
Superlinear effect: each additional service increases the cost of exiting all others.

◆ GRADUS VI · 4 REASONS THIS IS DIFFERENT

I — Scale: 65%+ global market → potential abuse of dominance. CA 1998 s. 18.
II — Information asymmetry: egress fees outside T&Cs · Directive 2018/1972 waiver in English only · constitutive, not accidental.
III — Positive law violated: UCTA 1977 · CRA 2015 · CA 1998 s.18 · EU Data Act art. 23–25.
IV — Deliberate design: drafted by top-tier legal teams · tested across jurisdictions · the waiver clause is not in English only by accident. CMA 2023 Study identified switching barriers — no enforcement followed.

Mechanism

AWS

GCP

Azure

Language substitution

Explicit · every page

Concealed s.14.18

Fragmented · 6 layers

Non-cancellability

s.5.4.2 · 5.5 · 50.12.3

s.2.1 · commitments

Savings Plans · Blocks

Refund on termination

Pro-rata if AWS terminates ✓

None · s.8.8

12% fee + $50k/yr cap

Data Act Addendum

✓ s.1.28

Absent

Absent MOSA/EES

EU rights waiver

Partial

Dir. 2018/1972 · EN only

◆ GRADUS VII · CONCLUSION — CLAUSE VS SYSTEM

An unfair clause is a problem for the civil courts. A system deliberately designed to create dependency, relying on unlawful clauses, at the scale of a 65% concentrated market — that is a problem for the competition regulator. The CMA holds the Competition Act 1998 s. 18. Its own 2023 Cloud Market Study identified switching barriers as a primary concern. No formal enforcement has followed. This document and the nineteen analyses underpinning it constitute the two faces of the same case: clause by clause, and as a coherent system. Both are necessary for regulators to act.

Nemo supra legem est · Summum ius, summa iniuria — Cicero
Public document · CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 · Not legal advice · Amine RAITI