Data Governance
,
Data Security
How IT Leaders Can Navigate Regulatory Complexity, Use Tech for Digital Sovereignty

The Court of Justice of the European Union in July 2020 issued a landmark ruling in the Schrems II case, invalidating the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. The decision disrupted a key mechanism for managing transatlantic exchanges of personal data for commercial purposes between the EU and the United States.
The Privacy Shield, a legal framework for commercial data transfers, had enabled thousands of organizations to operate across borders. Its invalidation exposed many of them to heightened GDPR compliance risks, forcing companies to reassess how they handle personal data flows.
For example, a European retailer relying on a U.S.-based cloud provider for customer data was fined 7 million euros – around $8.25 million – after audits revealed that its data transfers to the U.S. violated GDPR’s privacy standards. Unprepared, the CIO hurried to renegotiate vendor contracts and localize data storage, amid dealing with backlash over lost customer trust.
Schrems II demonstrated that sovereignty isn’t optional but essential. It served as a wake-up call and highlighted the importance of digital sovereignty, an ongoing challenge for IT leaders navigating the ever-changing regulatory and geopolitical landscape.
In May, the Irish Data Protection Commission issued a 530 million euros – around $625 million – fine against TikTok for illegally transferring data of European users to China. After a prolonged investigation, TikTok was found guilty of not protecting user data when it was remotely accessed by staff in China. This latest ruling marked a turning point, underscoring how violations of digital sovereignty can have geopolitical implications and far-reaching consequences for enterprise risk.
Digital sovereignty is the ability to control data, infrastructure and digital assets within a sovereign state’s borders. With various factors driving data localization laws, technology leaders face a flood of regulations to ensure compliance, security and trust.
In the Heart of Digital Sovereignty
Digital sovereignty is about independence. To keep data under the control of its owners – whether individuals, businesses or nations – it serves as a strong enabler. As Jon Collins, vice president of engagement at GigaOm, said in his blog, “Sovereignty has mattered since the advent of the nation state – defined by borders, laws and taxes that apply within and without. Digital sovereignty is a relatively new concept, also difficult to define but straightforward to understand.”
Digital sovereignty includes data sovereignty – control over where data is stored and processed; technological sovereignty – independence in digital infrastructure; and cybersecurity – protection from external threats. In the case of digital sovereignty, the stakes are high.
As of January, the cumulative total of GDPR fines is 5.88 billion euros – around $6.94 billion. Noteworthy is the fine of 1.2 billion euros – around $1.4 billion – imposed on Meta in May 2023 for personal data transfers to the U.S. without sufficiently complying with the EU regulation. Over 60 countries have enforced data localization laws as of 2025, up from 35 in 2020, according to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. For technology leaders, the challenge lies in balancing innovation with compliance in a scattered digital landscape.
In 2023, India’s Digital Personal Data Protection, or DPDP, Act came into force. Though the government is yet to notify the date of enforcement, it specifies penalties for non-compliance, with fines potentially up to approximately $30 million for serious breaches. To enforce laws, a Digital Protection Board has been constituted in the country.
These instances should resonate with IT leaders who see digital sovereignty as a strategic driver of trust, resilience and competitiveness.
The Global Regulatory Landscape
The regulatory framework for digital sovereignty is a national priority. The EU has set the pace with GDPR and GAIA-X. It prioritizes data residency and local infrastructure. China’s cybersecurity law and personal information protection law enforce strict data localization. India’s DPDP Act mandates local storage for sensitive data, aligning with its digital self-reliance vision through platforms such as Aadhaar.
Russia’s federal law No. 242-FZ requires citizen data to stay within the country for the sake of national security. Australia’s privacy act focuses on data privacy, especially for health records, and Canada’s PIPEDA encourages local storage for government data. Saudi Arabia’s personal data protection law enforces localization for sensitive sectors, and Indonesia’s personal data protection law covers all citizen-centric data. Singapore’s PDPA balances privacy with global data flows, and Brazil’s LGPD, mirroring the EU’s GDPR, mandates the protection of privacy and fundamental rights of its citizens. This global shift toward digital control demands tailored strategies from IT leaders across nations.
How Have the Tech Companies Responded?
Tech companies have little option but to comply with the growing demands of digital sovereignty. For example, Amazon Web Services has a digital sovereignty pledge, committing to “a comprehensive set of sovereignty controls and features in the cloud” without compromising performance. The AWS European sovereign cloud, launched in 2023 and expanding to Germany by 2025, ensures data stays in the jurisdiction of the EU and is operated by EU-based personnel, addressing GDPR and Schrems II concerns. AWS Nitro System prevents unauthorized access to customer data on EC2 instances, indicating its commitment to data residency.
Google Cloud vows to sovereignty with its Data Boundary. It ensures restricting data processing to the EU or U.S. and uses client-side encryption to prevent unauthorized access, even by Google itself. Its User Data Shield provides continuous security testing to validate sovereignty postures.
Microsoft’s Cloud for Sovereignty offers tools such as Azure Confidential Computing and Azure Key Vault Managed HSM. It ensures data residency and encryption control, with transparency logs. Microsoft’s German clouds meet C5 standards, and Canadian data centers support PIPEDA. Salesforce’s cloud data protection gateway tokenizes sensitive data for on-premises storage, thereby meeting GDPR and DPDPA norms.
CIOs at the Frontlines
Amid growing awareness of digital sovereignty, CIOs face a multifaceted challenge. In the government sectors, national security and public trust drive strategies. The U.S. Department of Defense, for example, uses Azure government for FedRAMP and ITAR compliance, mitigating Cloud Act risks. Canada’s treasury board secretariat mandates PIPEDA-compliant clouds via Shared Services Canada. Germany’s federal ministry of interior leverages Deutsche Telekom’s Open Telekom Cloud for GDPR and C5 compliance, keeping government data within the EU’s jurisdiction.
In the private sector, the CIO has to balance compliance with competitiveness. For example, global aerospace company Airbus uses Google Workspace’s regionalized data processing to comply with EU regulations. In 2024, a Saudi Arabia-based healthcare provider partnered with AWS to use the GSCA program, ensuring PDPL compliance for patient data. These cases show how proactive strategies can address the growing concerns of digital sovereignty and keep trust in check.
Tech executives have to navigate digital sovereignty with a blend of compliance and security, without reducing the speed of innovation. It all starts with mapping regulations and collaborating with legal and risk teams. Now that AI is a trusted tech, CIOs can use automation for data classification and life cycle management.
To uphold digital sovereignty, CIOs can focus on these strategic actions:
- Using sovereign clouds to ensure data residency;
- Implementing encryption and BYOK;
- Conducting regular audits and training;
- Partnering with local vendors to make use of regional expertise.
The Road Ahead
Besides dependency on hyperscalers and SaaS providers, digital sovereignty presents various other challenges, such as regulatory complexity and rising costs. The Schrems II ruling serves as a wake-up call for cross-border data risks.
“Data won’t look after itself,” Collins said, underlining proactive policies in a borderless digital world.