In recent months, the political discourse surrounding digital infrastructure has intensified significantly. The focus is no longer limited to legal compliance, but increasingly centers on the question of how dependent Europe remains on foreign cloud and data infrastructures. European decision-makers now regard digital sovereignty as a strategic priority and warn of the risks posed by large external providers whose services and infrastructure may effectively be subject to foreign legal jurisdictions. At the same time, political voices are calling for a reduction in technological and economic dependence on the United States and China in order to strengthen Europe’s digital autonomy.
What can actually happen? Concrete risk scenarios
Dependence on foreign digital infrastructure creates tangible operational and strategic risks:
- Service restrictions or disruptions
Geopolitical tensions, trade conflicts, or regulatory disputes may lead to service limitations or suspension. - Reduced functionality or forced technical adjustments
Providers may need to adapt services to comply with foreign laws, potentially limiting features in certain regions. - Legal disclosure obligations
Providers can be compelled to grant government access to data under foreign legislation. - Pricing or contractual changes
Economic or political shifts can result in altered contract terms or cost structures. - Planning uncertainty
Long-term data and analytics strategies become vulnerable to external legal and political developments.
Once these risks are understood, the structural issue becomes clearer.
Jurisdiction overrides server location
A physical server location within the EU does not automatically guarantee that data is truly under European control. What ultimately matters is the legal system to which the respective provider is subject and which statutory access powers apply.
A prominent example is the US CLOUD Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act). This federal law, enacted in 2018, allows US authorities to request electronic data from service providers based in the United States, even if that data is physically stored outside the US. In practice, legal jurisdiction therefore often follows the provider and its legal incorporation rather than the server’s physical location.
In concrete terms, this means that a European or global provider with a US subsidiary or branch office may, under certain conditions, be required to disclose data even if it is stored on servers in Frankfurt, Paris, or Dublin. This mechanism shifts the key question from “Where is the data stored?” to “Under which legal system does it fall?”
Across Europe, this dynamic is increasingly perceived as a strategic challenge. Policymakers and IT leaders are grappling with how digital infrastructure can be designed in a way that ensures sovereignty and legal consistency. The CLOUD Act stands in direct tension with European approaches to digital sovereignty because, unlike the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it enables data access irrespective of geographic storage location.
Regulatory volatility as a permanent condition
Even though transatlantic data transfer frameworks such as the EU–US Data Privacy Framework are currently in place, recent developments demonstrate how unstable and contested the legal foundation for data flows between Europe and the United States remains. Structural uncertainties are no longer theoretical concerns but a practical reality for companies that depend on robust, long-term, and predictable data strategies.
The legal basis for data transfers to the US rests on an adequacy decision by the European Commission under the EU–US Data Privacy Framework, which was also confirmed in September 2025 by a ruling of the General Court of the European Union. This judgment places transatlantic data flows, for the time being, on a formal legal footing. At the same time, however, it is clear that the framework continues to face significant political and legal scrutiny. Legal proceedings are already pending, and critical voices are calling for a reassessment before the Court of Justice of the European Union, expressing doubts about the adequacy of protection in light of US surveillance laws.
This situation reflects ongoing regulatory uncertainty. Following the Schrems II judgment, the legal framework for international data transfers has changed several times, without producing a stable and enduring solution. Companies are therefore required not only to comply with current requirements but also to continuously reassess how case law, political developments, and international agreements evolve over time.
Against this backdrop, it becomes evident that purely legal mechanisms such as adequacy decisions or standard contractual clauses may formally enable data transfers, but they do not replace lasting legal and strategic stability for organizations that rely on consistent and risk-minimized data infrastructure.
Governance and data sovereignty: Who actually controls the data?
Data sovereignty does not end at the physical server location. What ultimately matters is which legal system a provider is subject to, who has organizational access to the data, and which authority decides, in cases of doubt, on disclosure or restriction.
International tracking architectures are often highly fragmented. Data is transmitted in parallel to multiple platforms, cloud services, and marketing tools. This creates not only technical but also structural dependencies. Each additional transfer increases the number of involved actors—and therefore the number of potential access points.
A sovereign data architecture follows a different approach:
Data is first collected centrally, processed in a controlled manner, and only then forwarded to downstream systems based on defined rules. The governing instance remains within a consistent legal framework.
Data protection as an architectural principle rather than an afterthought
European server-side tracking solutions are increasingly based on an architectural approach in which data protection is not added retroactively but embedded directly into the technical design.
This includes, among other aspects:
- the separation of identification data and usage data
- transparent and traceable data flows
- the consideration of user consent already at the processing level
What matters less is any single feature and more the underlying architectural principle: data is processed in a controlled environment before it reaches external systems.
As a result, the focus shifts from pure compliance toward structural risk minimization.
Technical safeguarding of sensitive data
In practice, this is implemented through technical mechanisms that reduce personal identifiability and restrict access. These include methods such as pseudonymization or anonymization, encrypted transmission channels, and clearly defined access rights.
Particularly with regard to highly sensitive data, it is crucial that such information is not collected unnecessarily or passed on without control in the first place. Technical architecture thus becomes an instrument of governance.
Architectures such as the patented JENTIS Twin Server Technology follow precisely this principle: data collection and data forwarding are separated, and sensitive information can be processed in a controlled manner or removed before being transferred to third-party systems.
This creates a balance:
Data remains usable for analytics and marketing purposes without relinquishing control over it.
Operational reality: Complexity instead of clarity
Even where international data transfers are legally permissible, they often entail significant operational overhead in practice. Each additional transfer increases requirements for documentation, risk assessments, consent management, and internal coordination processes. Particularly in complex tracking and monetization setups, this added complexity can evolve into a structural risk.
Processing data within the EU significantly reduces these dependencies and simplifies processes, without the need for continuous new legal assessments or transfer mechanisms.
Strategic perspective: Data sovereignty as a stable foundation
Even if international data transfers may be lawful, the processing and storage of data within the EU remains the most reliable and future-proof option.
A Europe-based provider for server-side tracking offers structural advantages that go beyond mere compliance considerations. Within the landscape of European server-side tracking solutions, JENTIS distinguishes itself by combining several core requirements into a consistent and integrated approach. The focus is less on individual features such as Essential Mode, anonymization, or pseudonymization, and more on the underlying architectural and governance model:
- European legal framework: Corporate headquarters, hosting, and data processing are carried out entirely within the EU, thereby avoiding extraterritorial access.
- Centralized data sovereignty: Data is managed through a central control instance rather than being fragmented across multiple third-party providers, increasing transparency and control.
- Privacy by Design: Data protection is firmly embedded in the technical architecture, particularly in its interaction with consent management systems.
- Separated data logic: Data is first collected and processed in a controlled environment and only then forwarded to downstream tools based on defined rules.
- Long-term stability: The European legal framework provides planning certainty for sustainable first-party data and analytics strategies.
Taken together, this approach addresses both legal and operational requirements while reducing the structural dependencies that frequently arise in internationally oriented tracking setups.
.webp)
_compressed.webp)
