Welcome to the new world of risk: Microsoft cuts off services to energy company without notice
The reasons behind the move were global and complex, but for CIOs, it raises frightening new risks, where cloud or SaaS vendors can cut a company off with no warning.
You're viewing part of a thread.
There's nothing to indicate that Microsoft was legally obligated to suspend their service in this case, is my point.
They're not legally obligated to deny their services to customers who have legal disputes totally unrelated to their contract with Microsoft.
It's like getting the power company to cut your electricity because you have unpaid parking tickets - It's probabkly a great way to get parking offenders to pay what they owe, but it undermines trust in general, yes?
Of course there is an indication that Microsoft was legally obligated to suspend their service in this case:
In this instance, the cutoff was sought by the European Union (EU), in an attempt to pressure Russia to back off its assaults on Ukraine.
If they wish to operate in the EU, they have to follow some of the EU's demands.
It’s like getting the power company to cut your electricity because you have unpaid parking tickets - It’s probabkly a great way to get parking offenders to pay what they owe, but it undermines trust in general, yes?
It's more like "getting your accounts frozen because you operate in a country that has sanctions against it". Which is a totally normal thing to do. Companies cutting off other companies that operate in countries which attack other countries doesn't undermine my trust - companies continuing to operate in such countries undermines it.
Nayara were the ones operating/supplying a sanctioned country, not Microsoft, so what legal basis could the EU have against Microsoft?
I don't know why you're acting like this is such a strange thing.
Nayara supplies & operates in a sanctioned country. The EU doesn't want companies supplying companies that do so. If Microsoft wants to keep operating in the EU, they aren't allowed to keep supplying companies that do so.
"The EU doesn't want companies supplying companies that do so." <-- This is what's strange, and new.
Companies supplying companies - it's an order of magnitude beyond the targets of the sanctions.
It becomes impossible to predict which companies and services may be suddenly impacted.
I'm all for the EU sanctions against Russia, and consequences for those entities breaching them. But Microsoft didn't breach the sanctions, and should be used as a tool to punish those that do.
No, it's not new or strange. It's a normal component of sanctions, and it's fundamentally how they're implemented. Otherwise you could circumvent them by setting up two companies.
It becomes impossible to predict which companies and services may be suddenly impacted.
It's pretty easy to predict. Do you do business with a sanctioned country? Then you'll be impacted. Easy enough.
I'm all for the EU sanctions against Russia, and consequences for those entities breaching them. But Microsoft didn't breach the sanctions, and should be used as a tool to punish those that do.
Are you under the impression that Microsoft is being punished in any way? They aren't, they're simply not allowed to do business with companies acting against sanctions if they want to keep doing business in the EU.
Do you do business with a sanctioned country? Then you'll be impacted. Easy enough.
Microsoft isn't doing business with a sanctioned country in this case. That, yet again, is my point. You keep conflating Microsoft with the company actually breaching the EU sanctions.
Microsoft are absolutely being punished - they were forced to make choice between "doing business in the EU" (what exactly the EU threatened is unclear to me) or losing the contract value, plus whatever they may incur in damages though breach of contract.
Then please explain to me one simple thing - how do you implement sanctions when they can be circumvented by setting up a single company?
