The European Revolt
Why Breaking Up Big Tech's Monopoly Starts With Accountability
19 / 22
Something is happening in Europe that the executives of Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, and Palantir are watching very carefully. And they are worried.
Not because of fines. They can absorb fines. Not because of regulations. They can hire lobbyists and lawyers and drag compliance timelines out for years. They are worried because, for the first time in the history of the digital economy, governments are not just threatening consequences — they are quietly, systematically, walking away. And when governments walk away from a monopoly, the monopoly begins to crumble.
This chapter is about why that is happening, how far it has already gone, and why the legal action we are demanding in Spain — the investigation and prosecution of Big Tech executives for their role in enabling genocide — is not separate from this European revolt. It is the spark that could ignite it completely.
The Trust Has Already Broken
Let me start with a fact that should send a chill through every boardroom in Silicon Valley. In April 2026, France's minister for public accounts announced that France would move all government computers — the computers of 2.5 million civil servants — from Microsoft to Linux. The stated reason was not cost, though the savings are enormous. It was sovereignty. French minister David Amiel put it plainly: France "can no longer accept that our data, our infrastructure, and our strategic decisions depend on solutions whose rules, pricing, evolution, and risks we do not control." He said: "Digital sovereignty is not optional." (Source: Euronews, "France to Ditch US Platforms Microsoft Teams, Zoom for 'Sovereign Platform,'" January 2026, https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/01/27/france-to-ditch-us-platforms-microsoft-teams-zoom- for-sovereign-platform-amid-security-con)
France is not alone. Denmark's Ministry of Digital Affairs has committed to replacing Microsoft Office 365 entirely. Germany's state of Schleswig-Holstein has moved 80 percent — 30,000 workplaces — to Linux, saving over €15 million annually in licensing fees. Austria has adopted a national charter on digital sovereignty, endorsed by all 27 EU member states at a summit in late 2025. Italy, the Netherlands, and Germany collectively are migrating over 800,000 government workstations away from American platforms. (Source: Tuta, "France Ditches Microsoft for Linux to Achieve Digital Sovereignty," April 2026, https://tuta.com/blog/ countries-ditching-microsoft-choosing-linux-digital-sovereignty)
These are not symbolic gestures. They are strategic withdrawals. And they are being driven by something that goes deeper than politics or price increases — though both play a role. They are driven by a fundamental collapse of trust.
The CLOUD Act: The Fine Print That Changed Everything
The turning point came when European governments were forced to reckon with a law most of their citizens had never heard of. The U.S. CLOUD Act, passed in 2018, gives American
authorities the power to compel American companies to provide data stored anywhere in the world — including on servers physically located in Europe — without going through European courts, without notifying European governments, and often with a non-disclosure order that prevents the company from even telling the customer their data has been seized.
What this means in plain language is this: it does not matter where Microsoft, Amazon, or Google stores your data. If the U.S. government wants it, they can get it. And the company is legally prohibited from telling you.
Microsoft's own lawyer confirmed this under oath before the French Senate in June 2025. He could not guarantee that French data stored in European Microsoft data centers was safe from silent U.S. government access. (Source: Business Tech Africa, "France's Microsoft Exit — Loss of Trust and Digital Border Redraw," April 2026, https://www.businesstechafrica.co.za/technology/ 2026/04/22/frances-microsoft-exit-loss-of-trust- and-digital-border-redraw/)
This is a fundamental sovereignty problem. And GDPR — Europe's landmark data protection regulation — makes it a legal problem too. The European Court of Justice's Schrems II ruling already invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield agreement on precisely this basis: that U.S. law gave American authorities access to European personal data in ways that were incompatible with European privacy rights, and that EU citizens had no effective judicial redress.
The conflict is irreconcilable. European organizations using American cloud platforms are, in the view of multiple European data protection authorities, in ongoing structural breach of GDPR — not because of a specific incident, but because of the architecture itself. You cannot simultaneously comply with GDPR and guarantee that the U.S. government cannot access your data if your cloud provider is an American company. It cannot be done. The law does not allow it.
And here is what crystallized the danger for every European government watching: when the United States sanctioned members of the International Criminal Court for investigating Israeli war crimes, those sanctioned individuals were locked out of their Microsoft email accounts and web services. Overnight. Remotely. Without warning. A judge trying to do their job found that their ability to operate had been severed by a decision made in Washington. Germany's Schleswig-Holstein minister said directly: "The ICC case has demonstrated once more, unfortunately, how dependent institutions, governments and private companies are on proprietary systems." (Source: The Register, "Europe Gets Serious About Cutting US Digital Umbilical Cord," December 2025, https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/22/ europe_gets_serious_about_cutting/)
That was the moment when digital sovereignty stopped being theoretical. "The Executive Who Got Fired — And Why It Changes Nothing"
In mid May, 2026 — as I was completing this book — Microsoft quietly announced that Alon Haimovich, the General Manager of its Israeli subsidiary, would be leaving his position. Several other senior managers departed alongside him. The announcement carried no explanation. No apology. No acknowledgment of what had happened on his watch.
Let me tell you what happened on his watch.
For years, Israel's Unit 8200 — the military intelligence division whose alumni populate the most powerful surveillance technology companies on earth, and whose capabilities I documented in the chapter on The Code Bomb — had been using Microsoft's Azure cloud platform to store
the intercepted phone calls of millions of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. According to an investigation published by The Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Local Call in August 2025, the system was built around a specific, documented goal: to intercept and store a million Palestinian calls an hour. It was not a side project. It was not a contractor going rogue. Leaked documents revealed that Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella himself was briefed by a Unit 8200 commander in 2021 — and approved a custom, isolated partition within Azure built specifically for military surveillance purposes. (Source: Truthout, "Microsoft Ousts Head of Israeli Branch Over Use of Tech to Spy on Palestinians," May 2026, https://truthout.org/articles/microsoft-ousts-head-of-israeli-branch-over-use-of-tech-to-spy-on-pal estinians/)
By July 2025, the system held approximately 11,500 terabytes of Israeli military surveillance data — the equivalent of 200 million hours of recorded audio — stored not in Israel, but in Microsoft's data centers in the Netherlands and Ireland. Both are European Union jurisdictions. Both are subject to the General Data Protection Regulation. Both are, therefore, legally answerable to European courts. (Source: TechTimes, "Microsoft Removes Israel General Manager After Azure Stored 200 Million Hours of Palestinian Surveillance Recordings," May 2026, https:// http://www.techtimes.com/articles/316642/20260514/microsoft-removes-israel-general-manage r-after-azure-stored-200-million-hours-palestinian.htm)
When that reporting broke, Microsoft launched an internal investigation. The investigative team that arrived in Israel weeks later — according to Israeli financial daily Globes — was not there primarily out of moral concern. They were there because they were afraid. Afraid of European regulators. Afraid of GDPR enforcement. Afraid of the legal exposure created by the fact that surveillance data collected against a civilian population was being processed and stored on European soil, under European jurisdiction, by a company subject to European law. The Dutch foreign minister said publicly that if criminal offenses were indicated, legal proceedings could be initiated. Amnesty International filed formal complaints. Activists at the data center campus near Middenmeer in North Holland called on workers to stop until Israeli intelligence data was removed from the servers. (Source: Data Center Dynamics, "Microsoft Launches Investigation into Israeli Military Surveillance Agency's Use of Its Cloud Platform," March 2026, https:// http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/microsoft-launches-investigation-into-israeli-milit ary-surveillance-agencys-use-of-its-cloud-platform/)
What Microsoft's investigation found — according to Globes — was not limited to Unit 8200. Multiple Israeli Ministry of Defense units had been using Azure in ways that violated Microsoft's own terms of service. The Israeli subsidiary had not been transparent with Microsoft's headquarters. Management failures, internal reporting gaps, and a pattern of deliberate non-disclosure had created a system in which a major American corporation was processing the mass surveillance of a civilian population on European servers, without meaningful oversight, for years.
Alon Haimovich got fired.
And I want to be precise about what I mean when I say that changes nothing.
The Revolving Door Is Open
It is worth asking, when a Silicon Valley executive is terminated for enabling surveillance of a civilian population: where does he go?
He goes to Amazon Web Services. Or Google Cloud. Or to a contractor like DXC Technology — one of the largest IT services companies in the world — which manages government and military technology contracts across multiple conflict zones. Or he goes back to the Israeli Ministry of Defense, or to one of the Unit 8200 alumni startups that have seeded the global surveillance technology market for decades. Or he finds a position at Palantir, whose CEO Peter Thiel has made no secret of the company's military surveillance mission. The door between Silicon Valley and the Israeli security apparatus does not swing in one direction. It revolves.
The activist group No Azure for Apartheid put it plainly in their statement following the firing: "Microsoft has tried to quietly say goodbye to alleged war criminal Alon Haimovich, who oversaw the development of Azure tools for the Israeli military which helped accelerate the first AI-powered genocide." (Source: Truthout, May 2026) But the statement also carried a warning that the rest of the technology industry would prefer you not hear: Azure is not the only tool. "Microsoft has a footprint in all major military infrastructure in Israel. Microsoft supplies cloud, AI, computing, storage and advanced AI models to the Israeli military to be used not just by Unit 8200 but also Mamram, Ofek, and specific naval, air and ground units in the Israeli military."
Haimovich was the named executive on a structure that runs through the entire company. His departure is a human resources action. It is not accountability.
And here is where I need to say something directly to the Europeans reading this book — to anyone in the Netherlands, in Ireland, in Spain — whose national soil was used to store this surveillance data without their knowledge or consent.
Your government has the legal jurisdiction to investigate this. Not just Microsoft the corporation. The individuals who made the decisions. The executives who approved the contracts. The engineers who built the isolated partition. The managers who knew what the data contained and said nothing to European regulators. The GDPR is not a fine to be paid and forgotten. It is a legal framework with criminal enforcement provisions. The EU AI Act, now entering force, imposes accountability standards on high-risk artificial intelligence systems that go well beyond what any of these companies have voluntarily disclosed. The European Court of Justice has already ruled, in Schrems II, that the architecture of American cloud computing is structurally incompatible with European privacy rights.
The firing of one executive does not resolve a structural incompatibility. It papers over it.
This is precisely why the petition at my website — NoEthicsInBigTech.com — calls for criminal investigation and prosecution of the executives responsible, not corporate human resources processes managed by the same corporations that committed the violations. I have been told this demand is unrealistic. That corporations cannot be held criminally accountable in this way. That executives will simply deny knowledge.
Tell that to the Dutch foreign minister who said legal proceedings can be initiated. Tell that to the European data protection authorities who filed formal complaints. Tell that to the two thousand Microsoft employees who signed the internal petition demanding the company stop supplying cloud services to the Israeli military — and who watched their colleagues get fired for staging on-site protests while the executives who built the surveillance architecture were quietly separated with whatever severance package Microsoft thought appropriate.
The people who get fired for speaking out are the people who had nothing to do with it.
The people who built it are now looking for their next assignment.
That asymmetry is not an accident. It is the system working as designed. And it will keep working that way — in Microsoft, in AWS, in Google Cloud, in whatever company Alon Haimovich works for next — until someone with a badge and a courtroom treats it as the crime it is.
The Palantir Problem: Your Health Records and a Genocide
If the Microsoft situation illustrated the danger of dependency, the Palantir situation in the United Kingdom illustrated something even more alarming: what happens when a company actively complicit in documented atrocities is given access to the most intimate data of 67 million people.
In November 2023, Palantir — the same company whose AI targeting platforms operate in Gaza, whose CEO calls peace activists "war activists," whose co-founder Peter Thiel does not believe democracy and freedom are compatible — won a £330 million contract to build the NHS Federated Data Platform, a system designed to integrate and process the health records of patients across England's National Health Service. (Source: The Lowdown NHS, "Palantir, the Controversy, the Contracts and the Campaign Against the FDP," April 2026, https://lowdownnhs.info/topics/accountablility/palantir-the-controversy-the-contracts-and-the-ca mpaign/)
The backlash was immediate and it was broad. The British Medical Association raised concerns. Amnesty International UK expressed alarm. Privacy International, the Good Law Project, Corporate Watch, and a coalition of doctors, lawyers, patients, and human rights organizations launched the No Palantir in the NHS campaign. Their briefing, published by health justice charity Medact in early 2026, made the case directly: a company that provides AI-based systems used to target Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the West Bank has no business handling the sensitive health data of British patients. (Source: Medact, "Briefing: Concerns Regarding Palantir Technologies and NHS Data Systems," March 2026, https://www.medact.org/ 2026/resources/briefings/briefing-palantir-fdp/)
What did British hospital trusts do? Most of them quietly refused. According to NHS figures, fewer than a quarter of England's 215 hospital trusts were actively using Palantir's platform by the end of 2024. Leeds Teaching Hospitals told NHS England plainly that adopting Palantir's tools would mean it would "lose functionality rather than gain it." Greater Manchester's health system reported the same. By May 2025, after intense pressure and a £330 million investment, Palantir had managed to sign up fewer than a third of trusts — and UK ministers were reportedly considering triggering a break clause in the contract as early as February 2027. (Source: Democracy for Sale, "Palantir's NHS Data Platform Rejected by Most Hospitals," May 2025, https://democracyforsale.substack.com/p/palantirs-nhs-data-platform-rejected-hospitals)
This is what accountability looks like at the ground level. Not a court verdict — not yet. But a rolling institutional refusal, driven by the documented record of what this company is and what it does. The NHS revolt against Palantir is a preview of what can happen when people understand who they are doing business with.
The European Parliament Has Already Said It: Break Them Up
The European Parliament and the European Commission are not waiting for a Spanish prosecution to begin dismantling Big Tech's grip on the continent. They have already built the
legal architecture. What they need is the political will to use it fully — and a criminal accountability precedent to force the issue.
The Digital Markets Act, which came into full effect in March 2024, designated six companies as "gatekeepers" — Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft — and imposed strict obligations on them designed to prevent the abuse of dominant market position. Fines of up to 10 percent of global annual turnover can be levied for non-compliance. For repeat offenders — companies fined three times within five years — the European Commission has the power to impose structural remedies, including forced divestiture: breaking up the company. (Source: European Parliament, "EU Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act Explained," https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20211209STO19124)
In January 2025, 18 former European heads of state wrote to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen urging the Commission to pursue exactly this: a structural breaking of Big Tech monopolies across Europe's digital economy. The WeMove Europe campaign collected hundreds of thousands of signatures from citizens across the continent demanding that Google's monopoly over digital advertising be broken up, and broader action taken against Big Tech's unchecked power. European Parliamentary members — including German MEP Alexandra Geese, a key architect of the Digital Services Act — have publicly warned that "Europe risks being blackmailed by both American and Chinese tech giants." (Source: WeMove Europe, "Break Up Big Tech," https://action.wemove.eu/sign/2025-05-breakupbigtech-petition-EN/; The Register, December 2025)
By the end of 2025, the European Commission had opened or continued formal investigations into Apple, Meta, Google, and Microsoft under the DMA. The fines issued so far — €500 million for Apple, €200 million for Meta — are being described by critics as insufficient, and enforcement advocates are pushing for escalation. The framework exists. The investigations are open. What is missing is a catalyst powerful enough to transform regulatory action into structural consequence.
That catalyst is criminal prosecution.
What a Spanish Prosecution Changes
Here is the connection that the executives of these companies understand perfectly, even if they will never say so publicly.
A regulatory fine under the Digital Markets Act is a business expense. It is planned for, absorbed, appealed through courts for years, and ultimately paid from a fund that represents a rounding error on an annual earnings statement. Amazon, Google, and Microsoft have collectively paid billions in European fines and their market power has not diminished by a single percentage point. The fines are not deterrence. They are the cost of doing business.
A criminal prosecution is something entirely different. A criminal prosecution under Spain's universal jurisdiction framework, backed by an Interpol Red Notice and a European Arrest Warrant, means that the executives responsible — not the company's legal department, not a compliance officer, but the named CEOs and board members who authorized these contracts — become personally liable. Their assets in Europe become freezable. Their travel becomes restricted. Their ability to attend Davos, to accept honorary degrees from European universities, to sail their yachts in the Mediterranean, to give keynotes at conferences in Paris and Berlin —
all of it becomes legally precarious the moment a Spanish judge issues a warrant with their name on it.
And when executives become personally liable, boards change behavior. When boards change behavior, contracts get cancelled. When contracts get cancelled, the dependency that has kept European governments locked into American platforms for thirty years begins to break.
There is a reason why an estimated 97 percent of Europe's cloud infrastructure is still controlled by non-European — primarily American — providers, despite years of GDPR enforcement, despite the DMA, despite political declarations about sovereignty. (Source: TechClass, "Data Sovereignty in 2025: What EU Firms Must Know," https://www.techclass.com/resources/learning-and-development-articles/data-sovereignty-what-i t-means-for-european-businesses-in-2025) The reason is that changing infrastructure is expensive, disruptive, and politically difficult when the incumbent providers are embedded in everything — until the incumbent providers become criminal defendants. Then the political calculus changes overnight.
This is not speculation. It is the lesson of every major corporate accountability moment in history. Companies do not reform themselves through guilt. They reform when the personal cost of not reforming exceeds the institutional cost of changing. A criminal prosecution against the executives of Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, and Palantir would be the first moment in the history of Big Tech where that personal cost was real, documented, and enforceable across borders.
The Petition Is Part of This
When I started this petition — addressed to the Attorney General of Spain, the Central Courts of Instruction of the Audiencia Nacional, and the Government of Spain — I was thinking about Gaza. I was thinking about the 30,000 children who have been killed with the help of cloud infrastructure and AI targeting systems built and operated by American companies. I was thinking about the parents documented on ParentsPlea.com who have nowhere to take their grief because every institution designed to deliver justice has been either too slow, too pressured, or too corrupted by Western power to act.
But I have come to understand that this petition is also about something larger. It is about whether the European continent — which has produced the world's most sophisticated framework for digital rights and data protection — will have the courage to use that framework at its full strength against the companies that have violated it most comprehensively.
The case for Spain is the case for Europe. The prosecution of Big Tech executives in a Spanish court for their role in enabling genocide is the clearest possible signal to every European government, every hospital trust, every data protection authority, and every regulator who has been hesitating at the edge of full enforcement — that these companies are not too big to face consequences. That their executives are not too powerful to be held personally accountable. That the arc of European law, extended to its full reach, is longer than the financial resources of any corporation.
France has already said it: digital sovereignty is not optional. Germany is moving. Denmark is moving. The ICC moved after its chief prosecutor was locked out of his email by American political pressure. The momentum is real and it is accelerating.
What it needs is a legal landmark. A precedent. A moment when a Spanish judge looks at the documented record — the Project Nimbus contract, the Gospel targeting system, the Palantir data fusion platforms, the Lavender kill lists — and concludes that the executives who authorized these tools to be used in the service of documented atrocity must answer for it in a court of law.
That moment does not happen on its own. It happens because enough people demanded it. It happens because a petition with enough signatures gave the Spanish Prosecutor's Office the political cover to act. It happens because the documentation in this book — and in the hands of human rights lawyers and accountability organizations around the world — made inaction impossible to justify.
The petition is live. The signatures matter. The case is built. Now it needs the people who understand what is at stake to make their voice heard in the only language that courts recognize: a documented, public, and growing demand for justice.
Sign it. Share it. Tell every person you know in Europe — in France, in Germany, in Spain, in the UK — that this petition is not only about Gaza. It is about whether they want to live in a world where the companies that hold their health records, their emails, their government data, and their children's information are the same companies that helped build a mass assassination factory.
Because that is the world we are living in right now. And it is the world we have the tools, the law, and the moral obligation to change.
--- The European revolt and the Spanish petition both operate at the level of institutions — courts, parliaments, regulatory bodies. But the foundation on which all institutional accountability rests is something more basic: a record. Names. Dates. Causes of death. Family testimony. ParentsPlea.com is that record. Chapter Sixteen is about what it is, how it was built, and why the powerful fear a database of the dead more than they fear a fine.