Digital Sovereignty Expert: Europe's Trust in US Hyperscalers Is Gone 2026

Digital sovereignty has moved from abstract policy talk to a boardroom-level concern, according to Andreas Prins, global director of Sovereign Solutions at SUSE. In a recent interview, Prins said the sentiment across European enterprises is now uniform: they no longer trust US hyperscalers to guarantee uninterrupted access to critical software. The trigger was the US government's order forcing Anthropic to suspend access to its most powerful models, Fable 5 and Mythos, an event that made the threat of technological dependence tangible for companies across Europe.

For years, European policymakers and business leaders had discussed digital sovereignty, resilience, and independence in theoretical terms. But the Anthropic episode changed the conversation. "The most interesting movement that emerged from this is the awareness on the part of companies," Prins said. "We often talked about sovereignty, digital resilience, and independence, but never at the level of a government effectively withdrawing software... people suddenly realized that the dependency is real."

What Happened with Anthropic's Fable 5 and Mythos

Several weeks ago, the US government ordered Anthropic to suspend access to Fable 5 and Mythos, its most advanced AI models. The suspension was later lifted, though the models returned with changes. The episode served as a wake-up call: it demonstrated that a foreign government could effectively pull the plug on software that European companies had built into their operations.

Prins, who works for one of the largest open-source infrastructure companies, noted that conversations with enterprises have shifted dramatically since the incident. Executives who previously "rushed to implement Gemini, Anthropic, or global providers like OpenAI" are now reconsidering their approach. As Prins put it, they are realizing: "I probably don't need the newest and most spectacular model" if it comes with unacceptable geopolitical risk.

Why This Matters for European Businesses

The Anthropic suspension exposed a vulnerability that many European firms had overlooked: reliance on US-based AI providers means reliance on US policy decisions. When a government can order a provider to cut off access, the continuity of business operations is no longer solely in the hands of the company or its vendor.

This realization is prompting a strategic rethink. Companies are now asking whether they can afford to depend on hyperscalers for critical functions, and whether alternative models—including open-source solutions—might offer greater control and resilience. Prins's role at SUSE, which provides enterprise-grade open-source infrastructure, positions him at the center of this shift.

The Policy Response Lags Behind the Problem

While businesses are rapidly adjusting their strategies, Prins suggests that the political response in Europe is still catching up. The interview highlights a gap between the urgency felt in the private sector and the pace of legislative action. The section of the original article, "legislación y derechos" (legislation and rights), underscores that the legal and regulatory framework for digital sovereignty remains a work in progress.

European leaders have long championed the idea of "digital sovereignty," but concrete measures to reduce dependence on foreign technology have been slow to materialize. The Anthropic incident may accelerate that process by providing a clear example of the risks involved.

Key Takeaways for Decision-Makers

• Trust in US hyperscalers has eroded after the Anthropic suspension, with European companies now viewing dependence as a real operational risk.
• Businesses are reconsidering their AI provider choices, moving away from a rush to adopt the latest models from global providers.
• Open-source infrastructure offers an alternative path to greater control and resilience, according to Prins.
• Policy responses are lagging behind the private sector's shift in sentiment, leaving a gap that companies must navigate on their own.
• The incident made an abstract threat concrete, prompting board-level discussions about digital sovereignty across Europe.

Comparing Approaches to Digital Sovereignty

The table below contrasts the traditional approach of relying on US hyperscalers with the emerging sovereign approach that emphasizes control and resilience. The background to this story is set out in UK Digital Sovereignty: Why Britain Must Break Free from US Tech. A related thread runs through AI in the Boardroom: Can Companies Make. Earlier coverage in Technology: latest articles shows how the argument developed.

What to Watch Next

As European companies reassess their technology stacks, the demand for sovereign solutions is likely to grow. Prins's observations suggest that the conversation is shifting from ideology to practicality: businesses want resilience, not just independence for its own sake. The challenge will be to build or adopt alternatives that match the performance of US hyperscalers while offering greater control. A closer look at the same subject appears in Denmark's Open Source Office Pilot Struggles With Microsoft Dependency. Anyone following the wider picture can start with 25 Tech Giants Unite to Save Open AI From Restrictive Rules. The same theme surfaces in Linus Torvalds: No Longer a Programmer, Now a People Manager, which takes a different angle.

Meanwhile, policymakers in Brussels and national capitals may face increasing pressure to create frameworks that support sovereign digital infrastructure. The Anthropic episode could serve as a catalyst for legislation that turns digital sovereignty from a slogan into a set of enforceable rights and standards. Context on how this played out before sits in Spain Pays Millions to Keep Huawei Dependence in RedIRIS. A companion piece, Digital Sovereignty Expert: Europe's Trust in US Hyperscalers Is Gone, approaches the same subject from another angle.