The EU Data Act has applied since 12 September 2025. For cloud and other data-processing services, an important cost rule changes on 12 January 2027: providers must no longer impose switching charges on customers for the switching process. Until then, reduced switching charges may not exceed the provider’s costs directly linked to that process.
That still leaves a cloud exit in 2027 with plenty of costs attached. Standard service fees, the consequences of ending a contract early, your own migration work, running two platforms in parallel, re-architecture and the destination service are all separate cost blocks. FinOps and procurement should start pulling them apart now, rather than filing every amount under “egress fees”.
What actually goes away in 2027
Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 phases out switching charges imposed by the source provider for the switching process. The regulation distinguishes those charges from standard service fees and early-termination penalties.
| Cost block | Position from 12 January 2027 | Evidence to review |
|---|---|---|
| Source-provider switching charge | Must not be imposed for the switching process | Contract, price list, and final invoice |
| Normal usage during transition | Remains a standard service fee | Usage data and transition schedule |
| Early termination | Is not automatically removed by Article 29 | Termination and commitment clauses |
| Customer migration programme | Remains the customer’s cost | Delivery plan, internal work, and supplier quotes |
| Destination platform and re-architecture | Remain part of the business case | Target architecture and target rates |
| Parallel running | Remains real duplicate consumption | Cutover plan and technical dependencies |
Getting this classification right is most of the FinOps work. Skip it, and there is no way to check later whether a fee was booked correctly, or whether the migration paid off the way the business case said it would.
Review the contract before the invoice
The Data Act sets rules for contract terms, switching assistance and the information providers must give. Whether and how they apply to a particular service and agreement is for your lawyers to answer. The cost analysis cannot wait for that, though, so FinOps and procurement need a structured inventory in the meantime.
Record at least these fields for each agreement:
- service and contracting entity;
- contract end, notice period, and maximum transition period;
- standard service fees during transition;
- stated switching charges and their calculation basis;
- commitments, minimum spend, and early termination;
- exportable data and digital assets;
- promised assistance and accountable contact;
- link to the provider’s current information and review date.
An internal cost-centre label is not enough to call something a switching charge. Where a line is disputed, ask legal or procurement to check it against the agreement and the regulation.
Model exit as a separate cost scenario
An exit case becomes useful once it compares three scenarios over the same functional scope and the same period:
- Continue: current architecture, commitments, and forecast usage.
- Switch: source usage, overlap, migration, destination usage, and residual obligations.
- Renegotiate: continue with revised commercial terms or architecture.
Keep one-off costs apart from the run rate. The target platform may be cheaper to operate and still take a while to earn back the migration and any stranded commitments. The reverse happens too: a team may accept a higher run rate in exchange for lower risk or better portability. That is a legitimate choice, as long as it is written down as a decision and not presented as a saving.
| Model field | What it contains |
|---|---|
| Evaluation period | One common period for all scenarios |
| Source cost | Usage, support, and normal fees until exit |
| Switching charges | Only provider charges directly attributed to the switching process |
| Customer programme | Engineering, data validation, testing, security, and programme work |
| Parallel run | Duplicate usage, support, and licences |
| Residual commitments | Minimum spend or discounts that continue after usage moves |
| Destination cost | Usage, support, operations, and new commitments |
| Uncertainty | Named assumptions with owners, not an arbitrary percentage |
Set measurement points before cutover
Without a baseline, every cost change after the migration turns into a debate. Close at least one full billing period before the work starts, and keep:
- service quantities and the cost definition used;
- actual, amortized, and effective cost where relevant;
- discounts used and commitments still open;
- data volume and flows that must be exported;
- operating work removed or added in the target;
- performance and availability requirements used for comparison.
Agree, too, on when the switch counts as finished. Article 25 generally sets a maximum transitional period of 30 calendar days, with an alternative period in specified circumstances. That legal clock is not the same thing as the overlap engineering needs for a safe cutover, and it is easy to mix the two up. Have legal and engineering lay both timelines side by side.
Reconcile the final invoices
After cutover, finance needs to look at more than the first bill from the new provider. Reconcile four things:
- The final source bill against usage and contract end.
- Any switching charge against the agreement and applicable date.
- Residual commitments against the exposure recorded before the move.
- The first destination bill against the approved target architecture and prices.
Give every variance an owner and a class: quantity, price, architecture, timing, one-off migration, or unresolved. That way the switch stays visible as a switch in the monthly report instead of blending into ordinary cost movement.
What teams should complete in 2026
- Inventory contracts and provider disclosures.
- Separate switching charges from normal usage and termination costs.
- Expose commitments that run beyond January 2027.
- Test exportable data, formats, interfaces, and dependencies.
- Rehearse a limited, representative exit.
- Define the baseline, cutover evidence, and final reconciliation.
- Assign legal interpretation to legal and disputed charges to procurement.
None of this is an argument for switching providers in a hurry. It gives you an exit model someone else can review, with price, contract and technical delivery kept apart.
A move into a separate sovereign partition raises the same comparability questions; see AWS European Sovereign Cloud: the cost questions before a migration. Before and after cutover, cost reports grouped by account and service keep the two periods side by side.
Sources and review boundary
The primary source is Regulation (EU) 2023/2854, especially Chapter VI and Article 29, reviewed on 6 September 2026. This article provides a cost and evidence framework, not legal advice. Applicability, contract interpretation, and disputes require qualified legal review.