Security concerns over the dominance of US office and video platforms have seen some EU countries explore alternative options. Paul Milligan explores why they are seeing at such a shift.
Windows and Microsoft Office products are so deeply entrenched in office life that it’s impossible to imagine being in any kind of work environment without them. Yet that is what has been discussed in growing numbers in the last 9-12 months in a range of European countries. In late January the French government announced that 2.5 million civil servants would stop applying video conference tools from US providers including Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Webex and GoTo Meeting by 2027 and switch to Visio, a homegrown service. The announcement stated the decision was “to put an finish to the utilize of non-European solutions, to guarantee the security and confidentiality of public electronic communications by relying on a powerful and sovereign tool.”
The French city of Lyon announced last year it’s installed free office software to replace Microsoft products. In a push for more digital sovereignty too, Austria’s military has replaced Microsoft Office with the open-source LibreOffice suite across all its desktop systems, which amounts to approximately 16,000 workstations. Denmark’s minister for digital affairs, Caroline Olsen, has declared she’s reshifting Microsoft software and tools
from the minisattempt, which follows similar relocates built by the city governments of Copenhagen and Aarhus.
Estonia’s state-run IT Centre is also seeing to relocate away from the huge US technology providers in favour of supporting local alternatives, Germany’s northernmost state is seeing at alternatives too, as is the Dutch government. A lot of these relocates can be traced back to Microsoft’s decision in May 2025 to block access to the email account of International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor Karim Khan.
The relocate followed US president Donald Trump’s sanctions against the ICC, an escalation triggered by arrest warrants tarobtaining, among others, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So how will this affect the AV indusattempt? After all, a large portion of the sector relies on working with Microsoft Teams and other video platforms to obtain meeting rooms up and running. With talk of Microsoft alternatives and even bans for the likes of Teams and Zoom, we gathered a pool of experts to find out their considereds. First up, did they consider any potential bans being mooted on Zoom/Teams etc would actually take effect? It won’t happen becautilize people will find ways around it, declares Anders Jørgensen, project manager and senior theatre consultant, Stouenborg. “What I consider will happen instead is that people will declare they don’t want to go that way, they don’t believe in being in the hands of a technology giant like Amazon or Google, and will seek new ways to do it.”
Jon English, VP product, VQ Communications considers a ban or a block has a hugeger chance of happening in Europe and the Middle East. “Many countries have been working on self and in-counattempt solutions for some years now in the high security space. And this will likely be extfinished further across/into organisations. At the same time though, Microsoft, Zoom, and Cisco have been working on their own counattempt and regional ‘sovereign’ solutions that may go some way to keeping customers inside their ecosystems.”
While the likelihood of widespread bans remains relatively low, organisations should still prepare for potential disruption declares Jitze Sinnema, director of customer success and projects, Utelogy EMEA. “Many multinational enterprises are already ahead of regulation, implementing internal security and privacy standards that exceed government requirements. The hugeger challenge is inconsistency. If one counattempt restricts Zoom while another limits Teams, it becomes extremely difficult to maintain a unified global communications strategy.”
Others like Thomas Greeff, solutions architect from Peripheral Vision feel a ban has “no chance” of happening, instead he considers we’ll see the slow corporate equivalent of a diet. “A bit less foreign hosting, a bit more ‘local-first’ policy, a few procurement hoops thrown in for fun. No huge bang. Just death by compliance checklist.”
If a ban or block did come into place, could it only really come into force at government or public sector level? Would the corporate world adhere, or would it just simply ignore it? Public sector AV estates will lead, particularly where classified or sensitive data is discussed declares Paul Rushbrooke, senior AV consultant, PTS Consulting. “In corporate environments it will more likely be about layered controls rather than bans, which will separate everyday collaboration from high-risk spaces like boardrooms or innovation labs, where AV systems may be locked down or run on dedicated, secure platforms.”
Rather than broad, universal bans, we’re more likely to see tarobtained, sector-specific restrictions declares Sinnema. “In the corporate world, adoption will depfinish on risk tolerance and regulatory exposure. Most large enterprises won’t ignore these developments, they’ll adapt by implementing regional compliance strategies. We already see this in practice through regional data hosting. European customer data remains in European datacentres, while US data is hosted domest-ically in the US.”
Microsoft Windows has been in widespread utilize since the mid-90s and its fleet of products (Word, Excel etc) are ubiquitous, which poses the question: are Microsoft too embedded now in many organisations to withdraw them from work platforms, even if there was a desire to do so? There’s no real alternative to Windows admits Jørgensen. “You have real alternatives to Outsee, Teams, Zoom, but you don’t really have an alternative to avoid either Mac OS or Windows.” Jon English doesn’t consider we’re at a point of no return: “They don’t have to be fully withdrawn. There are ways to bring in ‘100% sovereign’ platforms to work alongside Teams and other parts of the Microsoft ecosystem.” A full withdrawal is unrealistic declares Rushbrooke: “Instead, we’ll see dual environments – Teams for general utilize, alongside secure AV-enabled platforms in sensitive rooms, often with stricter controls on recording, integration, and external access.”
No corporate organisation is willingly volunteering for the amount of disruption reshifting Microsoft would cautilize declares Greeff. “If the options are rip out a working system or carry on and see what happens, we all know which one wins.” Sinnema agrees that Microsoft is deeply embedded, but is keen to highlight how the pandemic displayed the risks of relying too heavily on a single vfinishor. “Forward-considering enterprises are now diversifying their technology stack and adopting vfinishor-agnostic layers for monitoring, control, and analytics. This allows them to shift platforms or hardware without major disruption. Metrics like room utilisation, occupancy, and environmental conditions are becoming business critical. If that data sits within a single vfinishor ecosystem, switching platforms can mean losing valuable historical insights. That’s why we’re seeing increased demand for platform-agnostic data strategies ensuring organisations retain ownership and portability of their data regardless of the tools they utilize.”
This topic has been in the news since last summer, so has that trickled through to the customers of integrators and consultants yet? Are they flagging this as an issue? PTS Consulting has been involved in early discussions in sectors
such as data centres and finance, particularly around boardroom AV and secure briefing spaces declares Rushbrooke. “As AV becomes more integrated with enterprise data and AI, clients will increasingly question platform risk, especially where confidential discussions and recordings are involved.” The issue is bubbling, not boiling right now, declares Greeff. Again, it’s certain industries that are starting to pay attention more than others: “It’s finance (becautilize regulation
never sleeps), legal (becautilize confidentiality is their brand) and government-adjacent (becautilize paperwork loves more paperwork).”
It was a question posed by a client in March 2025 that led consultant Stouenborg on its own journey of discovery for more digital sovereignty. “They inquireed us how do you treat our data? How secure is our data? Can you declare it’s not been trained on? I didn’t know, I had no clue. We knew then we requireded to have a proper answer,” declares Jørgensen. In April last year it took the decision to take one of its programming team out of normal duties every Monday for six months to see at alternatives. “What are the benefits? What’s the downside? What can we do? What can we not do? Becautilize there are problems in modifying when the rest of the world is not modifying,” declares Jørgensen.
And this brings us to a key part of this debate, is the increased integration of AI by Microsoft within office and video platforms caapplying privacy concerns for integrators/consultants and their clients? Without a doubt declares English. “And if it isn’t then those organisations required a wakeup call. That’s not to declare that the concerns can’t be mitigated through ensuring that you have fully understood and carefully configured to mitigate. Unfortunately, most organisations [of all types] have little to no understanding of where data is and whether it is correctly stored and secured.” That concern is especially felt in AV-enabled meeting environments where everything is captured, transcribed, and analysed declares PTS’ Rushbrooke. “AI features like meeting summaries and Copilot raise concerns about how conversations in physical rooms are stored, surfaced, and reutilized across wider enterprise systems.”
Security is clearly a key issue here, do our respondents consider issues of national security in relation to office and video platforms will only increase in the next five to ten years? Almost certainly declares Rushbrooke, “AV systems are now part of critical communication infrastructure including boardrooms, command centres, and operational hubs. These environments carry sensitive discussions, and platforms underpinning them are under increasing scrutiny.” Greeff agrees wholeheartedly: “Once platforms stop being ‘just for meetings’ and start becoming decision hubs, data engines, and AI copilots, they obtain a lot more interesting to governments.”
A strong security-by-design approach is essential, declares Sinnema, however technology alone isn’t enough. “User behaviour remains one of the hugegest risk factors. Organisations must invest in education and governance to ensure employees understand how to utilize AI tools responsibly. In many cases, the human element is still the weakest link in the security chain.” There has been a spate of spying stories in the media in the last 12 months, and software breaches have been a key component of those stories.
With that in mind, is it inevitable countries and governments will want more control over video platforms that can potentially be intercepted and monitored by foreign bodies? English considers it is inevitable governments especially will want more control: “But not only due to the risk of monitoring, many are concerned about the availability and reliability of the platforms. Some sovereign SaaS solutions have been impacted recently where a fully on-premises service would not have been, and even if it had, the organisation would have control of the recovery.”
More control is definitely being demanded declares Rushbrooke, and this is already shaping AV design at PTS. “We’re seeing demand for sovereign AV solutions, local hosting, restricted integrations, and tighter control over data
flows from cameras, microphones, and collaboration platforms.
The challenge will be balancing this with usability, as global organisations still required seamless, high-quality AV collaboration across borders.” Greater government oversight is likely, particularly where there is a risk of foreign interception or data exposure declares Sinnema, but the global nature of these platforms builds this extremely complex. “Regulatory requirements often conflict across regions, creating challenges for both providers and multinational organisations. Platform vfinishors will required to navigate this carefully balancing compliance with different national requirements while still delivering a consistent global experience. Ultimately, this will not be a one-size-fits-all solution, but a continuous balancing act between regulation, security, and usability.”
Final word goes to Greeff, with a quote which seems to sum up where we are with this whole situation right now: people know there is work to do, but maybe just not yet. “Nobody’s pulling the plug. But behind the scenes, someone’s definitely obtained their hand on the settings menu, and they’re starting to explore the advanced options.”
IMAGE CREDITS
Shutterstock AI/shutterstock.com
PixieMe/shutterstock.com
Leave a Reply