Technology: 5 key cloud computing concerns
In this installment of our cloud computing series, we will discuss the five issues of regulatory compliance, reliability, complexity, privacy and pricing.
September 14, 2012 at 06:24 AM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In part one of this series, we discussed the issues of security, interoperability and vendor lock-in issues in cloud computing contracts. In this installment, we will discuss the five issues of regulatory compliance, reliability, complexity, privacy and pricing.
1. Regulatory compliance
Compliance touches on many issues, depending on the industry and requirements of the customer. Compliance is an issue that, along with security and privacy, often inhibits the adoption of cloud computing. In many cases, however, these issues can be addressed with a combination of contract provisions, careful vetting of vendors, the adoption of granular security procedures and, to some extent, insurance protections. A detailed discussion of the contract issues is beyond the scope of this article because the concerns vary substantially depending on the type of business. Companies should consult counsel that is familiar with the specific regulatory requirements of the business.
Customers need to address and understand, in the contract with the cloud provider, what happens when they must respond to legal discovery or a regulatory subpoena. Like the horizontal interoperability issue, the format for the extracted data, the length of time needed to extract the data, the vendor's ability to search and cull the data and the cost of extraction are all important issues.
2. Reliability
The service level agreement (SLA) should cover reliability. Availability, bandwidth and vertical interoperability should be addressed with as much specificity as necessary. The remedies, as explained in our last column, should, if possible, to incentivize the vendor to comply with the reliability requirements.
Availability numbers can be deceiving. A guarantee of 99 percent availability actually means that the service could be out for an entire day every 100 days. Many availability provisions do not address throughput or bandwidth. The service could be up, but unacceptably slow, and still be considered “available” under the contract. Customers should also understand that there may be exceptions in the contract that do not count towards the availability or related guarantees, such as the service being down for maintenance as the result of events outside of the vendor's control. This is not to say that cloud vendors should be expected to guarantee 100 percent availability or ideal throughput all of the time, but only that both parties should understand and properly document their expectations.
3. Complexity
Complexity is a subset of interoperability and intersects with other issues such as regulatory compliance. It is often addressed through careful planning and in a meaningful and granular implementation and testing process. Like enterprise resource planning projects, cloud computing projects require a detailed understanding of the customer's workflows and the scope of work. Customers should beware of vendors promising that “we can do that” if the vendor does not take the time to understand the client's business needs. All too often, the sales promises turn into vague scope-of-work requirements in the SLA and problems during the testing and implementation phases. On the vendor's side, the customer's failure to commit the resources necessary to implement the project may also create problems. Spending time on all of these issues at the beginning of the relationship and incorporating the understandings into the contract gives the project a better chance at success.
4. Privacy
Privacy in the context of cloud computing contracts, apart from security issues, is primarily related to two types of data: personally identifiable information such as financial information (primarily names and addresses combined with social security numbers, credit card numbers or other bank account information) and personal medical information. If this type of data is relevant, the contract should cover the steps taken to protect the information, encryption, access by system administrators, procedures to report breaches and allocation of the risk of loss between parties in the event of a privacy breach. Insurance coverage may also be an issue. Note that the customer often cannot successfully transfer responsibility for privacy breaches to the vendor and will have to settle for indemnification or similar provisions.
The use of cloud services also creates issues under international privacy laws. Data centers may be located in many countries and may result in the inadvertent application of foreign privacy laws or run afoul of trade or export restrictions.
5. Pricing
Pricing is usually straightforward. (The vendor lock-in section of our previous column addressed price escalation). Most pricing issues are the same as those of other IT contracts. Customers should pay attention to the cost for training and implementation; the level of support included in the contract price; the nature and cost of extra support; the cost of enhancements; annual fees for maintenance and upgrades; travel expenses for onsite visits; and the expense of increasing processing power, data storage and bandwidth if needed.
In part one of this series, we discussed the issues of security, interoperability and vendor lock-in issues in cloud computing contracts. In this installment, we will discuss the five issues of regulatory compliance, reliability, complexity, privacy and pricing.
1. Regulatory compliance
Compliance touches on many issues, depending on the industry and requirements of the customer. Compliance is an issue that, along with security and privacy, often inhibits the adoption of cloud computing. In many cases, however, these issues can be addressed with a combination of contract provisions, careful vetting of vendors, the adoption of granular security procedures and, to some extent, insurance protections. A detailed discussion of the contract issues is beyond the scope of this article because the concerns vary substantially depending on the type of business. Companies should consult counsel that is familiar with the specific regulatory requirements of the business.
Customers need to address and understand, in the contract with the cloud provider, what happens when they must respond to legal discovery or a regulatory subpoena. Like the horizontal interoperability issue, the format for the extracted data, the length of time needed to extract the data, the vendor's ability to search and cull the data and the cost of extraction are all important issues.
2. Reliability
The service level agreement (SLA) should cover reliability. Availability, bandwidth and vertical interoperability should be addressed with as much specificity as necessary. The remedies, as explained in our last column, should, if possible, to incentivize the vendor to comply with the reliability requirements.
Availability numbers can be deceiving. A guarantee of 99 percent availability actually means that the service could be out for an entire day every 100 days. Many availability provisions do not address throughput or bandwidth. The service could be up, but unacceptably slow, and still be considered “available” under the contract. Customers should also understand that there may be exceptions in the contract that do not count towards the availability or related guarantees, such as the service being down for maintenance as the result of events outside of the vendor's control. This is not to say that cloud vendors should be expected to guarantee 100 percent availability or ideal throughput all of the time, but only that both parties should understand and properly document their expectations.
3. Complexity
Complexity is a subset of interoperability and intersects with other issues such as regulatory compliance. It is often addressed through careful planning and in a meaningful and granular implementation and testing process. Like enterprise resource planning projects, cloud computing projects require a detailed understanding of the customer's workflows and the scope of work. Customers should beware of vendors promising that “we can do that” if the vendor does not take the time to understand the client's business needs. All too often, the sales promises turn into vague scope-of-work requirements in the SLA and problems during the testing and implementation phases. On the vendor's side, the customer's failure to commit the resources necessary to implement the project may also create problems. Spending time on all of these issues at the beginning of the relationship and incorporating the understandings into the contract gives the project a better chance at success.
4. Privacy
Privacy in the context of cloud computing contracts, apart from security issues, is primarily related to two types of data: personally identifiable information such as financial information (primarily names and addresses combined with social security numbers, credit card numbers or other bank account information) and personal medical information. If this type of data is relevant, the contract should cover the steps taken to protect the information, encryption, access by system administrators, procedures to report breaches and allocation of the risk of loss between parties in the event of a privacy breach. Insurance coverage may also be an issue. Note that the customer often cannot successfully transfer responsibility for privacy breaches to the vendor and will have to settle for indemnification or similar provisions.
The use of cloud services also creates issues under international privacy laws. Data centers may be located in many countries and may result in the inadvertent application of foreign privacy laws or run afoul of trade or export restrictions.
5. Pricing
Pricing is usually straightforward. (The vendor lock-in section of our previous column addressed price escalation). Most pricing issues are the same as those of other IT contracts. Customers should pay attention to the cost for training and implementation; the level of support included in the contract price; the nature and cost of extra support; the cost of enhancements; annual fees for maintenance and upgrades; travel expenses for onsite visits; and the expense of increasing processing power, data storage and bandwidth if needed.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250