UK companies are heavily reliant on US technology services
The numbers speak for themselves, 88% of publicly listed companies in the UK rely on US-owned email providers. These aren’t peripheral tools. These are systems running essential communications, handling sensitive company data, and controlling user access and authentication at scale. That kind of exposure is a major strategic risk.
When critical infrastructure like email comes under foreign control, you lose options. You inherit regulations, policies, and external dependencies you didn’t choose. You lose leverage. Dependence makes it harder to pivot when geopolitical risks, supply chain disruptions, or vendor decisions outside your control land on your doorstep. And while email may be the example here, it’s indicative of a larger pattern, where major business functions are managed far outside local jurisdictions.
This isn’t about nationalism or isolationism. It’s about execution, control, and long-term strategy. The question isn’t whether US tech works. It’s whether your company should tie foundational systems to providers you can’t influence, in an ecosystem that doesn’t prioritize your operational reality.
According to Proton’s research, high levels of dependence are also seen across Ireland (93%), Portugal (72%), Spain (74%), and France (66%). The UK may not be an outlier, but that doesn’t make the status quo acceptable.
Critical UK sectors face extreme exposure to US tech dependence
These aren’t just companies. They’re sectors you can’t afford to have fail, banking, telecom, utilities, transport, energy. Proton’s study shows 95% of publicly listed companies in UK banking and telecom rely on US technology platforms. That number is 89% for utilities, 88% for transport, and 83% for energy.
Let’s look at what this means for continuity and resilience. If a regulator in another country introduces tighter restrictions, or if a provider decides to restructure or pull back services, you don’t get advance notice. You don’t get a vote. You just react. That’s the problem. The same platforms that enable communication and authentication at every layer of your business could turn into blackout switches if geopolitical pressure heats up or provider strategies shift.
This is less about where the provider is based and more about how much control you actually have over your own systems. C-suite leaders must demand optionality. You need fallback plans, alternate vendors, and ideally, some form of domestic capability. Otherwise, your most sensitive operations will always remain at the discretion of third parties operating under different rules of engagement.
You wouldn’t let foreign policy dictate your balance sheet. Don’t let it dictate your infrastructure either. Your company needs agility, not dependency masked as convenience.
The UK technology industry itself exhibits significant dependency on US digital platforms
The UK’s tech sector isn’t small, it’s worth $1.1 trillion and ranks third globally. But behind that headline is a quieter reality. According to Proton’s research, 94% of UK-listed software and services companies are using US-based tech platforms. For hardware companies, that figure is 82%. This isn’t limited to startups or early-stage firms. These are established players that form the backbone of the UK’s digital economy.
Here’s the problem. When your infrastructure, communication, data handling, and storage are all locked into external systems, it becomes harder to build independent capability. You keep paying into someone else’s ecosystem. You fund another country’s R&D. And over time, domestic tech talent or potential platform builders shift focus, not because of merit or quality, but because the industry’s foundation is foreign-owned.
Innovation slows when you stop owning your environment. You can’t reinvent processes or re-architect systems without negotiating your way through external APIs, compliance restrictions, and licensing. You depend on availability, pricing, and terms set by providers whose strategies don’t account for your market.
This is about ensuring the core tech platforms your companies depend on are ones you understand, influence, and, when necessary, can rebuild or redirect. The UK can’t scale globally if its strongest tech firms can’t even control their own stack.
Executives and board members should be asking hard questions here. Not about saving costs, but about regaining leverage. If your fastest-growing sector is structurally dependent on foreign tech, the ceiling for growth and autonomy is clearly defined, and it’s not set by you.
Europe’s over-reliance on foreign technological solutions exposes the continent to risks
This isn’t just a UK issue, it’s a European one. Across major markets, organizations continue to default to US technology providers for critical functions, often without evaluating long-term consequences. This choice, repeated at scale, has created what Proton’s report calls a “dangerously over-reliant” posture across the continent.
When you don’t own core systems, communications, identity management, infrastructure, you don’t control the data flows. You don’t decide how your business works at scale. You can’t guarantee uptime during geopolitical tension or protect strategic information from third-party mandates. The illusion of operational freedom hides a real lack of strategic control.
This is especially relevant in an era where data protection, compliance, and sovereignty are becoming priority issues for regulators. If your operations depend on platforms governed by foreign laws, you’re exposed to compliance risks that are outside your legal or commercial control.
For C-suite leaders, this is about ensuring the direction of your business isn’t tied to policies written elsewhere. Strategic autonomy must be built intentionally. It requires investment, local talent development, and clear-eyed thinking about what infrastructure you should own versus what can be outsourced.
Europe must stop reacting to tech landscapes built elsewhere and start defining its own. That requires deliberate discomfort, a shift in procurement habits, in boardroom conversations, and in how risk is measured. But without that shift, Europe’s businesses will never lead with full agency over their digital future.
The centralized reliance on a few US technology providers introduces risks to business continuity and national security
When the majority of essential infrastructure is run through a small circle of foreign vendors, you create exposure at a fundamental level. There are no guarantees of continuity when your business systems depend on external jurisdictions, commercial strategies, or politics you don’t control. Proton’s research calls this a single point of failure, but it’s more than that. It’s structural risk built into your operating model.
If email services go down, if access to core systems is interrupted, or if policy shifts make compliance impossible, response time becomes reaction time. This affects incident recovery, regulatory reporting, and even basic customer and employee communication. It disrupts not just departments but entire value chains.
This is especially dangerous for C-level leaders overseeing industries with compliance obligations or physical infrastructure, finance, defense, transportation, energy. You can’t protect assets or maintain service levels when you’re unsure who ultimately holds the switch. Cyber threats and service disruptions no longer start and end in IT. They now belong in the boardroom discussion about resilience and national competitiveness.
Avoiding this type of exposure means rethinking platform strategy. This doesn’t mean replacing everything overnight. But it does mean evaluating which platforms, dependencies, and vendors align with your long-term business continuity goals, and which don’t. If your entire company stalls because one system you don’t directly manage fails, that’s a strategy flaw.
Proton emphasizes email infrastructure here because it’s universal, but the principle applies across systems. The more centralized your dependencies, the more vulnerable your operations become in the face of unexpected disruption.
There is a pressing need for a policy shift toward local and open-source technology solutions under a “Europe first” strategy
Proton’s report doesn’t stop at describing the problem, it delivers a clear message. Europe needs to shift course. The recommendation is to adopt a “Europe First” approach to digital infrastructure. That means prioritizing local development, investing in open-source alternatives, and building systems that reflect European values, regulations, and economic interests.
For business leaders, this is an opportunity, not a constraint. An open-source model creates transparency and independence. Domestic systems create jobs, retain intellectual property, and ensure compliance by design, not by exception. There’s also greater alignment with European data protection frameworks, which are increasingly at odds with practices from outside jurisdictions.
This is pragmatic decision-making to strengthen digital sovereignty, reduce exposure, and stimulate regional innovation capability. Companies gain control over their ecosystems, product direction, and data endpoints. Governments reduce legal grey zones and improve cybersecurity posture. Most importantly, businesses of all sizes get a foundation they can trust to scale without foreign dependencies introducing delay or legal uncertainty.
Proton indicates this research is just the beginning. Email infrastructure is the first case study, but other dependencies are being reviewed and will be reported in the future. That’s the right move. Mapping the full landscape of risk is essential for executing a realistic transition toward locally anchored infrastructure.
For European executives, this is a crucial inflection point. Continued inaction compounds exposure. A focused shift toward a stronger, more independent digital infrastructure won’t be easy, but it’s necessary if Europe wants to compete, innovate, and lead under its own terms.
Key executive takeaways
- Widespread dependency on US platforms: 88% of publicly listed UK firms run critical systems like email on US-owned providers. Leaders should assess infrastructure risk exposure and consider transitioning core functions to platforms under local or EU jurisdiction.
- Core sectors face systemic vulnerability: High-reliance sectors like banking (95%), telecom (95%), and utilities (89%) have little operational flexibility. C-suite leaders in these industries must prioritize tech diversification to maintain resilience.
- UK’s own tech industry lacks infrastructure independence: Despite a $1.1 trillion valuation, 94% of software firms and 82% of hardware firms in the UK depend on US platforms. To protect long-term innovation and reinvestment, executives should target critical system autonomy.
- Europe’s digital sovereignty is at risk: Decades of defaulting to foreign tech procurement have weakened European control over critical infrastructure and data. Decision-makers must reshape tech strategy to anchor innovation and compliance within regional ecosystems.
- Single points of failure threaten operations: Centralized control of essential services like email creates unacceptable risk during outages or geopolitical events. Boards should mandate continuity planning and vendor redundancy to mitigate this systemic fragility.
- A Europe-first tech policy is now essential: Investing in local or open-source solutions gives organizations greater control, reduces legal exposure, and strengthens economic independence. Leaders should push for procurement strategies that align with sovereignty, security, and growth.
