Is the fix as easy as that Akamai creating a subsidiary in the EU?
I am in the EU and use AWS a lot, but I am not a customer of Amazon Inc. Instead, it sees this on the bill as who is the seller: "Amazon Web Services EMEA SARL, 38 avenue John F. Kennedy, L-1855 Luxembourg".
So for example if in EU is forbidden to store information without consent the local branch cannot do that on EU servers.
I don't know the details, but I'm sure Microsoft considered whether it would be enough to just stick a "Microsoft Deutschland GmbH" label on it.
This is why at some point (I am not sure if this is still the case), the Azure cloud in Germany was fully owned and operated by Deutsche Telekom. Microsoft was basically providing software, consulting and brand. This way, it was legally not possible for Microsoft to access the data.
Of course then the infrastructure and control must be fully separated, which might be why MSFT did the deal you're talking about.
Who is the "this" you're referring to? The US has forced this distinction into existence via the CLOUD Act, which applies to US-owned companies operating abroad.
The EU ought to deal with this fait accompli, and if that means reducing US companies' ability to operate in the EU as if they were in their home country, so be it. They can complain to their government about it.
Was the data put there by Amazon Inc and retrievable by Amazon Inc?
If so then yes, Amazon Inc can be ordered by the US government to retrieve it.
If not, then the US government would have to ask the subsidiary directly for it or ask whoever is using the subsidiary to hold the data. How whoever they ask responds to that would be determined by the law of wherever the responder is incorporated or located.
There's nothing really special about the cloud in these matters. It works similarly with data stored on paper. If I am in the US and store my papers in a box that I send to a storage company in the US to hold for me the US government could (1) subpoena the documents from me, and I'd have to retrieve them from the storage company and give copies to the US government, or (2) get a search warrant to grab the documents themselves from the storage company.
If instead I pick a storage company that is incorporated and located in another country that eliminates the search warrant option because US search warrants don't apply in that other country.
It doesn't affect the subpoena option because the subpoena is not asking the non-US storage company to do anything. It is just asking a US entity (me) to turn over documents I legally control.
The article has "Importantly, the Wiesbaden court appeared to accept that Akamai may have stored Cookiebot data on EU servers, and not in the U.S., which suggests Cookiebot’s agreement is with Akamai’s German affiliate."