Customer scenarioIllustrative composite, not a named customer
Valta Sovereign · Legal · Mid-marketCross-border law firm
A CLOUD Act exposure closed without leaving the cloud.
The situation
A cross-border firm of 85 lawyers with high privilege sensitivity ran on a US-headquartered cloud. A CLOUD Act subpoena was served on the provider for client data, and the firm learned of it afterwards.
What forced the question
- The subpoena was served on the provider, not the firm
- Two clients moved their retainers
- Moving everything off the cloud was not affordable
What was deployed
6 of 9 fragments · any 6 rebuild the data
On-prem · 3Canadian sovereign DC · 3EU provider · 2US-headquartered cloud · 1
Site you control or sovereignCloud or outside providerCapped foreign-headquartered provider
- Restore authority
- 3 signatures
- Evidence
- Jurisdictional whitepaper for clients and counsel
“We could not afford to move off cloud, and we could not afford another CLOUD Act incident. The mathematics of the vault gave us both.”
What changed
2 + 3clientstwo returned; three new mandates cited the posture
−18%privilege-loss insurance premium
Sales assetjurisdictional whitepaper
Questions a buyer asks
What can a subpoena on the US provider produce?One fragment of the six needed. It reveals nothing.
Did the firm leave the cloud?No. The US-headquartered cloud still holds one fragment.
What if a site is lost?Any one domain can be offline and at least six fragments remain.
Who can restore?Three signatures are required.