Yup.
Microsoft pledged not to intervene like that again, reclassifying its legal interpretation of its own services, and added language to its contracts to guarantee that it would fight future US attempts to do so:
https://www.politico.eu/article/microsoft-did-not-cut-servic...
When the US manages to force Microsoft to do something, it responds by trying to protect itself from the same scenario in the future. Because it wants profits. The ICC leaving Microsoft is the last thing Microsoft wanted.
oh, pinky promise? sure, let's keep sovereignty at stake then, all good.
You said
> Where does this kind of conspiracy thinking come from?
Now you say
> Microsoft pledged not to intervene like that again
You are full of it
That does not really much much difference. The US can still sanction people working for the ICC very effectively:
https://www.heise.de/en/news/How-a-French-judge-was-digitall...
and it can demand access do data:
https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/25/microsoft_admits_it_c...