> In a sence it's also a move towards limiting user's freedom to chose where to store data, isn't it?
It's not, users can of course consent to data being stored elsewhere. The article explicitely points this out:
> Instead, the court took the approach that data could only be lawfully transferred to the U.S. via a mutual legal assistance treaty (Article 48 GDPR), or under Article 49 GDPR’s derogations, such as consent. It confined its lawfulness analysis to those grounds alone.
It's not, users can of course consent to data being stored elsewhere. The article explicitely points this out:
> Instead, the court took the approach that data could only be lawfully transferred to the U.S. via a mutual legal assistance treaty (Article 48 GDPR), or under Article 49 GDPR’s derogations, such as consent. It confined its lawfulness analysis to those grounds alone.