Google Cloud Outage: Why Control Plane Failures Matter

Reading Time: 9 minutes

Prefer watching instead of reading? Watch the video here. Prefer reading instead? Scroll down for the full text. Prefer listening instead? Scroll up for the audio player.

P.S. The video and audio are in sync, so you can switch between them or control playback as needed. Enjoy Greyhound Standpoint insights in the format that suits you best. Join the conversation on social media using #GreyhoundStandpoint.

---

Google Cloud suffered a major outage on Thursday, affecting countless apps and services that power both industries and consumers. The incident, which lasted over 7 hours, started at 2:51 PM UTC and was resolved by 10:18 pm UTC, as per the Google Cloud Service Health report. This global outage disrupted 54 Google Cloud Platform products,  including API Gateway, Agent Assist, Cloud Data Fusion, Cloud Workstations, Contact Center AI Platform, Database Migration Service, Google App Engine, Google Cloud Console, and Vertex Gemini API.

“The domino effect from Google Cloud’s internal IAM failure was felt across dependent platforms like Cloudflare, Spotify, Snapchat, and Discord—not due to hardware failure, but because control-plane dependencies paralyzed core administrative functions,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst and CEO at Greyhound Research.

Contrary to early reports, AWS and Microsoft Azure remained operational; however, internet-wide disruptions and CDN-layer spillovers created the illusion of a multi-cloud failure, explained Gogia. This event confirms that cloud resilience today is not simply about infrastructure uptime — it’s about the structural integrity of orchestration systems that underpin modern workloads.

As quoted in NetworkWorld.com, in an article authored by Nidhi Singal published on June 13, 2025.

Beyond the Media Quote: Our View, In Full

Pressed for time? You can focus solely on the Greyhound Flashpoints that follow. Each one distills the full analysis into a sharp, executive-ready takeaway — combining our official Standpoint, validated through Pulse data from ongoing CXO trackers, and grounded in Fieldnotes from real-world advisory engagements.

Why The June 12 Outage Exposed Critical Fault Lines in Global Cloud Resilience

Greyhound Flashpoint The June 12 outage that originated in Google Cloud’s Identity and Access Management (IAM) system disrupted services globally, underlining a dangerous concentration of risk in hyperscaler control planes. Per Greyhound CIO Pulse 2025, 61% of global CIOs now rate access orchestration failure as a greater business continuity threat than compute or network issues. The domino effect from Google Cloud’s internal IAM failure was felt across dependent platforms like Cloudflare, Spotify, Snapchat, and Discord—not due to hardware failure, but because control-plane dependencies paralyzed core administrative functions. Contrary to early reports, AWS and Microsoft Azure remained operational; however, internet-wide disruptions and CDN-layer spillovers created the illusion of a multi-cloud failure. This event confirms that cloud resilience today is not simply about infrastructure uptime—it’s about the structural integrity of orchestration systems that underpin modern workloads.

Greyhound Standpoint— According to Greyhound Research, the June 12 disruption was a classic control-plane failure with unprecedented operational impact, not a network or compute breakdown. The root cause lay in a cascading issue within Google Cloud’s IAM service—its foundational access layer responsible for authentication and authorization across all services. When IAM faltered, users were locked out of management tools, and APIs failed to validate identity tokens, freezing automation pipelines across GCP. The ripple extended to Cloudflare due to its reliance on Google Cloud’s backend for Workers KV, which caused authentication bottlenecks and disrupted a wide array of downstream services. This episode reaffirmed a critical but underappreciated truth: cloud providers’ administrative layers—login systems, dashboards, and IAM subsystems—are the new fault lines of the internet. Their failure can paralyze platform operations even when underlying compute and storage remain available. Crucially, these interdependencies aren’t always transparent to end users, making incident response unpredictable and recovery paths uncertain. Only recently IBM faced similar outages, and Greyhound Research had shared extensive and detailed analysis on the topic.

Inside the IBM Cloud Outage: Why Control Plane Failures Are the New Enterprise Risk Frontier

Greyhound Pulse— Data from Greyhound CIO Pulse 2025 indicates a rising awareness of architectural blind spots. While 79% of surveyed enterprises claim to have adopted multi-cloud strategies, only 17% report independently routed failover paths across providers. Even fewer—just 11%—run chaos engineering drills that simulate cross-provider control-plane failures. This false sense of security was exposed during the June 12 incident, where fallback environments in AWS and Cloudflare failed to shield workloads due to hidden DNS and identity interlocks. Significantly, 63% of CIOs now report they had to revise their risk models post-outage, with 42% explicitly citing ‘loss of console access’ as a new category in their threat matrices. As workloads get distributed across regions and providers, enterprises are realizing that resiliency isn’t just about where workloads live—it’s about who governs access and whether that governance layer is independently verifiable and operable under stress.

Greyhound Fieldnote—Greyhound Fieldnotes from recent advisory sessions across European financial institutions highlight a recurring pattern where IAM-related disruptions rendered fraud detection and customer onboarding systems inoperable. While underlying compute services remained functional, token validation failures at the orchestration layer blocked access to critical APIs. Even fallback environments on secondary clouds suffered due to shared dependencies on identity routing via third-party CDNs. These interlocked control layers—spanning DNS, SSO, and token propagation—proved to be hidden points of failure. Many institutions have since initiated architectural reviews focused on decoupling IAM and DNS systems by provider and region to avoid repeat exposure. This pattern reinforces the need to audit not just where workloads reside, but how access and orchestration paths are constructed.

Interdependent Clouds And Internet Infrastructure Are Now a Global Risk Vector

Greyhound Flashpoint – The June 12 outage spotlighted a critical structural flaw in the global cloud ecosystem: interdependent control planes and shared service layers. Per Greyhound CIO Pulse 2025, 63% of CIOs assumed cloud providers were operationally isolated—a myth debunked by the outage’s ripple effects across DNS, CDN, and identity systems. Although Google Cloud bore the original fault, service degradation at Cloudflare—and by extension, thousands of applications—proved that even partial outages can cascade across platform boundaries. This event challenges the perceived safety of cloud-provider diversity. When failover paths intersect at the protocol layer (e.g., DNS, BGP, IAM), hyperscaler diversity can amplify risk rather than contain it. Cloud vendors are more tightly coupled than most enterprise architects realize.

Greyhound Standpoint – According to Greyhound Research, the illusion of hyperscaler independence has become a systemic vulnerability. Most enterprises presume that spreading workloads across AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud guarantees resilience, but this incident proved otherwise. Cloudflare’s outage stemmed from a control-plane dependency on Google Cloud, illustrating that even industry leaders can unknowingly rely on a single point of failure. With overlapping IAM chains, certificate authorities, and DNS resolvers, service mesh architectures can inherit upstream fragility. What should have been a recoverable GCP identity hiccup rippled into credential validation errors, CDN routing failures, and analytics pipeline stalls across platforms. This event confirms that control-plane entanglements have silently replaced hardware and network failures as the dominant internet risk. The safety promised by multi-cloud is nullified if underlying orchestration layers are not independently designed and governed.

Greyhound Pulse – Greyhound CIO Pulse 2025 reveals a glaring governance gap: only 23% of enterprises test their disaster recovery plans under the assumption of a control-plane outage. A majority rely on hyperscaler SLAs and native dashboards—neither of which proved effective on June 12. Specifically, 47% of respondents to a post-incident flash survey reported that they were unable to access their management consoles or support portals during the peak of the incident. Nearly a third (31%) experienced simultaneous failures in both their primary and fallback cloud environments due to shared DNS or identity configurations. The lesson is clear: resilience must now be measured not only by data plane redundancy, but also by administrative autonomy. Enterprises must build architectural awareness beyond what providers offer on their product sheets.

Greyhound Fieldnote – A pattern emerging from Greyhound Fieldnotes in the APAC e-commerce and digital services sectors points to a critical oversight: authentication requests routed through shared edge infrastructure nullified the resilience promised by active-active cloud architectures. Despite workloads being distributed across AWS and GCP, token validation failures cascaded due to Cloudflare dependencies linked to GCP’s IAM outage. This convergence of control layers resulted in prolonged order fulfilment delays, disrupted inventory synchronisation, and a total loss of observability as even monitoring dashboards failed. These patterns have prompted several firms to redesign access and telemetry routes to avoid convergence on any single control layer—whether IAM, CDN, or DNS.

The Business Impact Of The Outage Was Disproportionate Across Industries And Time Zones

Greyhound Flashpoint— The June 12 cloud outage impacted sectors unevenly, revealing architectural weaknesses in real-time and customer-facing systems. Per Greyhound CIO Pulse 2025, 48% of global tech leaders reported front-end customer disruptions, while 31% saw internal automation stalls. Time of day and workload type played pivotal roles: EMEA organizations in the midst of peak business hours and real-time operations like fintech, logistics, and media were hardest hit. While compute infrastructure remained technically sound, the paralysis of access tokens, session states, and orchestration APIs had a more damaging effect—breaking not only functionality but also trust in cloud continuity.

Greyhound Standpoint— According to Greyhound Research, the enterprise impact of this outage was magnified not by infrastructure failure, but by the invisibility of orchestration-layer fragility. Critical industries such as real-time payments, supply chain logistics, and media streaming—where latency sensitivity is extreme—faced significant business disruption. These sectors depend on constantly refreshed session tokens, data syncing across clouds, and real-time analytics engines. All of these rely on stable IAM, CDN, and DNS layers, which proved fragile on June 12. As a result, business continuity plans built on data plane resilience were ineffective. Worse, many fallback mechanisms were rendered useless due to shared dependencies, leaving enterprises unable to even monitor what was failing. This is a foundational wake-up call: cloud operational continuity is no longer just about uptime—it’s about access continuity and metadata orchestration.

Greyhound Pulse—Greyhound CIO Pulse 2025 reveals that enterprises with over 60% of workloads hosted in cloud environments experienced 7.4x greater revenue loss per hour of outage compared to hybrid or on-prem-heavy peers. The hardest-hit verticals included fintech, logistics, and digital media—industries where sub-second orchestration underpins real-time customer interactions. Post-incident interviews showed 44% of CIOs had to explain cascading business failures to their boards, often due to shared reliance on IAM, DNS, or CDN routes previously considered low-risk. The Pulse also identified that only 18% of firms had real-time visibility into dependency failures below the application layer, highlighting a profound observability gap that must now be addressed as part of enterprise cloud governance.

Greyhound Fieldnote—Greyhound Fieldnotes from advisory work in the MENA logistics sector reveal a repeated architectural flaw: cloud-native microservices spanning multiple providers often rely on a single identity resolution path. In the June 12 context, logistics firms saw real-time routing engines fail not from compute disruption, but from authentication delays linked to upstream control plane outages. These failures halted package movement, froze customer updates, and overloaded support channels. Visibility was further compromised as observability tools were co-hosted in the same cloud region and suffered parallel outages. Clients are now exploring dual-path governance models that separate operational and diagnostic control planes to preserve incident command and response capability.

Building Cloud Resilience Requires Hard Separation—Not Just Redundancy

Greyhound Flashpoint—The June 12 outage affirmed that cloud redundancy is not equivalent to resilience. Per Greyhound CIO Pulse 2025, just 19% of enterprises have implemented DNS- and IAM-level independence in their multi-cloud strategies. What failed was not infrastructure availability but administrative orchestration—the IAM and routing layers needed to execute failover itself. Enterprises that treat fallback systems as secondary priorities now face a new truth: redundancy without isolation is a recipe for cascading failure. Cloud strategies must move beyond diversification to design for hard segmentation at protocol, administrative, and session layers.

Greyhound Standpoint—According to Greyhound Research, enterprises must now differentiate between redundancy and true fault tolerance. The former implies secondary systems; the latter demands architectural isolation. On June 12, many organizations discovered their failover systems were tied to the same DNS routes, token validation chains, or identity brokers as their primary services. As a result, what was architected to protect them instead propagated failure. Resilience must now include decentralized identity chains, regionally distributed DNS resolvers, and independently governed observability stacks. Moreover, cloud vendor transparency around administrative domain coupling must improve—CIOs cannot design resilient architectures in the absence of visibility into control plane dependencies. This is not just an IT problem; it’s a board-level continuity risk.

Greyhound Pulse—Greyhound CIO Pulse 2025 reveals a significant mismatch between perceived and actual resilience. While 74% of CIOs report having DR policies in place, only 28% conduct quarterly failover simulations that account for administrative layer failure. Worse, just 13% have cross-provider visibility into control plane telemetry. The Pulse also notes that after the June 12 incident, 39% of firms initiated architecture reviews focused specifically on identity layer isolation and protocol diversity—more than double the figure following the last major cloud incident. This shift reflects growing awareness that traditional SLAs and availability zones no longer capture the operational risk of SaaS and PaaS architectures dependent on shared orchestration systems.

Greyhound Field Note— Across recent Fieldnotes from Greyhound advisory sessions with Southeast Asia-based digital finance firms, a recurring failure mode involves shared identity brokers across multi-cloud environments. During the June 12 outage, both primary and backup systems failed—not due to infrastructure, but because IAM propagation depended on a common edge authentication service linked to GCP. Even failover dashboards were rendered inaccessible, delaying remediation actions for hours. This pattern has driven a shift in thinking: resilience is no longer about application redundancy alone but about hard segmentation between identity, observability, and operational control planes. Enterprises embracing this shift are treating governance diversity as a strategic asset, not an optional safeguard.

Copyright Policy. All content contained on the Greyhound Research website is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published, or broadcast without the prior written permission of Greyhound Research or, in the case of third-party materials, the prior written consent of the copyright owner of that content. You may not alter, delete, obscure, or conceal any trademark, copyright, or other notice appearing in any Greyhound Research content. We request our readers not to copy Greyhound Research content and not republish or redistribute them (in whole or partially) via emails or republishing them in any media, including websites, newsletters, or intranets. We understand that you may want to share this content with others, so we’ve added tools under each content piece that allow you to share the content. If you have any questions, please get in touch with our Community Relations Team at connect@thofgr.com.