Unhazzle is a European managed application platform: we deploy and operate your containerized application on European cloud providers (Hetzner and Scaleway today, OVH next) and produce the evidence enterprise buyers ask for, straight from the running system. You ship product; we carry production and the proof. We're pre-launch, building with design partners.

Yes. A European field is forming, and Unhazzle is part of it: push-to-deploy simplicity on European infrastructure, with two additions that matter to EU B2B teams. Production is operated for you around the clock, and what's running is turned into answers your enterprise buyers accept. If your customers keep asking where their data lives, the platform you migrate to matters as much as the migration.

In EU regions, on European-headquartered providers (Hetzner and Scaleway today, OVH next). Each service is placed for you based on where your users are and the compliance you need, or you choose the placement yourself, always within the EU. Either way the placement is recorded, so 'where is our data?' has a specific, current answer instead of a marketing one.

It settles less than it seems. An EU region keeps data in Europe physically, but jurisdiction follows the company, not the datacenter: under the US CLOUD Act, a US-headquartered provider can be compelled to produce data it holds regardless of where the server sits. Your buyer's lawyer knows this; it's why the questionnaire asks who operates the infrastructure, not just where it is. Our stack is European companies operating European infrastructure, so that answer holds.

No, and be wary of anyone who tells you otherwise. GDPR compliance is a property of your processing: your purposes, your legal bases, your contracts. What EU-jurisdiction hosting removes is the hardest rows on the questionnaire, international transfers and third-country access to your infrastructure. We answer for that infrastructure half, and plainly mark which answers stay yours.

AI used in hiring (CV screening, candidate ranking, assessment) is classified high-risk under Annex III of the EU AI Act, which brings logging, record-keeping and oversight duties that phase in through 2027. The practical pressure arrives earlier: your enterprise customers carry their own AI Act and NIS2 duties and push them down the supply chain as security questionnaires and contract clauses. If you sell hiring AI, the questions about where your system runs and how it's logged come before the deadline does.

Yes: that's what the placement layer is for. The EU baseline (GDPR, NIS2, the AI Act) travels across borders, but sectors add national regimes on top, and France's HDS (Hébergement de Données de Santé) is the sharpest example: store French patient or health data, and the hosting chain under it must be HDS-certified; buyers ask for the certificate, not a promise. Our health tier is planned on HDS-certified European providers, and the same pattern extends to other national regimes as customers bring them. If regulated data is your next market, that conversation is worth having before you sign your next hosting contract.

None yet, and we won't imply otherwise. The providers we run on publish their own certifications, ISO 27001 among them, and our own ISO 27001 path is on the roadmap. We publish where we are rather than renting credibility from a badge wall: when a certificate exists you'll see the certificate, and until then you'll see the evidence.

No: needing to is the problem we remove. Your services are containers; you describe intent, review what the platform proposes, and approve decisions. Kubernetes, scaling, backups, certificates and the 3am page are our side of the line, on standard building blocks underneath, so leaving is a migration, not a rewrite.

Not self-serve: we haven't launched. The platform runs, with our own product as its first workload, and we're working with a small number of design partners: what they tell us decides what gets built first. The offer: send the last security review a buyer put in front of you. We'll map it question by question: which answers the platform would draft from the running system, and which stay yours. No pitch attached.

Different layer. Compliance platforms document infrastructure they don't run: you connect your systems, they collect the claims, and you keep the claims current. Unhazzle is the infrastructure: the record is a by-product of running your app, and each answer cites the system it came from. The two can coexist, and for SOC 2 or ISO 27001 you still want an auditor; our evidence feeds that work rather than replacing it.