A foreign court compels disclosure of customer records while a local privacy statute prohibits that disclosure is correct.

This situation describes a direct conflict of law where one jurisdiction issues a binding court order while another jurisdiction has a statute that makes the same disclosure unlawful. The result is that an organization cannot comply with both requirements at the same time and it faces legal exposure in at least one jurisdiction. That is the essence of a legal contradiction when moving data between countries.

Real world examples include cases where extraterritorial law enforcement requests clash with local data protection rules. These conflicts can require careful legal process such as seeking judicial relief or using formal mutual legal assistance mechanisms, and they are the type of issue that must be addressed in cross border data transfer planning.

Cloud Key Management Service is incorrect because it names a technical service and not a legal conflict. The presence of a key management product does not by itself create a situation where two laws require opposite actions.

Applying one uniform privacy policy to all international users is incorrect because a single policy is a compliance approach or design choice. It may be impractical or noncompliant with specific local rules, but it does not by itself create a legal contradiction between two enforceable legal obligations.

Requiring two factor authentication for administrator accounts is incorrect because it is a security control. It helps protect access to systems but it does not pose a conflict of law when data crosses borders.

Full AWS Practitioner Certification Question