Buffer

This page gives the finding and links the document it comes from. The AI Subprocessor Jurisdiction Report ($299) quotes the clause this finding rests on, and the clause for each other vendor in your stack where the report can quote one, in one dated document you can hand to an auditor.

Training and retention posture varies by plan. What we publish above describes the vendor’s default plan; enterprise, team and API agreements frequently differ, often materially, and a contract can override the published default entirely. Check your own plan and contract before relying on this row.

On U.S. CLOUD Act reach specifically: the statute reaches a provider subject to U.S. jurisdiction over data in its possession, custody or control. Corporate control is a strong indicator of that and it is what we can evidence from published documents — but it is not the whole test. A company founded outside the U.S. can still contract through a U.S. entity or run substantial U.S. operations. Treat this as a starting point for your own review, not a legal determination, and take advice on anything that matters.

• 30 Sep 2026 · the record changed. Changed: its country and the note beside the finding. Why: we corrected our reading.
• 19 Sep 2026 · first recorded: “Contracts with Buffer, Inc. (United States) — within reach of US legal process.”

This is the history of our record of this vendor: when we first recorded it; each time one of these changed: the determination sentence, the contracting entity, its country, the governing law, the US-control finding, what the answer depends on, the note beside the finding, or the cited document; and each time the vendor's document was read again and none of them changed. A change only in capitals, punctuation or spacing is not a line, and neither is a first document title. A line names what changed and does not repeat what those fields said before; the determination above says what they say now. Where the determination sentence itself changed, the line shows the earlier sentence too, marked as before, with why it changed. The automated re-check's latest result is not a line here; it is printed beside the clause above. A change here may be the vendor changing its document or us correcting our reading of it, and a line says which only where the record shows it; otherwise it says the cause is not established. Each line is today's reading of the record as it stood on that date. A reading we later found its citation does not carry was withdrawn, and is not repeated here. This history as data.

The vendor's published or catalog-recorded posture — the concrete facts this entry is built from. A full audit verifies each against the vendor's current documentation.

Buffer publishes a list of the other companies it uses as sub-processors. It lists 26 entries. Each is shown below with the location the vendor lists it under, in the vendor’s own words.

Taken together those entries name at least Australia, Germany, India, USA, United Kingdom. That is what our place list could match in the vendor’s own words above, so treat it as a floor rather than the whole of it — the entries themselves are the record.

These are other companies, not Buffer. Where a sub-processor is listed as operating is a fact about that company. It is not a statement about where Buffer keeps your data, which Vannus publishes separately and only from a document in which the vendor says so.

Read from buffer.com on 2026-09-16, from the page the vendor titles “Buffer | Legal”. Every entry above is a verbatim span of that page.

This is the vendor’s own disclosure, reproduced. Vannus has not audited what any of these companies do with your data, and a list can change without notice. Treat it as a starting point for your own review, not a legal determination, and take advice on anything that matters.

Buffer: “Contracts with Buffer, Inc. (United States) — within reach of US legal process.”
Vannus, https://vannus.co/tool/buffer
buffer.com · read 2026-09-19

How you may reuse this record

Vannus records, from the vendor's own published documents, the legal entity a customer contracts with, the country that entity sits in, and the governing law of its terms — and whether the vendor runs its own model or resells someone else's. Each finding is quoted to its source and dated, or marked not disclosed where the vendor publishes nothing. No paid placement on a record, in the catalog or in search — affiliate status is walled off from the record, enforced by a test in the build. See the methodology →