Checkr

Not established. The finding this entry held rested on a page from a site whose terms we read as forbidding a scripted read, so it is not published here.

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.

Checkr publishes a list of the other companies it uses as sub-processors. It lists 38 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 Canada, EU, Ireland, Philippines, Romania, UK, United States. 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 Checkr. Where a sub-processor is listed as operating is a fact about that company. It is not a statement about where Checkr keeps your data, which Vannus publishes separately and only from a document in which the vendor says so.

Read from checkr.com on 2026-09-16, from the page the vendor titles “Sub-Processor List | Checkr”. 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.

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 →