Vannus / Catalog / Clay

Clay

Vannus records that this vendor routes across several model providers — not captured by one. Every finding below is quoted to the vendor’s own document, or marked not disclosed where the vendor publishes nothing.

Determination
Contracts with Clay Labs Inc., governed by New York law.
Vannus has not established whether a US parent controls this entity, so US reach is not established either way.
clay.com · read 2026-09-14
read from terms of service
Contracting entity
Clay Labs Inc.
Jurisdiction
Not established
Governing law
The Federal Arbitration Act, federal arbitration law, and New York law will apply to these terms and any disputes related to these terms or our services, regardless of conflict of laws rules. Read 22 September 2026.
US corporate control
Not established the rule

AI-native sales enrichment platform combining 100+ data providers with multi-LLM AI agents for outbound prospecting, list building, and contact enrichment

sales, AI, data enrichment
What the vendor's own documentation says
Access to models from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and other leading AI providers
university.clay.com ↗ Vendor-sourcedQuote re-checked 19 Oct 2026
Who controls it
US corporate controlNot disclosed — the vendor's own documents name the contracting entity but do not settle whether a US entity or parent controls it · clause re-checked 19 Oct 2026
Contracting entityClay Labs Inc.
Governing lawGoverned by New York law
Trains on your dataYes, unless you opt out — on the vendor's default plan

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.

Record history

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.

Cite this record
Clay: “Contracts with Clay Labs Inc., governed by New York law.”
Vannus, https://vannus.co/tool/clay
clay.com · read 2026-09-14

How you may reuse this record

How this entry is set

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 →

Related tools we record
Visit Clay ↗ Check your whole stack →
Vannus (PRAXIS AI LLC) · entry as of the latest catalog build · all 376 tools · MCP for assistants
Work here and think we got something wrong? Corrections and right of reply → — free, no account, and we publish your response next to our entry.