Darktrace
Vannus has not established which model this vendor runs, and does not infer one. Every finding below is quoted to the vendor’s own document, or marked not disclosed where the vendor publishes nothing.
- Contracting entity
- Darktrace Holdings Limited
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Governing law
- Not established
- US corporate control
- A sourced US parent controls the vendor, so US law may have legal reach over it and the data it controls. the rule
- Depends on
- Its terms are ones this record cannot reach.
Autonomous AI cyber defence platform — self-learning neural networks detect and neutralise novel threats in real-time across network, cloud, email, and OT environments
including our unique Self-Learning AI and proprietary large language models
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.
- 16 Sep 2026 · the record changed. It now reads: “Contracts with Darktrace Holdings Limited (United Kingdom), under terms this record cannot reach — under US corporate control, so US law may have legal reach over it and the data it controls.” Before: “Contracts with Darktrace Holdings Limited (United Kingdom) — under US corporate control, so US law may have legal reach over it and the data it controls.” Changed: the governing law and what the answer depends on. Why: we corrected our reading.
- 12 Sep 2026 · the record changed. Changed: the US-control finding and what the answer depends on. Why: we corrected our reading.
- 12 Sep 2026 · the record changed. It now reads: “Contracts with Darktrace Holdings Limited (United Kingdom) — under US corporate control, so US law may have legal reach over it and the data it controls.” Before: “Contracts with Darktrace Holdings Limited (United Kingdom).” Changed: the US-control finding and what the answer depends on. Why: we corrected our reading.
- 12 Sep 2026 · the record changed. Changed: what the answer depends on. Why: we corrected our reading.
- 29 Jul 2026 · first recorded: “Contracts with Darktrace Holdings Limited (United Kingdom).”
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.
Darktrace: “Contracts with Darktrace Holdings Limited (United Kingdom), under terms this record cannot reach — under US corporate control, so US law may have legal reach over it and the data it controls.” Vannus, https://vannus.co/tool/darktrace darktrace.com · read 2026-07-29 and 2026-09-12 governing law read from darktrace.com · read 2026-09-16 the entity name read from darktrace.com · read 2026-09-15
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 →
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.