Vannus / Catalog / Fathom

Fathom

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.

Determination
Contracts with Fathom Video Inc. (United States) โ€” within reach of US legal process.
fathom.ai · read 2026-09-14
read from terms of service

AI meeting assistant with unlimited free recording, transcription, and LLM-powered summaries for sales and team meetings

meetings, AI, productivity
What the vendor's own documentation says
None of our AI sub-processors (Anthropic, OpenAI, or Google) are contractually permitted to use our users' data to train their AI models.
help.fathom.video ↗ Vendor-sourcedQuote re-checked 14 Sep 2026
Who controls it
Data jurisdictionUnited States · a privacy notice ↗
US corporate controlYes โ€” a US parent or US contracting entity is on the public record ยท clause re-checked 17 Sep 2026
Contracting entityFathom Video Inc.
Governing lawState of California without regard to conflict of law principles
Trains on your dataYes, unless you opt out โ€” 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 exact clause for every vendor in your stack, dated, in one 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.

This is a separate question from the grade above. The grade measures resilience — whether the tool endures and whether you could leave it. This describes who controls the vendor. A tool can score modestly on one and strongly on the other, and many do.

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.

Signals on file
Data jurisdiction
United States

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

Compliance the vendor states
SOC2GDPRHIPAA

Taken from the vendor’s own published material. Vannus does not hold these reports and has not reviewed their scope or dates — ask the vendor for the current report before relying on any of them.

How this grade is set

Vannus publishes a nine-dimension trust framework — data sovereignty, training privacy, compliance posture, operational resilience, exit portability, and more. The heaviest criterion asks whether the tool builds its own AI or resells someone else's model; where the vendor discloses it, the grade cites the vendor's own documentation. No paid placements — scoring is walled off from affiliate revenue. See the methodology →

Related tools we grade
Visit Fathom ↗ Grade your whole stack →