Vannus / Catalog / Google Workspace

Google Workspace

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
Partly evidenced — under US corporate control, so US law may have legal reach over it and the data it controls; the contracting entity is not carried by the document cited here.
Alphabet Inc. is recorded as the parent and corroborated against the GLEIF register; the cited terms name no contracting entity — their only 'Google LLC' is a Japanese consent paragraph about affiliate data sharing — and state no region-dependent split, so the region-dependence is not evidenced here. Controlled by Alphabet Inc. (United States), per the LEI register, partially corroborated [2026-09-12].
workspace.google.com · read 2026-08-01
read from terms of service
Contracting entity
Not established
Jurisdiction
Not established
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
The agreement is under a governing law that depends on where the customer is based.

Google's cloud productivity and collaboration suite (Gmail, Drive, Docs, Sheets, Meet, Chat, Calendar) with Gemini generative-AI features bundled as core services across most business editions.

productivity, email, collaboration
What the vendor's own documentation says
Google will not use Customer Data to train or fine-tune any of its generative artificial intelligence models supporting the Google Workspace Generative AI Services without Customer's prior permission or instruction.
workspace.google.com ↗ Vendor-sourcedQuote last confirmed 14 Sep 2026; the house has paused automated re-reading of its host until it reads its terms or rules, so it is not re-checked
Who controls it
US corporate controlPartly evidenced — Alphabet Inc. is recorded as the parent and corroborated against the GLEIF register; the cited terms name no contracting entity — their only 'Google LLC' is a Japanese consent paragraph about affiliate data sharing — and state no region-dependent split, so the region-dependence is not evidenced here · clause last confirmed 17 Sep 2026; the house has paused automated re-reading of its host until it reads its terms or rules, so it is not re-checked
Trains on your dataNo — on the vendor's default plan

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.

Signals on file
Origin
United States

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.

Cite this record
Google Workspace: “Partly evidenced — under US corporate control, so US law may have legal reach over it and the data it controls; the contracting entity is not carried by the document cited here.”
Vannus, https://vannus.co/tool/google-workspace
workspace.google.com · read 2026-08-01

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 Google Workspace ↗ 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.