Monday.com
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.
- Contracting entity
- monday.com Ltd.
- Jurisdiction
- Israel
- Governing law
- State of Israel; exclusive jurisdiction Tel Aviv-Jaffa
- US corporate control
- Not established the rule
Work operating system for project management and team workflows
monday.com leverages LLMs through managed APIs from Microsoft Azure and AWS Bedrock, ensuring data privacy and security with zero retention
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.
Applies to: Not plan-scoped: the monday AI Terms form part of the monday.com Terms of Service or other agreement executed between the parties.
From the monday AI Terms and Conditions: “monday.com does not use Customer Data and/or Content to train artificial intelligence models and does not allow others to do so.” monday.com ↗
On retention, from the monday AI Terms (Last Updated: May 05, 2026), §6, dated archive capture of 11 September 2026 (an existing capture, none requested by the house): “Such data will not be shared with third parties and may be retained by us for up to 60 days.” web.archive.org ↗
Training and retention posture varies by plan. The default-plan row above describes the vendor’s free or standard tier; the paid-plan row is quoted from the document linked beside it. A negotiated contract can override either. Check your own agreement before relying on this.
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.
- 17 Sep 2026 · the record changed. It now reads: “Contracts with monday.com Ltd. (Israel), governed by State of Israel.” Before: “Contracting entity depends on your region or order form — read the clause.” Changed: the contracting entity, its country, the US-control finding and what the answer depends on. Why: we corrected our reading.
- 29 Jul 2026 · first recorded: “Contracting entity depends on your region or order form — read the clause.”
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.
Monday.com publishes a list of the other companies it uses as sub-processors. It lists 44 entries, and some name the same company more than once, under different locations, for different purposes or in more than one of its lists. Each is shown below with the location the vendor lists it under, in the vendor’s own words.
Under its heading “AI Sub-processors”: Applicable to accounts that use monday AI Work Platform (see further information)
Monday.com marks some of those entries and qualifies them below the table. Its words, kept with the entries because the qualification is part of the answer:
* CDNs distribute data globally across various data centers to ensure high availability and performance. As a result, customer data is processed at the data center closest to the end user (PoP).
Taken together those entries name at least EU, Global, Guatemala, Poland, US. 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 Monday.com. Where a sub-processor is listed as operating is a fact about that company. It is not a statement about where Monday.com keeps your data, which Vannus publishes separately and only from a document in which the vendor says so.
The same document also lists 11 entries for Monday.com’s own corporate group, or for companies that carry its name. They are counted separately from the entries above, which are other companies.
Read from monday.com on 2026-09-18, from the page the vendor titles “Sub-Processors, Subsidiaries & Support - monday.com Legal Portal”. 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.
Monday.com: “Contracts with monday.com Ltd. (Israel), governed by State of Israel.” Vannus, https://vannus.co/tool/monday-com monday.com · read 2026-09-17
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.