Vannus / Catalog / Notion AI

Notion AI

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 Notion Labs, Inc. (United States) — within reach of US legal process.
The LEI record reports no consolidating parent filed (NO_KNOWN_PERSON, [2026-09-13]).
notion.notion.site · read 2026-08-08
read from a master agreement · inferred from the address, not the heading

AI-powered workspace for notes, docs, and organization

organization, writing, notes
What the vendor's own documentation says
various large language models (LLMs) hosted by Notion as well as by organizations such as Anthropic and OpenAI
notion.com ↗ Vendor-sourcedQuote re-checked 14 Sep 2026
Who controls it
US corporate controlYes — a US parent or US contracting entity is on the public record
Contracting entityNotion Labs, Inc. (notices address: 685 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Attn: Legal Department)
Governing lawLaws of the State of California, conflict-of-law provisions excluded; sole venue for all disputes is San Francisco County, California, USA (MSA §13.6 "Governing Law; Venue"). No arbitration clause and no region-dependent entity or law split anywhere in the MSA.
Trains on your dataYes, unless you opt out — on the vendor's default plan
On a paid or enterprise planDoes not train on your data — zero retention offered

Applies to: Enterprise plan workspaces for ZDR; the no-training commitment is stated for Notion AI generally, not scoped to a plan

From the AI security & privacy help-centre article: “When using Notion AI, by default our LLM providers utilize zero data retention for Enterprise plan workspaces, so no data is stored with LLM providers.” notion.com ↗

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.

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
Origin
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
SOC2GDPR

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 Notion AI ↗ Grade your whole stack →