Get the weekly research letter
Companies change their terms quietly. We read every version and catch what actually changed. One email a week on the changes that matter and what they mean. No account.
Customers who conduct or publish benchmarks of AWS services must disclose sufficient methodology to replicate the benchmark and, by doing so, grant AWS the right to conduct and publicly disclose comparative benchmarks of the customer's own products, regardless of any restrictions in the customer's own terms of service.
This analysis describes what AWS Bedrock's agreement states, permits, or reserves. It does not constitute a legal determination about enforceability. Regulatory applicability and practical outcomes may vary by jurisdiction, enforcement context, and individual circumstances. Read our methodology
This provision creates a contractual authorization for AWS to benchmark and publish comparative performance results on customer products upon the customer's disclosure of any AWS benchmark, which may override benchmark restriction clauses in the customer's own licensing agreements or terms of service.
Interpretive note: Whether this clause can effectively override benchmark restrictions in the customer's own product terms against AWS depends on governing contract law and whether AWS is considered bound by or a third-party beneficiary to those terms.
The updated terms establish new restrictions on how AWS Capacity Reservations may be used. Specifically, customers purchasing On-Demand Capacity Reservations can no longer resell them to other parties, and AWS reserves the right to cancel the purchase or terminate running instances if the company suspects resale activity. For Capacity Blocks for ML, the grace period before instance termination increased from 30 minutes to 60 minutes for UltraServer instance types, allowing slightly more time to complete workloads. The Amazon Sidewalk qualification program was renamed and simplified, but the underlying security and operational requirements remain in effect.
View change record →The updated terms establish a formal framework for AWS Bedrock's free exploration services, clarifying the operational boundaries and responsibilities. AWS reserves the right to discontinue these services at any time without prior notice, meaning customers cannot rely on their continuation for production planning. Customers are solely responsible for testing, deploying, and maintaining any code, documents, or AI solutions AWS provides, including determining whether those solutions comply with applicable law. AWS retains the right to develop competing products based on content it creates during these engagements, though this does not override existing non-disclosure agreements. Customers are prohibited from requiring AWS personnel to sign additional terms as a condition of receiving free services, and any such documentation signed by AWS personnel is void.
View change record →The updated terms establish new data-sharing mechanisms for users of Anthropic models on Amazon Bedrock. Specifically, AWS now explicitly authorizes notification to Anthropic of metadata present in requests sent to certain Anthropic products (e.g., Claude Code, computer use features), enabling Anthropic to conduct product-level usage attribution. Additionally, the terms introduce AWS WAF AI traffic monetization, which permits AWS to facilitate payment transactions between content publishers and buyers by sharing pricing, payment, and configuration information with payment providers and facilitators; the updated terms clarify that AWS does not provide regulated financial services and is not a party to fund flows, and that users' interactions with payment providers are governed by separate terms between the user and those parties. Users employing these features should review what metadata may be embedded in their requests and understand their own obligations to payment providers.
View change record →Under this clause, a customer who publishes a benchmark comparison involving AWS services grants AWS the contractual right to conduct and disclose benchmarks of the customer's products, even if the customer's own terms prohibit third-party benchmarking.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Benchmark Reciprocity Clause and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →Monitoring
AWS Bedrock has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 25 platforms.
"You may perform benchmarks or comparative tests or evaluations (each, a "Benchmark") of the Services. If you perform or disclose, or direct or permit any third party to perform or disclose, any Benchmark of any of the Services, you (i) will include in any disclosure, and will disclose to us, all information necessary to replicate such Benchmark, and (ii) agree that we may perform and disclose the results of Benchmarks of your products or services, irrespective of any restrictions on Benchmarks in the terms governing your products or services.Excerpt from AWS Bedrock's AWS Service Terms
REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: This provision does not directly implicate a specific regulatory framework but engages intellectual property and licensing law, as it purports to override benchmark restriction clauses in the customer's own product terms. The enforceability of this reciprocal override against the customer's own licensees or contractual counterparties is a legal question that depends on the specific terms of those third-party agreements and applicable contract law in the governing jurisdiction. No specific enforcement authority directly governs this provision. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: Medium. The provision is operationally significant for technology companies and software vendors who benchmark AWS against competitors and who may have their own benchmark restriction clauses in their product licensing terms. Publishing an AWS benchmark could be interpreted under this clause as authorizing AWS to conduct and publish comparative tests of the customer's proprietary products, which may have competitive disclosure implications. JURISDICTION FLAGS: Enforceability of the override against third-party benchmark restrictions in the customer's own terms may vary by jurisdiction and depend on whether AWS is a party to or third-party beneficiary of the relevant customer agreements. Legal review is warranted in jurisdictions where benchmark restrictions in software licenses are routinely enforced. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Technology vendors and software companies should review their product terms for benchmark restriction clauses before publishing AWS benchmark results. Procurement teams and legal counsel should assess whether this reciprocity clause is compatible with competitive disclosure obligations or confidentiality commitments in the customer's own customer or partner agreements. The clause does not appear to require AWS to notify the customer before publishing benchmark results. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams should assess whether existing or planned benchmark publications involving AWS services trigger this provision and whether internal benchmark restriction clauses in the customer's product terms create any conflict. Communications and marketing teams should be informed of this clause before publishing comparative performance analyses involving AWS services.
This provision creates a contractual authorization for AWS to benchmark and publish comparative performance results on customer products upon the customer's disclosure of any AWS benchmark, which may override benchmark restriction clauses in the customer's own licensing agreements or terms of service.
Under this clause, a customer who publishes a benchmark comparison involving AWS services grants AWS the contractual right to conduct and disclose benchmarks of the customer's products, even if the customer's own terms prohibit third-party benchmarking.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by AWS Bedrock.