This analysis describes what Baseten'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 establishes the operational mechanism through which GDPR Article 28 sub-processor approval obligations are managed, and limits Customer's recourse upon unresolvable sub-processor objection to termination rather than continuation of services with a different configuration, which may be operationally significant for production ML deployments.
Interpretive note: The adequacy of the five-day objection window under GDPR Article 28 and supervisory authority guidance is not definitively established in the document and may vary by jurisdiction and enforcement context.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Sub-Processor Notification and Objection Mechanism and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →"Baseten shall notify Customer if it engages a new Sub-Processor at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date on which the new Sub-Processor will commence processing Customer Personal Data by updating the Sub-Processor List or by sending Customer a notification if Customer opts-in to receive such notifications in the manner made available on the Sub-processor List. Customer may object in writing to Baseten's appointment of a new Sub-Processor based on reasonable data protection concerns by emailing privacy@baseten.co within five (5) calendar days of notice of the new Sub-Processor and the parties will discuss such concerns in good faith. If the parties are unable to reach a mutually agreeable solution, Baseten will either (a) use reasonable efforts to make available a commercially reasonable change in the provision of the Services, which avoids the use of that proposed Sub-Processor; or (b) where: (i) such a change cannot be made within thirty (30) days from Baseten's receipt of Customer's objection; (ii) no commercially reasonable change is available; and/or (iii) Customer declines to bear the cost of the proposed change, then either Party may by written notice to the other Party with immediate effect terminate the Agreement, either in whole or to the extent that it relates to the Services which require the use of the proposed Sub-Processor, as its sole and exclusive remedy.Excerpt from Baseten's Terms of Service
Get the weekly coverage letter
Companies change their terms without announcing it. We capture governance documents, compare each new version with the last, and publish what changed, with the source text behind it. One email a week on what we found and what we could not reach.
This provision establishes the operational mechanism through which GDPR Article 28 sub-processor approval obligations are managed, and limits Customer's recourse upon unresolvable sub-processor objection to termination rather than continuation of services with a different configuration, which may be operationally significant for production ML deployments.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Baseten.