Developers using Cohere's API are required to identify and document the potential harms their application could cause before accessing the API.
This analysis describes what Cohere'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
The harm documentation requirement creates an affirmative pre-deployment obligation that functions as a form of AI impact assessment, which aligns with emerging regulatory requirements for AI governance documentation under frameworks such as the EU AI Act.
Interpretive note: The policy does not specify the required format, depth, or retention period for harm documentation, creating uncertainty about what constitutes adequate compliance with this obligation.
The updated policy removes all substantive acceptable use requirements that were previously posted and enforceable. Users no longer have a referenced standard defining what conduct is prohibited on the platform. The removal of enforcement procedures means users cannot verify what conduct may trigger access restriction, suspension, or termination. The elimination of the child safety and sexually explicit content prohibitions from the posted policy creates uncertainty about whether these protections remain in effect through other terms or have been abandoned.
View change record →This obligation requires developers to consider and record how their Cohere-powered application might harm end users before the application is deployed, providing a procedural safeguard that benefits individuals who will ultimately interact with the product.
How other platforms handle this
Target reserves the right to change these Terms at any time. We will post notification of changes to these Terms on this page. Your continued use of the Target Services after any changes to these Terms constitutes your acceptance of the new Terms.
We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to amend these Terms of Service at any time and will update these Terms of Service in the event of any such amendments. We will notify our Users of material changes to this Agreement, such as price changes, at least 30 days prior to the change taking eff...
We may modify the Terms from time to time. The most current version of the Terms will be located here. You understand and agree that your access to or use of the Service is governed by the Terms effective at the time of your access to or use of the Service. If we make material changes to these Terms...
Monitoring
Cohere has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 25 platforms.
"Developers must outline and get approval for their use case to access the Cohere API, understanding the models and limitations. They should refer to model cards for detailed information and document potential harms of their application.— Excerpt from Cohere's Cohere Usage Policy
(1) REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: The harm documentation obligation aligns with EU AI Act requirements for technical documentation and risk assessments for high-risk AI systems. It also engages emerging FTC guidance on responsible AI development and accountability frameworks. Where the application processes personal data, this documentation obligation intersects with GDPR Article 35 Data Protection Impact Assessment requirements for high-risk processing activities. (2) GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: Medium. The policy does not specify the format, scope, or retention period for harm documentation, which means compliance with this obligation is difficult to audit and assess externally. Organizations subject to the EU AI Act's technical documentation requirements may need to ensure their harm documentation meets the more prescriptive requirements of that regulation in addition to satisfying this contractual obligation. (3) JURISDICTION FLAGS: EU developers face heightened exposure where harm documentation obligations overlap with GDPR DPIA requirements and EU AI Act technical documentation mandates. US federal contractors subject to Executive Order guidance on AI governance should also consider whether this documentation obligation aligns with their internal AI use policies. (4) CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Procurement teams should treat harm documentation as a required deliverable in the API onboarding process and integrate it into existing product risk assessment workflows. Organizations with established AI governance frameworks should map this obligation to existing internal documentation requirements to avoid duplicative processes. (5) COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Compliance teams should develop a standardized harm assessment template that satisfies this contractual requirement and, where applicable, also meets GDPR DPIA and EU AI Act technical documentation standards. Documentation should be versioned and updated when application functionality changes materially.
Full compliance analysis
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
Free: track 1 platform + weekly digest. Monitor: 25 platforms + same-day alerts. No credit card required.
Netflix updated its Privacy Statement on April 18, 2026, disclosing voice recording collection and expanded household ad profiling for the first time.
Google's Privacy Policy covers Search, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, and every site running Google Analytics. Here is what it actually authorizes.
Compliance Governance Intelligence
Need to monitor specific governance provisions?
Compliance includes provision-level monitoring, governance timelines, regulatory mapping, and audit-ready analysis.
Built from archived source documents, structured governance mappings, and historical version tracking.
The harm documentation requirement creates an affirmative pre-deployment obligation that functions as a form of AI impact assessment, which aligns with emerging regulatory requirements for AI governance documentation under frameworks such as the EU AI Act.
This obligation requires developers to consider and record how their Cohere-powered application might harm end users before the application is deployed, providing a procedural safeguard that benefits individuals who will ultimately interact with the product.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Cohere.