“If there is any conflict between the terms in this Privacy Statement and the DPF Principles, the DPF Principles shall govern.”
This analysis describes what Fly.io'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 hierarchy clause means that the Privacy Statement's terms are subordinate to the DPF Principles, so the operative data-protection rules in a conflict scenario are those of the DPF framework rather than the Privacy Statement.
The updated policy now explicitly discloses that Fly.io uses third-party fraud-prevention services that collect device and browser signals (and set cookies) when users create accounts or sign in. Unlike analytics, which users can opt out of via cookie preferences or Google's opt-out tool, this fraud-prevention processing cannot be opted out of. The company states its legal basis is legitimate interest in protecting the platform and users. You can opt out of analytics collection, but fraud-prevention data collection will apply to all account creation and sign-in activity.
View change record →The updated policy discloses that Fly.io now uses PostHog analytics on public, logged-out pages (marketing pages, blog, documentation) in addition to Google Analytics. PostHog stores a random identifier and pageview data such as URL, referrer, and device type in the EU, but does not link this data to user names, email addresses, or Fly.io accounts, and does not capture session recordings, clicks, keystrokes, or form contents. Analytics data is retained for a maximum of 12 months. For users in the EEA, UK, or Switzerland, both Google Analytics and PostHog require explicit consent before being set; you can withdraw consent at any time using the 'Cookie preferences' link in the page footer or by using Google's opt-out browser add-on.
View change record →Where the Privacy Statement and the DPF Principles say different things, the DPF Principles are the rules that apply to your data.
How other platforms handle this
The Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding conflicts of law provisions.
Postman commits to cooperate and comply respectively with the advice of the panel established by the EU data protection authorities (DPAs) and the UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (FDPIC)...
Any disputes or claims not subject to arbitration, as set forth in this section, will be resolved exclusively in the federal or state courts of New York, New York, and you and we consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts.
"If there is any conflict between the terms in this Privacy Statement and the DPF Principles, the DPF Principles shall govern.Excerpt from Fly.io's Privacy Policy
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 hierarchy clause means that the Privacy Statement's terms are subordinate to the DPF Principles, so the operative data-protection rules in a conflict scenario are those of the DPF framework rather than the Privacy Statement.
Where the Privacy Statement and the DPF Principles say different things, the DPF Principles are the rules that apply to your data.
ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 264 platforms. See the full comparison.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Fly.io.