Provision record
Snowflake · Snowflake Sub-Processors · View original document ↗

Sub-processor objections handled per DPA terms

High severity High confidence Explicit document language Common · 297 of 352 platforms

Key Facts

How must sub-processor objections be handled?
Snowflake requires that sub-processor objections be handled as described in the customer's DPA.
Stay ahead of the changes
Track Snowflake and get the diff the day its terms change.
Share 𝕏 Share in Share 🔒 PDF

This analysis describes what Snowflake'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

ConductAtlas Analysis

Why it matters (compliance & governance perspective)

The substantive rights and remedies available to a customer upon objecting to a sub-processor are entirely determined by the customer's individual DPA, not by this document.

Consumer impact (what this means for users)

The reader's rights and options after submitting a sub-processor objection are governed exclusively by their DPA with Snowflake.

How other platforms handle this

Tinder Medium

If your account is terminated by you or by Tinder for any reason, these Terms continue and remain enforceable between you and Tinder, and you will not be entitled to any refund for purchases made.

Perplexity AI Medium

These Terms and the licenses granted hereunder may be assigned by the Company but may not be assigned by you without the prior express written consent of the Company.

ActiveCampaign Medium

These Terms may not be assigned or transferred by you except with our prior written consent.

See all platforms with this clause type →
▸ View Original Clause Language DOCUMENT RECORD
"
Objections shall be handled as described in your DPA.

Excerpt from Snowflake's Sub-Processors

Provision details

Document information
Document
Snowflake Sub-Processors
Entity
Snowflake
Document last updated
July 6, 2026
Tracking information
First tracked
July 6, 2026
Last verified
July 9, 2026
Record ID
CA-P-069651
Document ID
CA-D-00936
Evidence Provenance
Source URL
Wayback Machine
Content hash (SHA-256)
78a6e16dd3159fc2d602a3ee1c68e30dd1fd4b2c775842c21d2702f594f4f363
Analysis generated
July 6, 2026 23:26 UTC
Methodology
Evidence
✓ Snapshot stored   ✓ Hash verified
Citation Record
Entity: Snowflake
Document: Snowflake Sub-Processors
Record ID: CA-P-069651
Captured: 2026-07-06 23:26:12 UTC
SHA-256: 78a6e16dd3159fc2…
URL: https://conductatlas.com/platform/snowflake/snowflake-sub-processors/provision/CA-P-069651/sub-processor-objections-handled-per-dpa-terms/
Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026
Permanent archival reference. Stable identifier suitable for legal filings, compliance documentation, and research citation.
Classification
Severity
High
Categories

Other risks in this policy

Get the 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.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does Snowflake's Sub-processor objections handled per DPA terms clause do?

The substantive rights and remedies available to a customer upon objecting to a sub-processor are entirely determined by the customer's individual DPA, not by this document.

How does this clause affect you?

The reader's rights and options after submitting a sub-processor objection are governed exclusively by their DPA with Snowflake.

How many platforms have this type of clause?

ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 297 platforms. See the full comparison.

Is ConductAtlas affiliated with Snowflake?

No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Snowflake.