An AI tool can make a convincing demonstration before anyone has decided what staff should put into it, who will check its work or how the business will stop using it. I would want those questions answered before treating a subscription as an adoption decision.
My starting point is the proposed workflow. A useful review connects the task, the information involved and the person responsible for the result. A vendor’s general privacy statement is only one part of that picture.
Start with a defined task
“We want to use AI” is too broad to assess. Is the tool drafting marketing copy, summarizing documents, recording meetings or helping make decisions about people? Who will use the output, and what happens if it is wrong?
I would separate an internal first draft from material sent to a customer or used to make an important decision. Each use needs an appropriate level of review. The expected time saving should include the time needed to check the result.
Follow the information into the tool
List the information the proposed task needs. Then ask whether the task can be tested using public or synthetic material instead. Customer records, staff information, confidential agreements and meeting transcripts deserve specific attention before they are entered into a new system.
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s guidance for businesses emphasizes a lawful basis for handling personal information, transparency and limits on sharing sensitive information. Whether a particular use is permitted depends on the applicable law and the circumstances; buying a subscription does not answer that question.
Ask who can access inputs and outputs, whether they may be used to improve models, how long they are kept and what connected services receive them. The answers may differ by product, account type, settings and contract. They should be checked for the service actually being purchased.
Read the terms alongside the workflow
I would review the provider’s commitments about data use, confidentiality, ownership, deletion and changes to the service. I would also look at liability limits, cancellation, available support and the ability to retrieve the business’s information when the relationship ends.
A contractual promise and a technical control do different jobs. Legal review can identify gaps in the agreement and allocate responsibilities. It does not establish that the software is secure or suitable for every use. Relevant technical questions need someone qualified to assess them.
Make approval a recorded decision
For a proportionate pilot, I would record four decisions:
- Scope: the permitted task, approved users and information that must stay out.
- Review: who checks outputs and what must be verified before they are used.
- Responsibility: who handles questions, exceptions and changes to the tool or its terms.
- Exit: how the pilot will be evaluated, stopped and closed out if it does not meet the business’s needs.
The pilot should be narrow enough to evaluate without quietly becoming the organization’s default process. A successful trial can support a wider decision, with a fresh review where the information, purpose or consequences change.
These are practical starting questions, rather than a universal compliance checklist. My interest is in helping an owner understand what they are approving and what still needs an answer. For related legal-work scope and enquiries, see privacy, AI and digital risk.
Further reading: Canadian privacy regulators’ principles for privacy-protective generative AI.