1. What the document is: Anthropic's instructions for submitting law-enforcement requests, expanded on 2026-03-17 to also include Anthropic's substantive policy for handling government requests for user information. Outside this wiki's AI-training/data-licensing focus.

What this wiki found — complete, every page

AI trainingRoyalty-freeSublicensablePerpetual / irrevocableTransferableDerivative works

Presence facts, not verdicts — each flagged term links to its definition and the exact clause on this page. Absence of a badge means the term isn't currently flagged here, not that the page is risk-free.

Claude.ai – Law Enforcement Guidelines

Dataset: GenGA (Generative AI Governance Archive) — 11 AI services, 2025–present

GenGA (Generative AI Governance Archive) is this wiki’s Generative-AI dataset: raw policy snapshots captured by the Open Terms Archive genai-eu project across 11 GenAI providers (ChatGPT, Claude.ai, DeepSeek, Google Generative AI Services, Le Chat, Llama API, Meta AI, Microsoft Copilot, Perplexity, Qwen Chat, xAI). Unlike PGAv2, GenGA has no pre-tagged risk scores — all risk scoring and keyword tagging on these pages is LLM-assigned by direct reading, spanning 2025–present.

Note: This page contains documented policy clauses. Risk assessment is qualitative and context-dependent. For analysis of patterns across platforms, see:

Source: sources/GenGA/Claude.ai/Law Enforcement Guidelines/ (raw Markdown captures, Open Terms Archive genai-eu dataset — no pre-tagged JSONL exists for this source) Last updated: 2026-03-17

Note on methodology: No pre-computed risk_score/keyword fields exist for this source. Keyword tags on this page are LLM-assigned. Treat as first-pass analysis, not externally verified ground truth. This wiki’s risk-scoring system was retired project-wide on 2026-06-21 (see methodology.md §4) — no page, GenGA included, computes or displays a numeric risk score.

Overview

1. What the document is: Anthropic’s instructions for submitting law-enforcement requests, expanded on 2026-03-17 to also include Anthropic’s substantive policy for handling government requests for user information. Outside this wiki’s AI-training/data-licensing focus.

2. Input rights: Not addressed.

3. Output restrictions: Not addressed.

4. Non-explicit predatory clauses: None found.

5. Regulatory references: General references to “valid legal process” and “applicable law,” without naming a specific statute or regulation (contrast with OpenAI’s equivalent, which cites 18 U.S.C. § 2703(f) and MLAT — mutual legal assistance treaty — mechanisms by name).

6. Regional variation: Not explicitly addressed — unlike OpenAI’s split between its US and Irish entities, this document doesn’t distinguish EEA/UK requests from others.

7. Key risk to users: Low, and not really within this wiki’s core scope. Worth noting: Anthropic commits to notifying users about a request “unless we believe we’re legally prohibited from doing so, or other rare exceptions apply” — a discretionary standard similar to OpenAI’s equivalent commitment.

No AI-training, data-licensing, or output-restriction clauses found — out of scope for this wiki’s core risk categories.

Regulatory & Research Context

This document’s reliance on general references to “valid legal process” rather than named statutes is the kind of ambiguity Davidson et al. (2026) describe as a “regulatory gray area” in their comparative study of LLM Terms of Service, which includes Anthropic among the providers studied directly — by contrast, OpenAI’s equivalent policy (see ChatGPT_Law_Enforcement_Guidelines.md) names specific US statutory provisions. Edwards et al. (2025)‘s “platformisation paradigm” is visible in Anthropic’s user-notice commitment, which is subject to a discretionary exception (“unless we believe we’re legally prohibited from doing so, or other rare exceptions apply”) rather than a fixed external standard, consistent with their broader observation that providers retain self-defined control while presenting themselves as neutral intermediaries.

Changes Summary

Date	What changed
2025-11-11	Baseline version: a short request-submission form (fields required for law-enforcement record requests) plus a link to Anthropic’s separate substantive policy page.
2026-03-17	Substantively expanded: the previously-linked substantive policy (“What is Anthropic’s policy for handling governmental requests for user information?”) is now embedded directly in this document, disclosing the legal-process standard, an emergency exception, a request-validity review process, and the user-notice commitment.

Version History

2025-11-11

Explicit AI clause: NO
Non-explicit predatory: NO
Flagged keywords: (none)

No AI-training, data-licensing, or output-restriction clauses found in this document.

2026-03-17

Explicit AI clause: NO
Non-explicit predatory: NO
Flagged keywords: (none)

Still out of scope — this date added Anthropic’s substantive government-request policy text (previously only linked), but it contains no AI-training, data-licensing, or output-restriction clauses either.