AI & Compliance
Your team is using AI tools every day. To draft proposals. To summarise meetings. To analyse contracts. To classify support tickets.
And in almost every conversation, the prompt contains data that belongs to your customers.
So here's the uncomfortable question: do you know exactly where that data is being processed right now?
When you use the big US AI providers — OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft Copilot — the data you submit travels outside the European Union to be processed. Even if the front-end is hosted in Frankfurt or Madrid, the inference happens on infrastructure governed by US law.
Two regulations collide on that journey:
Both can be true at the same time. And both, in fact, are.
When a client trusts you with their information, they're trusting you — your processes, your jurisdiction, your accountability.
If that data ends up being processed by a third-party provider you didn't disclose, in a country whose laws differ from those agreed in the contract, you have a problem. Not a theoretical one. A regulatory one.
And the people in charge of pointing that out — auditors, regulators, compliance officers, opposing counsel — are getting better at it every quarter.
Most companies using AI today are taking on a regulatory risk they don't even know exists. Not because they're negligent — because nobody told them the prompt was the leak.
The good news: this is solvable. The choice isn't "use AI" or "don't use AI." It's "where does the inference run?"
Open-source models running on European infrastructure — or, better, on infrastructure you own — give you the same productivity gains without the jurisdictional problem. Llama, Mistral, Qwen and others now match or beat the previous generation of commercial models for most enterprise tasks. The technology has caught up. The deployment story is what's still missing in most companies.
Before you sign the next AI contract, before you let the next department turn on Copilot for everyone, ask:
If you can't answer all four in under a minute, you don't have an AI strategy — you have AI exposure.
At AP Interactive we deploy private LLMs on infrastructure we operate ourselves under autonomous system AS215691 — in Madrid, the Netherlands and Germany. EU-only inference, no Cloud Act exposure, full audit logs.
If you want to know whether your current AI setup meets the legal bar your customers expect of you, talk to us. We'll map your data flows and tell you, in plain language, where you stand.
When you use providers like OpenAI, Anthropic, Google or Microsoft Copilot, the data in your prompts is processed on infrastructure governed by US law. The GDPR restricts transferring certain categories of personal data outside the EU without specific safeguards, while the US Cloud Act lets US authorities compel American providers to hand over data regardless of where the servers sit — without notifying you. Both rules apply at once.
No. Even if the interface is hosted in Frankfurt or Madrid, the inference itself often happens on infrastructure controlled by a US company, which remains subject to the Cloud Act. What matters legally is the provider's jurisdiction and where the actual processing occurs, not just where the customer-facing app is hosted.
Deploying open-source models — such as Llama, Mistral or Qwen — on European infrastructure, or infrastructure you own, gives comparable productivity gains without the jurisdictional exposure. AP Interactive runs private LLMs on its own network (AS215691) in Madrid, the Netherlands and Germany, keeping inference EU-only with full audit logs.