OpenAI ChatGPT & API
OpenAI, L.L.C. · EFROS US AI Vendor Governance Index entry
Composite governance score
D = thin posture. Deploy only for low-risk, non-regulated workloads under strict scope.
About this vendor
GPT-class foundation models delivered via ChatGPT consumer/enterprise tiers and a developer API. The most-deployed generative AI vendor in US enterprise.
- Enterprise tier
- ChatGPT Enterprise, ChatGPT Team, ChatGPT Edu, OpenAI API (paid)
- Consumer tier
- ChatGPT Free, ChatGPT Plus
- Vendor homepage
- https://openai.com
- Trust center
- https://trust.openai.com
Twelve-axis governance scoring
Each axis is scored Yes / Partial / No / N/A against public evidence — vendor trust portals, BAAs/DPAs, SOC 2 report cover pages, published methodology documents. N/A applies when the axis is structurally inapplicable (foundation models, for example, defer Section 1557 to the downstream healthcare deployer).
| Axis | Status | EFROS note | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| BAA / DPA available | Partial | BAA available for ChatGPT Enterprise and OpenAI API on opt-in. ChatGPT Free, Plus, and Team have no BAA — never use for PHI. | OpenAI Enterprise Privacy |
| Training-data opt-out | Partial | Enterprise/Team/API default to no-train on customer data. ChatGPT Plus and Free require manual opt-out via settings (data still used for safety/abuse monitoring). | OpenAI Data Controls FAQ |
| US data residency option | Partial | Data Residency in the US available for ChatGPT Enterprise/Edu and API. Not default — must be configured. | OpenAI Data Residency announcement |
| SOC 2 Type II report | Yes | SOC 2 Type II report available through OpenAI Trust Portal under NDA. ISO 27001:2022, 27017, 27018 also held. | OpenAI Trust Portal |
| ISO/IEC 42001 attestation | No | No ISO/IEC 42001 attestation as of May 2026. OpenAI publishes a Preparedness Framework and Model Spec but no third-party AI MS audit. | OpenAI Trust Portal certificate index |
| NIST AI RMF self-attestation | Partial | Public alignment via OpenAI's Preparedness Framework and Model Spec. No formal NIST AI RMF self-attestation document. | OpenAI Preparedness Framework |
| Colorado AI Act readiness | No | No public Colorado AI Act SB 24-205 compliance statement. Downstream deployers using OpenAI in high-risk decisions carry the compliance burden. | Public posture review |
| HHS-OCR Section 1557 readiness | N/A | Foundation model — downstream healthcare deployer owns Section 1557 algorithmic non-discrimination obligation. | HHS-OCR Section 1557 Final Rule (May 2024) — deployer scope |
| FRB SR 11-7 readiness | N/A | Foundation model — downstream financial institution owns SR 11-7 validation responsibility. | FRB SR 11-7 — deployer scope |
| ABA Formal Op 512 readiness | N/A | Foundation model — downstream law firm owns ABA Formal Opinion 512 obligation. | ABA Formal Op 512 — practitioner scope |
| Subprocessor list public | Yes | Subprocessor list public (Microsoft Azure hosting, Stripe billing, Snowflake analytics, etc.). | OpenAI Enterprise Privacy — Subprocessors |
Trust-center maturity
Active trust portal at trust.openai.com — audit reports under NDA, security whitepaper, public policy documents. Falls short of a 5 because no public ISO 42001 or Colorado AI Act statement yet.
Source: OpenAI Trust Portal
Deep dive
Overview
OpenAI is the highest-volume US AI vendor in regulated buyer pipelines. The governance posture is strong on the enterprise tier (BAA, no-train default, US data residency, SOC 2 + ISO 27k stack) and weak on consumer (no BAA, manual opt-out, no residency control). The single biggest deployment risk we see is staff using consumer ChatGPT for work where Enterprise was assumed.
Strengths
- BAA available for ChatGPT Enterprise + API
- Default no-train on customer data at Enterprise/Team/API tiers
- Mature trust portal with under-NDA audit reports
- US data residency option for enterprise customers
Weaknesses
- No BAA on Plus/Team/Free — common shadow-AI source
- No ISO/IEC 42001 attestation as of May 2026
- No public Colorado AI Act compliance statement
- Sector-specific readiness (Section 1557, SR 11-7, ABA Op 512) is deployer responsibility — no vendor-side support
Best-fit use case
Regulated organizations that have already standardized on ChatGPT Enterprise with the BAA in place, training opt-out enforced, and Data Residency in the US enabled — and have eliminated shadow consumer-tier use through DLP + identity policy.
Avoid when
PHI workflows on ChatGPT Plus, Team, or Free; clinical decision support without a separately validated Section 1557 layer; bank credit decisioning without an SR 11-7 wrapper on top.
Operator's take
Deploy OpenAI ChatGPT & API when regulated organizations that have already standardized on ChatGPT Enterprise with the BAA in place, training opt-out enforced, and Data Residency in the US enabled — and have eliminated shadow consumer-tier use through DLP + identity policy. The composite score of 53 (grade D) reflects a mixed posture for regulated US workloads. Skip the vendor when pHI workflows on ChatGPT Plus, Team, or Free; clinical decision support without a separately validated Section 1557 layer; bank credit decisioning without an SR 11-7 wrapper on top. In every deployment, treat the cells above as a snapshot — the acquisition that gets to production safely is the one that re-verifies the trust-center posture before contract signature and rebuilds the matrix at renewal.
How this scoring is computed
The composite score blends eleven scoreable axes (BAA, training opt-out, US data residency, SOC 2, ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF, Colorado AI Act, Section 1557, SR 11-7, ABA Op 512, subprocessor transparency) with the trust-center maturity score. Axes marked N/A are excluded from the denominator so vendors are not penalized for sector-inapplicable axes. The vendor's primary sector amplifies the most relevant axes — healthcare vendors weight Section 1557 ×2, legal vendors weight ABA Op 512 ×2, banking vendors weight SR 11-7 ×2 — so the composite reflects what matters in the actual buying context.
Read the full methodology →Disagree with this scoring?
EFROS publishes scoring rationale per cell with a public source. If you have evidence that a specific axis should score differently — a new BAA, a new certification, a documented policy change — submit a formal challenge below. We re-score and publish the result with the next quarterly edition (or as a mid-quarter changelog entry if the change is material).
Disagree with a score?
Every cell in the EFROS Index is source-cited. If you have a public source that contradicts a score for OpenAI ChatGPT & API, submit a formal challenge — we re-verify against the source and respond within 14 days.
Other vendors in Foundation model
Same category, scored on the same twelve axes. Useful for head-to-head shortlisting.
Take the scoring into production
The Index tells you the posture. These engagements turn the posture into a deployable program — vendor selection, governance policy, sector overlay, audit-ready evidence.