Omdia says many providers using the “sovereign AI” label cannot back up their claims, putting enterprises at risk. Its report, Sovereign AI: A Playbook for Success, evaluates the terms of service, service level agreements, data processing agreements, privacy practices and certifications of 35 providers in 20 countries.
Omdia found that sovereignty is often little more than a marketing adjective meaning local assets. Almost a third (28%) of providers disclose no proof of sovereignty, and some expect enterprises to pay for audits to verify their claims. Eight in 10 contracts state network resilience is outside providers’ control or responsibility; two thirds limit compensation for non-performance to service credits, and vague “best efforts” language is widespread.
US-headquartered AI providers offer better service transparency and contract terms than a majority of local sovereign AI providers, with providers in India a notable exception. Camille Mendler, Research Director, Telco B2B at Omdia, said: “No one is regulating who can call themselves a sovereign AI provider, and it shows. Local hosting is not sovereignty. Serious providers must demonstrate their credibility through transparent operations, fair contracts and proof of competence. That includes the network, because data in transit must be sovereign too.”
Sovereignty is shifting IT budgets: up to 45% of large enterprises plan to add or replace an ICT supplier for sovereignty or compliance reasons within 18 months. One in five large and multinational enterprises already mandates network sovereignty safeguards, and these firms rank telecom operators as their most trusted AI partner. Small and medium-sized enterprises with skeleton IT teams are potentially most at risk, as few have resources to examine sovereignty claims.
Omdia recommends that providers invest in certification and trust centers, publish separate SLAs for connectivity and AI services, and seek partners that can help fill competency gaps.
