Why did we build this product?

The rise of AI regulations globally (EU AI Act, U.S. Executive Order, state-level laws) is creating urgent demand for organizations to identify and manage their AI-related risks. Our customers need a way to evaluate their AI systems and ensure compliance across jurisdictions, frameworks, and internal policies, while also ensuring a defensible audit trail. AI Risk is our response to that need.

What problem is AI Risk solving?

AI Risk provides a structured and defensible assessment process to identify and document risks tied to the use of AI systems. It supports organizations in evaluating regulatory exposure, applying consistent risk frameworks, and establishing AI governance across legal, privacy, security, and compliance teams.

Who will use this product?

AI Risk is intended for cross-functional teams that include Compliance, Legal, AI Governance, and Risk Management. AI Steering committees and their component members. AI steering committees and executives responsible for AI governance risk and compliance will find this especially valuable.

What makes this different from other AI governance tools?

Unlike general-purpose risk registers or generic GRC tools, AI Risk: Codifies regulatory guidance (e.g., EU AI Act, NIST RMF) into configurable assessments. Supports multi-framework alignment and documentation. Provides built-in auditability and traceability.

What are the top use cases?

Regulatory Alignment: Mapping AI systems to the EU AI Act or NIST AI RMF. Pre-Deployment Review: Assessing risk before releasing a model or tool. Cross-Functional Collaboration: Legal, compliance, and AI teams jointly evaluating risk. Audit Trail: Documenting decisions and rationale for audits and regulators.

Will this tie into incident workflows?

Yes. Incidents involving AI system misuse or harm can trigger assessments. Likewise, risk findings can link back into Compliance or Privacy obligations when thresholds are met.

Can I see reporting by risk level or framework coverage?

Yes. Assessments will support: Risk distribution by system | Framework coverage dashboards | Gaps or missing documentation

Can AI Risk handle multiple systems or models at once?

Yes. Assessments are per system/model but the interface will support a portfolio-level view.

Is this built to scale with new regulations?

Yes. New frameworks, jurisdictions, or internal review processes can be added via configuration. We plan to provide prebuilt updates for major regulatory shifts post-GA.

How does AI Risk integrate with existing AI governance software?

Radar AI Risk connects seamlessly with other AI governance tools, enabling centralized oversight without the need to replace existing systems.

Can AI Risk support high level reporting for executives and boards?

Yes. The platform offers high level dashboards and scorecards designed for leadership to quickly assess organizational AI risk posture.

How does AI Risk help with training data compliance?

AI Risk tracks and documents training data quality, provenance, and use, ensuring compliance with privacy and ethical guidelines.

Is Radar AI Risk suitable for organizations just beginning to adopt AI?

Absolutely. Whether you are starting small or scaling enterprise-wide, Radar AI Risk provides the structure to manage compliance from the beginning of development and deployment.

Search Results | RadarFirst

Breach Notification Regulatory Trends from 2018

[…] especially in the breach notification realm. The tightening of existing regulations and the addition of new ones have created a seismic shift toward greater complexity and stringency. Compliance has never been more critical—and never more difficult. This article is the first in a series discussing the regulatory trends over the past year, and what […]

Tackling the Top 4 Challenges of Managing Privacy Incident Response

[…] more stringent, specific, and numerous than ever before. The constant shifting of regulations requires constant vigilance to keep abreast of changes. A 2018 Thomson Reuters report on compliance noted that there is an average of 216 regulatory alerts a day. In addition to broadening the scope of regulated or personal data, many laws have […]

Protenus and RADAR Partner to Mitigate Security and Privacy Risks for Healthcare Organizations

Leading healthcare compliance analytics company and top incident response management company partner to provide technology for security and privacy incident detection and risk assessment, ensuring compliance with HIPAA and U.S. state breach notification requirements. BALTIMORE, MD — January 7, 2019 — Protenus, a healthcare compliance analytics platform that protects patient privacy for the nation’s […]

Busting 3 Dangerous Myths about SaaS Solutions

[…] offer real-time or near real-time updates. Fast and reliable, SaaS for incident response reduces the cost of inefficient and inconsistent processes, which is also essential for maintaining compliance. In addition, SaaS frees up time and resources so teams can focus on core business needs first—IT on managing strategic business systems and core data, and […]

Dentons Announces Strategic Alliance with RADAR to Provide Innovation in Incident Response

[…] the world’s largest law firm, and RADAR, a leading provider of incident response management software, announce a strategic alliance to help clients reduce the risks and costs of compliance with data breach laws. Under the alliance, Dentons and RADAR will help clients navigate increasingly stringent obligations stemming from data privacy and breach notification regulations around […]

Vista Equity Partners Invests in RADAR, Inc. to Accelerate Growth in Global Data Privacy Technology Market

[…] and technology-enabled businesses that are reinventing industries and catalyzing change. With Vista’s partnership, RADAR intends to expand operations and accelerate innovation in delivering solutions that help simplify compliance with global privacy obligations. Headquartered in Portland, Oregon, founder-led RADAR provides incident response management software through automated and purpose-built SaaS technology. The platform’s highly differentiated solution […]

Benchmarking Voluntary Breach Notifications: Frequency and Drivers

[…] state’s regulation or differences in the definition of protected data. Organizations in this instance may elect to voluntarily notify, based on policies set and their culture of compliance. This also avoids potential public relations issues in the future: How do you explain to regulators, or the public, that the same incident warranted telling certain […]

PIPEDA’s New Mandatory Breach Notification and Recordkeeping Requirements: How Do They Compare with the GDPR and U.S. Regulations?

[…] must comply with both Canadian and European law. The final Regulations were drafted with a view to harmonizing the requirements to the extent possible.” The key to compliance with breach notification and recordkeeping requirements under the GDPR and PIPEDA is knowing where they are similar and where they are different. The same goes if […]

Scaling the Privacy Program: Technology Eases Change Management for Fortune 20 Company

[…] Canada’s soon-to-be-in-effect data breach notification amendment to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Coping with regulatory changes was one of the largest challenges for compliance practitioners as reported in the 2018 Thomson Reuters Cost of Compliance report. With the rise in regulatory burdens comes a corresponding rise in volume of privacy […]

Three Topics We’re Following at the 2018 IAPP Privacy. Security. Risk. event in Austin

[…] Bought and Deployed,” features a discussion of the recent IAPP & TrustArc research on privacy tech adoption. Speakers include the CPO from Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the Head of Compliance and Privacy for US and Europe with Alibaba Cloud, and General Counsel and Chief Data Governance Officer at TrustArc. Session Highlight: How Privacy Tech is Bought […]

Full disclosure: Benchmarking data reveals the human error in privacy incidents

[…] us, and we take every measure to protect the data of our customers and of individuals. RADAR Inc. ensures that the incident metadata we analyze is in compliance with the RADAR privacy statement, terms of use, and customer agreements. The information extracted from the platform for purposes of statistical analysis is not identifiable to any customer or […]

More Individual Records Exposed in First Six Months of 2018 than in All of 2017: The State of Healthcare Data Breach Response

This article by RADAR CEO Mahmood Sher-Jan originally appeared on the Compliance and Ethics blog. Click here to view it in its original format. If you’re familiar with the recent trend in breach reporting, you might not be surprised to learn that there has been significant growth in the number of breaches reported to […]

What’s Driving the Growth of Data Breach Response?

[…] companies to efficiently and consistently manage these incidents and improve outcomes. Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence also produces an annual report detailing the results of a cost of compliance survey among firms across the globe. When compliance professionals were asked to list the greatest challenges facing their work, the top answers were around identifying, managing, […]

RadarFirst Listed in Gartner Hype Cycle for Privacy Report

RadarFirst is the trusted incident response solution used by Fortune 500 and multinational enterprises subject to data privacy regulations to simplify compliance with U.S. and international data breach laws, including the EU GDPR. PORTLAND, Ore. — August 2, 2018 — RadarFirst, Inc., the award-winning privacy and security incident response management software provider, announced that […]

Benchmarking Data Indicates Human Error Prevailing Cause of Breaches, Incidents

[…] to us, and we take every measure to protect the data of our customers and of individuals. Radar ensures that the incident metadata we analyze is in compliance with the Radar privacy statement, terms of use and customer agreements. The information extracted from the platform for purposes of statistical analysis is not identifiable to any customer […]