Your Team Is Using ChatGPT on Regulated Data — Here's Why That's a Problem

Your employees are using ChatGPT. Not some of them — most of them. A 2025 Microsoft survey found that 78% of knowledge workers use AI tools at work, and the majority do so without IT approval. For Canadian organizations subject to Law 25, PIPEDA, or CPCSC, this isn't just an IT governance issue. It's a compliance liability.

---

The scope of the problem

Shadow AI — unauthorized AI tool usage on company data — has become the fastest-growing compliance risk in Canadian enterprises. When an employee pastes a client contract into ChatGPT, three things happen simultaneously:

• That data leaves Canadian jurisdiction and is processed on US infrastructure (Microsoft Azure, US region)
• The data becomes subject to the US CLOUD Act, which compels US-headquartered companies to produce data regardless of where it's stored
• Your organization has no audit trail, no consent documentation, and no Privacy Impact Assessment for that processing activity

For a Quebec organization, this triggers Law 25 requirements you likely haven't met. For a defence contractor, it may constitute a CPCSC violation.

Shadow AI isn't a technology problem — it's a jurisdiction problem. Every prompt sent to a US-hosted AI tool is a cross-border data transfer your compliance team doesn't know about.

---

What Canadian regulations actually say

Law 25 (Quebec)

Law 25 (s. 93) requires organizations to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment before using any technology that processes personal information in a new way. AI tools — including ChatGPT — clearly qualify. The penalties for non-compliance are administrative fines of up to C$25 million or 4% of global revenue, whichever is higher.

More critically, Law 25 requires organizations to inform individuals when their personal information is used in automated decision-making. If an employee uses ChatGPT to draft a performance review or assess a client application, that obligation is triggered — and almost certainly unmet.

PIPEDA (Federal)

PIPEDA's consent principle (Principle 3) requires organizations to obtain meaningful consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information. When an employee sends client data to OpenAI's servers, that constitutes a disclosure to a third party — one your privacy notice almost certainly doesn't cover.

PIPEDA also requires organizations to use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection when data is transferred to a third party (Principle 7). OpenAI's terms of service do not provide the protections PIPEDA contemplates.

CPCSC (Defence)

For defence contractors bound by the Canadian Program for Cyber Security Certification, the calculus is simpler. CPCSC requires jurisdictional control over information systems. US-hosted AI tools fail this requirement. There's no mitigation — if your analysts are using ChatGPT on procurement documents, you have a certification gap.

The legal question isn't whether employees can use ChatGPT — it's whether your organization can document, control, and audit that usage within Canadian regulatory frameworks. For most organizations, the honest answer is no.

---

Why blocking doesn't work

The instinct is to block AI tools entirely. Some organizations have tried. It doesn't work for three reasons:

1. Productivity pressure is real. Employees using AI tools report 40-60% productivity gains on writing and analysis tasks. Removing that capability without a replacement creates resentment and workarounds.

2. VPN and personal devices bypass blocks. Network-level restrictions only work on managed devices connected to corporate networks. Remote workers, personal phones, and browser-based VPNs bypass these controls trivially.

3. The cat is out of the bag. Once someone discovers they can draft a 10-page report in 20 minutes, they're not going back. The question is whether they do it on your terms or theirs.

---

The alternative: sovereign AI that works

The practical solution isn't prohibition — it's replacement. Give your team AI tools that are both capable enough for daily use and compliant enough for regulated work.

This is what Augure is designed for. Sovereign AI chat and knowledge base running entirely on Canadian infrastructure, with models built for Canadian law and Québécois regulatory context. No US cloud, no CLOUD Act exposure, no cross-border data transfer to document.

When your team has a compliant alternative that's actually good — bilingual, capable, fast — shadow AI becomes a non-issue. They'll use what works, and what works is what's in front of them.

---

What to do this week

If you're a compliance or IT leader at a Canadian organization, here are three immediate steps:

• Audit current usage. Survey your team. Ask directly: "Are you using ChatGPT, Claude, or other AI tools on work data?" The answer will be yes. You need to know the scope.

• Assess your PIA obligations. If you're a Quebec organization, you likely need a Privacy Impact Assessment for AI tool usage. If employees are already using these tools, you're already behind.

• Evaluate sovereign alternatives. Augure offers a free tier with Tofino 2.5 access — enough for your team to evaluate whether a Canadian-hosted alternative meets their daily workflow needs. Start at augureai.ca.

The compliance risk of shadow AI isn't theoretical. It's happening in your organization right now. The question is whether you address it proactively or wait for an audit to find it.

---

Augure is sovereign AI built for organizations where data jurisdiction isn't optional.