Compliance in the technology sector covers far more than it did a decade ago. Teams at software, hardware, and cloud companies manage anti-bribery controls, third-party oversight, conflicts of interest, speak-up programs, and policy training, while also coordinating with legal and security colleagues on a growing body of privacy and AI rules.
Much of that work is shaped by how technology companies grow. New markets, public sector contracts, channel partner programs, acquisitions, and rapid hiring all add obligations, often faster than a compliance team adds headcount. Below, we look at the areas where technology compliance teams spend the most effort and the practices that help programs keep up.
Market expansion and public sector sales bring anti-bribery exposure with them
Technology companies often grow by entering new regions and selling to government customers, frequently through local resellers, distributors, and system integrators. Each step brings FCPA and UK Bribery Act exposure, and much of it sits with intermediaries who act on the company’s behalf far from headquarters.
Enforcement in the sector reflects this pattern, which centers on the same questions: how partners were selected, what due diligence was performed, how discounts and margins were approved, and whether anyone acted on warning signs.
Public sector selling also creates touchpoints that need clear rules. Conference hospitality, partner events, customer briefings, and travel for government officials all call for thresholds, approval workflows, and records that show who approved what and why.
Channel partners and vendors need oversight that matches their risk
Technology companies rely on a wide network of third parties, including software vendors, cloud and infrastructure providers, hardware suppliers, and the resellers who sell into regulated markets. Each relationship carries a different mix of bribery, sanctions, export control, and security exposure.
TPRM programs that handle this well tend to share a few practices:
- They set risk tiers by relationship type, geography, and access to data or systems, so low-risk vendors move through quickly and higher-risk partners receive closer review.
- They screen third parties and their owners against sanctions lists, entity lists, and adverse media on an ongoing basis rather than only at onboarding.
- They also collect ownership information and partner compensation details up front, since unusual commission structures and unclear ownership are common warning signs in channel programs.
Third-party security has become part of how customers evaluate technology providers
Vendor risk in technology often surfaces as a security question. SecurityScorecard’s 2025 Global Third-Party Breach Report found that 47 percent of breaches at technology companies in 2024 involved a third party, the second-highest rate of any industry.
Enterprise and financial-sector customers have taken notice. Regulations such as DORA and NIS2 require many of those customers to manage the risk posed by their technology providers, and they increasingly pass those expectations down through contracts, security questionnaires, and audits. For a technology company, its own oversight of vendors and subprocessors becomes part of how customers evaluate it before they buy.
Compliance and security teams that share a consistent record of vendor reviews, questionnaire responses, and monitoring results are in a better position to answer those requests without rebuilding the evidence each time.
A changing workforce makes disclosures harder to keep current
Rapid hiring, acquisitions, and globally distributed teams make it difficult to keep conflict-of-interest declarations, gift approvals, and policy attestations up to date. The technology sector adds its own layer, since employees often hold advisory roles, invest in startups, contribute to outside projects, or run side businesses that can overlap with vendors, customers, or competitors.
Annual disclosure campaigns help, but they work best alongside event-based triggers such as a new hire, a role change, or a newly onboarded vendor. Linking disclosures to third-party records also makes it easier to see when an employee relationship involves a vendor or partner already under review.
Acquisitions deserve particular attention. An acquired company may bring its own vendors, partners, and policies, and bringing them into the parent program on a clear timeline helps close gaps before they turn into audit findings.
Speak-up programs have to reach teams in every office and time zone
Technology workforces often include remote employees, contractors, and teams spread across many countries. A reporting channel needs to work for all of them, with options such as online forms, phone hotlines, and in-person reporting, along with clear protections against retaliation.
The EU Whistleblower Directive sets expectations for how reports are received, acknowledged, and followed up within defined timeframes. Beyond meeting those requirements, consistent triage and case management let compliance teams spot trends, such as a rise in reports from a particular region or business unit, and respond before an issue grows.
Privacy and AI rules widen the range of issues compliance teams coordinate
Data privacy laws such as GDPR and CCPA have shaped the sector for years. DLA Piper’s January 2025 survey reported €5.88 billion in cumulative GDPR fines since 2018, with most of the largest penalties falling on technology and social media companies. AI regulation is now adding to that picture, and under the EU AI Act, obligations for high-risk AI systems are expected to apply from December 2027 following recent changes to the timeline.
These areas are usually led by privacy, security, or legal teams rather than the ethics and compliance function. Even so, compliance teams are often asked to coordinate across them, whether by distributing related policies, tracking training completion, or making sure concerns raised through speak-up channels reach the right owner.
Building compliance tools in-house is a tempting option for technology teams
Technology companies have strong engineering teams and wide access to AI tools, so building internal compliance workflows can look like a natural choice. A prototype for gift approvals or vendor intake can come together in days.
The complexity tends to appear later. Compliance workflows depend on one another, so a new reseller may need a conflict check, a training assignment, and a disclosure review. Regional thresholds, escalation rules, integrations with HR and identity systems, and audit trails that meet documentation standards all need to be specified, tested, and maintained as regulations change. Engineering priorities also shift, and the team that built a tool has often moved on by the time it needs an update.
The common thread is being able to show how the program works in practice
The U.S. Department of Justice evaluates whether a compliance program is well designed, adequately resourced, and working in practice. For technology companies, regulators are not the only ones asking. Enterprise customers, auditors, investors, and boards raise similar questions, often during a sales cycle or a funding round.
When a question arises about a reseller, the compliance team should be able to show the due diligence performed, the approvals behind any discounts or hospitality, the training the partner completed, and the monitoring in place since onboarding. That answer is far easier to give when third-party records, disclosures, and incident reports live in one place rather than across separate spreadsheets and tools.
GAN Integrity helps technology compliance teams run one connected program
GAN Integrity brings third-party risk management, conflicts of interest, gifts and entertainment, incident management, and policy management together on one platform for technology compliance teams. Every module shares one data model, so a conflict flagged in one area appears on the third-party record it relates to.
Teams can configure risk tiers, workflows, and forms to fit their business units, regions, and vendor base, and automate approvals for low-risk vendors while routing higher-risk partners to additional review. GAN Integrity also partners directly with data providers including Sayari, Dow Jones, and Control Risks, so screening and verification can happen inside the same program.
If you want to see how your third-party risk program compares, the TPRM Maturity Assessment takes about five minutes and shows where your program stands today.
Hannah Tichansky is the Senior Product Marketing Manager at GAN Integrity. Hannah holds over 14 years of writing and marketing experience, with 9 years of specialization in Governance, Risk, and Compliance. Hannah holds an MA from Monmouth University and a Certificate in Product Marketing from Cornell University.