Vendor security reviews · SaaS & technology
Vendor Security Review & Questionnaire Support for Martech & Adtech Platforms
Martech and adtech companies sit on both sides of vendor security. To a brand or agency holdco, you are the vendor whose SIG or CAIQ answers decide whether onboarding proceeds. To Google, Meta and every other platform whose partner program you rely on, you are the applicant whose privacy practices get audited on a schedule. We support both directions: credible questionnaire responses backed by real controls, and structured review of the sub-processors your own product depends on.
Reviewed by the Privacy Horizon team · Last reviewed
What you're protecting
What a reviewer is actually checking
Vendor reviews in this niche probe further than a generic security questionnaire, because the reviewer already assumes your product touches personal information at scale.
Consent provenance for audiences you receive
Reviewers increasingly ask how you verify that data a client or partner sends you was collected with valid consent, not just how you secure it once it arrives.
Sub-processor and data-supplier documentation
A current, accurate list of who you share matched or enriched data with, and the terms governing what those parties may do with it.
Access controls around segment and identity data
Who inside your organization can query the CDP, warehouse or identity graph, and how that access is provisioned, reviewed and revoked.
Evidence of independent testing and certification
Recent penetration test results and, where pursued, SOC 2 or ISO evidence, which many brand and platform reviews now request directly.
Regulatory map
What sets the bar for these reviews
The standards behind a martech vendor review are a mix of regulator expectation, industry questionnaire and platform contract.
PIPEDA accountability for onward disclosure
Organizations remain accountable for personal information transferred to third parties for processing, which is exactly why a brand's own vendor review exists: to confirm you will handle their customers' data the way they are obligated to.
Shared Assessments SIG and Cloud Security Alliance CAIQ
The two questionnaire frameworks agency holdcos and enterprise brands most commonly send, structured around security and privacy controls a martech vendor is expected to demonstrate, not just claim.
Platform partner privacy requirements
Google and Meta both run their own certification and partner-program reviews covering data handling and consent, independent of any brand's own assessment, and losing that status can suspend access to core ad products.
DAAC self-regulatory accountability
The Digital Advertising Alliance of Canada's AdChoices program gives consumers and Ad Standards a complaint channel that operates alongside, not instead of, statutory enforcement.
What goes wrong
What a weak review response actually costs
A failed or slow vendor review rarely looks like a security incident, but it produces the same commercial damage.
A stalled or lost brand contract
Enterprise procurement teams increasingly gate onboarding on questionnaire answers, and a martech vendor without ready evidence loses time it may not have before a campaign launch date.
Suspended platform partner status
A partner review that surfaces gaps in consent handling or data practices can pause access to Google or Meta's advertising products, cutting off revenue rather than just delaying a deal.
Inherited risk from an unreviewed sub-processor
A data supplier or identity-resolution vendor onboarded without scrutiny can become the source of the next consent or security failure, one your own customers will trace back to you.
A self-regulatory complaint
Ad Standards can field complaints through the DAAC's AdChoices program independent of any regulator, adding a reputational channel that a strong compliance posture helps close off before it opens.
Our vendor security reviews for martech & adtech platforms
What our vendor review support covers
Both directions of the relationship: answering what is asked of you, and asking the right questions of your own suppliers.
High-level gap review against SIG and CAIQ
An assessment of how your current practices compare to what these frameworks expect, so answers reflect reality rather than aspiration.
Evidence organization for reviewers
Support organizing consent records, data-flow maps, access-control evidence and vendor lists into the format a reviewer expects to see.
Platform partner requirement mapping
Guidance aligning your practices with Google and Meta's current partner privacy expectations, so certification renewals do not become a surprise.
Sub-processor and data-supplier review support
A structured process for vetting the vendors your product depends on, covering consent practices, contract terms and security posture.
Response drafting and internal review
Directional feedback on draft questionnaire answers before submission, catching gaps or inconsistencies while there is still time to fix them.
How the engagement runs
How review support runs
Scoped to whichever direction is under pressure right now, brand-facing or supplier-facing.
Step 1
Identify the questionnaire or requirement
Confirm which framework, brand template or platform partner review is in play, and the deadline it is attached to.
Step 2
Gap review against current practice
Compare what is actually documented and controlled against what the questionnaire asks, flagging where evidence is missing or thin.
Step 3
Draft and refine responses
Build accurate, defensible answers, pulling in test results, policies and vendor documentation as supporting evidence.
Step 4
Submit and maintain readiness
Support the submission, then keep the underlying evidence current so the next renewal or new brand request starts from a stronger position.
What it costs
What determines the cost of review support
Effort tracks the questionnaire's depth and framework, how many brand or platform reviews you face per year, the size of your own vendor and data-supplier roster, and how much remediation a gap review surfaces. A first enterprise assessment on a short deadline is a different project from maintaining readiness across several standing relationships.
Ongoing vendor and third-party compliance oversight is part of our Virtual Privacy Office retainer, while one-off questionnaire support is scoped and quoted quickly, since deadlines in this niche rarely leave room to wait.
Martech & Adtech Platforms: Vendor security reviews questions, answered
Start from what the questionnaire actually asks rather than a generic security narrative: most brand assessments in this niche now specifically probe consent provenance, sub-processor disclosure and data-retention practices, not just infrastructure security. Answers backed by documented policies, a recent penetration test and a clear sub-processor list move faster than ones assembled the week the questionnaire arrives.
The Standardized Information Gathering questionnaire, maintained by Shared Assessments, is a structured set of security and privacy controls used by many enterprise brands and agency holdcos to assess vendors. Adtech companies of meaningful size increasingly receive it during onboarding, and a completed SIG on file shortens future reviews since it can often be reused with minor updates.
Both platforms review data handling, consent mechanisms and transparency practices as part of maintaining partner or badge status, separate from any individual client's questionnaire. The strongest position is documenting exactly how your product captures and passes consent signals, since that is typically the area partner reviews scrutinize most closely.
Often not by itself. SOC 2 speaks to security and availability controls, but many martech vendor reviews also want evidence specific to consent handling and CASL compliance that SOC 2's trust services criteria do not directly cover. Pairing SOC 2 with a completed SIG or CAIQ response usually satisfies both the security and privacy sides of the review.
Consequences range from a remediation period with a follow-up review to suspension of partner status, which can interrupt access to core advertising products for your customers. Because the impact is operational as well as reputational, we prioritize partner-review preparation on the same timeline as any brand-facing questionnaire.
Yes. PIPEDA's accountability principle holds you responsible for personal information you disclose to third parties, so an unreviewed identity-resolution vendor or data supplier is a gap in your own compliance posture, not just theirs. We help build a lightweight review process sized to how many suppliers you actually work with.
More for martech & adtech platforms
Other services for this niche
About this service
What's Protecting Your Business from the Next Threat?
Don't wait for a breach to expose your vulnerabilities. Let Privacy Horizon secure your data, ensure compliance, and build lasting trust.