Third-Party AI Systems: Managing Black-Box Risk and Regulatory Accountability
Opacity Problem. Organizations that deploy third-party artificial intelligence systems face a fundamental challenge that does not arise in traditional software vendor relationships: they often cannot see inside the technology they use. With conventional enterprise software, an organization typically receives defined functions that transform known inputs into predictable outputs. Its technical team—or an independent auditor—may be able to review the source code, trace the logic, compare behavior with specifications, and investigate problems when they occur.
Why Commercial AI Systems Create a “Black Box” Problem
Commercial AI systems operate differently. An organization can identify the inputs it provides—such as data, prompts, queries, and uploaded documents—and the outputs it receives, including classifications, predictions, recommendations, and generated content. What remains hidden is the transformation between them: learned behavior encoded across billions of numerical parameters.
In many vendor relationships, the customer cannot inspect the model’s weights, independently audit the training data that shaped its associations, or trace the precise path from a particular input to a particular output. The organization can observe what the system does, but it may not be able to explain why the system produced a specific result.
AI Vendor Risk Does Not Eliminate Regulatory Accountability
This opacity creates a significant AI governance challenge. Regulators may hold an organization accountable for a system’s behavior even when the organization does not fully understand the model or have the ability to audit it directly. If an AI-assisted outcome is challenged—such as a loan denial, hiring rejection, medical recommendation, or fraud flag—the organization may need to defend the result without the level of explanation that regulators and courts have traditionally expected.
Vendor warranties may state that an AI system is accurate, was trained on appropriate data, or underwent bias testing. Those representations can support contractual risk allocation, but they are not a substitute for the organization’s own governance and oversight. Regulatory accountability generally remains with the organization using the system, making vendor assurances only one part of a broader AI risk management framework.
Building an AI Governance Program for Opaque Systems
An effective AI governance program should address opacity directly. Because full access to a model’s internal operations may be unavailable, organizations should establish proxy indicators that allow them to evaluate and monitor system behavior. Depending on the use case, those controls may include:
- Statistical performance and error-rate metrics;
- Disparate impact and bias measurements;
- Output distribution and drift analysis;
- Adversarial testing and documented test results;
- Human review and escalation procedures for consequential outcomes; and
- Ongoing vendor oversight and incident-reporting requirements.
Available Now! September 2026 Pressing
Creating Artificial Intelligence Governance and Oversight Programs
By Attorney John Fisher
Contractual Protections and AI Vendor Due Diligence
Vendor contracts should require as much transparency as the provider can reasonably offer without compromising legitimate intellectual property. Relevant diligence materials may include technical documentation describing the model architecture, information about training-data sources and categories, data governance practices, bias-testing methods and results, and post-deployment monitoring data.
Organizations should also account for the possibility that some degree of opacity is irreducible. The goal is not to assume complete transparency where none exists, but to design an AI compliance and governance program that remains effective despite uncertainty about how the system reaches its conclusions.
Key Takeaway for Organizations Using Third-Party AI
Deploying a third-party AI system does not transfer an organization’s legal, regulatory, or operational responsibilities to the vendor. By combining careful AI vendor due diligence, meaningful contractual protections, continuous performance monitoring, and documented human oversight, organizations can better manage black-box AI risk while preparing to explain and defend consequential outcomes.
