Community Wisdom — Sept 26 Shareforum Highlights + EU Data Act risk
A quick recap from last week’s Shareforum — EU Data Act implications for RPO, FX in NetSuite/RevPro, marketplace cutoff timing, reseller margin accounting, AI deal review, and term license splits.
Hey there 👋
This edition of Community Wisdom is a little different — it’s a rapid-share recap from last week’s Shareforum so everyone can stay aligned on where practice is heading.
The headline: The EU Data Act could materially affect how companies present RPO if it’s interpreted as a statutory termination for convenience. That discussion alone could shape Q3 disclosures and audit positions across the industry.
🚨If you’d like to join the EU Data Act peer working session (Oct 10 @ 10 a.m. PT) — open only to industry accountant community members — reply here or message me to be added. That smaller group will compare legal conclusions, auditor views, and draft disclosure language ahead of quarter close.
I’ll continue with deeper dives over the next few weeks — each will focus on one of these topics (EU Data Act, marketplace treatment, FX, etc.) with full polling data and memo examples once peer discussions wrap up.
As always, I don’t distribute recordings so these sessions can stay candid, but this recap captures the highlights — what your peers are debating, where practices are diverging, and what’s next as we approach filings.
Best,
Angela
This community and newsletter is brought to you for free by Klarity.ai. AI for Finance Transformation, helping accountants bend the G&A curve with AI-powered automation for process documentation and contract review.
Check out what’s new in the Klarity Architect here! 🎉
Sept 26, 2025 Shareforum Topic Recap
EU Data Act — Rev Rec Implications
What’s the issue
The EU Data Act (effective Sept 12, 2025) requires cloud providers to let customers terminate and port data within two months.
Does the Act’s right for EU customers to terminate and port data (within 2 months) create a de-facto termination for convenience (TFC) that shortens contract term/RPO, or can companies enforce proportionate termination penalties (distinct from switching fees, which phase out by 2027)?
Experiences shared
Legal position/memos still in progress and diverse on if SaaS is “in or out of scope” of the EU Data act; interpretation varies by country and firm. Scoping differences could be related to the type of data, type of company (i.e. not only hyperscaler), or intent of act being data portability, not financial.
Audit firms have differing conclusions but also depend on legal enforceability: some say this will definitely impact contract lengths and RPO tails, while others say the legal community is still very split on if SaaS is in scope.
Contracts Terms “ Termination Penalties”: Many plan to add clauses making full remaining contract value payable upon early termination. This may be permissible under the act - pending confirmation (Discussions with EU taskforce to be confirmed)
Switching fees: Must be eliminated by Jan 2027; however, these differ from “Termination penalties” which are still allowed to the extent that they represent loss to the vendor. Unclear if the proportionality of penalties cited in many accounting guides are relevant (10% cited by PwC/KPMG, though some prefer 30–50%).
Polling Results show that as of 9/26/205 show that both legal and audit conclusions are still very much unsettled - leaving upcoming quarterly reporting at risk of inconsistent reporting among industry peers.
Take aways: Regroup Peer huddle Friday October 10th to align, and move consistently by consolidating learnings from internal legal counsel positions, work to align auditor’s understanding of industry view, and confirm “termination penalty” acceptability.
NetSuite ARM & RevPro: FX + Semi-annual Billing
What’s the issue
If you have a foreign currency SaaS revenue contract, with multiple billing installments, how do you handle FX differences between Revenue Contract recorded at the inception FX rate and the invoice recorded at the spot rate as billed. Should differences flow through revenue, FX G/L, or manual true-ups?
Experiences shared
Two approaches were discussed: (1) book FX changes to revenue per ASC 606/IFRS 15 interpretations (KPMG/Deloitte examples), or (2) isolate in FX G/L to keep revenue cleaner.
Netsuite ARM: configurable to route to record the difference to Revenue or FX Gain Loss “G/L”; Netsuite help content supports revenue remeasurement; multi-currency consolidation chains (GBP→EUR→USD) add translation noise.
RevPro: early renewals/credit memos at new rates leave residual FX in RC rollforwards; product team suggests a setting to tie credits to the original invoice rate (doesn’t cover all ad-hoc credits).
Audit posture: “No ERP does FX right”—materiality, documentation in understanding how your system records this - and possibly the periodic catch-ups are key.
Resources Shared: Deloitte FX Guide, Deloitte guide stating FX is not VC, Zuora Knowledge Center link on how Zuora Billing manages FX for AR related Transactions. This link will also guide you to setup the FX management for proration credit memo.
Cloud Marketplace Cutoff (AWS & Others)
What’s the issue?
If an End User accepts a private offer at 11:59 PM on Sept 30th, but the Marketplace posts invoice on the End User’s portal at 12:01 AM Oct 1st, does AR exist at acceptance or at platform billing?
Experiences shared
Consensus: acceptance creates the unconditional right to consideration; platform posting is administrative (PwC “perfunctory billing” concept).
Practice: generate internal/dummy invoices for cutoff; monitor post-close credits and reserve if patterns emerge; some exploring channel/DSR models to simplify.
Poll: ~2/3 book at acceptance; ~1/3 wait for platform timestamp. Most companies record AR at contract acceptance and treat marketplace timing as admin—supported by controls (timestamps, dummy invoices, post-close credit review).
GCP Marketplace Resellers — Agent or Customer?
What’s the issue”?
Around 2024, Google Cloud Platform “GCP, changed their marketplace configurations to allow vendors to set a gross price and an explicit reseller margin in a four party transaction. This small structural change triggers an reassessment for independent software vendors when determining who is their Customer? Is the Reseller the Customer, or is the End user the Customer?
Experiences shared
Intent: GCP changes were largely made to incentivize reseller participation on GCP and bolster principal positioning for resellers.
SaaS pattern: Typically for all SaaS products, the vendor undoubtable controls hosting, delivery, and support overtime. This makes the end user the software vendor’s customer - and many gross up and record reseller margins as SG&A/commission-like expense.
Support delivery nuance: more debate when resellers handle delivery/Level-1 support.
Practice split: some gross (margin visible), others net for consistency; auditors focus on who controls the service, not what a portal field says.
Poll: 55% treat reseller as agent (end user is customer); 45% treat reseller as customer (net)
Takeaway: Default toward end user as a customer in SaaS. Conclusions remain fact-specific—document control, pricing visibility, and roles.
AI Contract Reviews —
Question: How far have teams moved from manual review to AI-assisted contract analysis, and how much human oversight remains?
Experiences shared
Adoption: ~40% piloting/using; ~60% not yet using.
Tools: Klarity was the most cited as AI Deal Review Software being used; many others are building their own solutions in-house (on top of OpenAI/Claude/etc).
Use cases: first-pass screening, clause extraction, risk flags; no full automation—human validation is standard.
Barriers: audit defensibility, controls, and accuracy benchmarking.
Takeaway: AI is a speed assist in deal reviews, not a replacement—pilots are growing, but at least partial human review should be expected.
Term-Based License % Split Benchmarking
What’s the issue
For Term license SSP, what is your allocation split between license vs PCS amid scarce observable data and differing audit preferences?
Experiences shared
Starting point: classic 80/20 (license/PCS).
Alternatives: 50/50 gaining acceptance (esp. small/acquired products or strong renewals 80–90%+); expected term modeling from Deloitte vs cost/benchmark preference from EY/KPMG.
Evidence tactics: renewal data; support cost/ticket metrics; R&D vs support ratios; external price lists (e.g., Oracle/Microsoft).
Poll: 80/20 continues to be the majority; 50/50 growing (more common with Deloitte factoring the expected term; EY may accept with support - although they will not lead with this approach).
Takeaway: Both 80/20 and 50/50 can work—choice hinges on renewal stickiness, cost evidence, and sometimes even your auditor’s preference.
What’s next
Over the next few weeks, I’ll back to publishing deeper dives on some of these topics — starting with the EU Data Act and Usage Based Selling models.
Those follow-up posts will include the detailed polling data, peer examples, and sample memo frameworks that came out of the smaller working sessions. If you’d like to contribute or preview drafts, reply here or message me directly — the goal is to capture where real-world practice is heading before it hits the formal guidance.
Interested in sponsoring this community? We’d love to have your support! Send inquiries to media@gaapsavvy.com.