Ask a veterinary practice who owns the information in its practice management system and the answer usually sounds straightforward: the practice does.
Many software suppliers say the same thing. Merlin's published terms say the customer owns its Customer Data. Provet says the customer retains ownership of its data. Vetspire and Shepherd also recognise customer ownership in their published agreements.
That sounds reassuring. But it does not answer the question that matters when a practice wants to integrate another system, change supplier or simply keep an independent copy of its records.
Can the practice actually take its data with it, in a useful format, without unnecessary cost or permission from the incumbent supplier?
Legal ownership and practical control are not the same thing.
Ownership is only the starting point
A modern veterinary PMS can hold years of clinical notes, patient histories, client records, invoices, estimates, laboratory results, communications, appointments, consent forms and operational data.
The practice may own those records while the software supplier still controls:
- how they can be exported;
- whether an export is free;
- whether attachments and audit history are included;
- the format in which records are returned;
- whether other systems can access them through an API;
- how long the practice can retrieve them after termination; and
- when the supplier may delete the copy it holds.
Those are not minor technical details. They determine whether changing PMS is a manageable migration or a major operational risk.
Merlin shows why the distinction matters
Merlin's contract is unusually useful because the contrast appears within the same document.
Clause 5.1 says the customer owns all rights, title and interest in its Customer Data. That is clear.
But clause 15.5(d), dealing with termination, says MWI may destroy or otherwise dispose of Customer Data unless one of the specified exceptions applies. The customer needs either to have purchased separate read-only licences or to have requested its most recent backup before termination.
The same clause says MWI can charge its then-current rates for providing that backup, requires relevant outstanding fees to have been paid, and allows reasonable expenses associated with returning or disposing of the data to be charged to the customer.
Source: Merlin Terms and Conditions, clauses 5.1 and 15.5(d)
That does not mean MWI owns the data. Its terms expressly say the opposite.
It means that ownership alone does not tell a clinic what happens when it wants to leave.
A practice considering any PMS should therefore ask a more precise question: if we terminate, what do we receive automatically, what do we have to request, what does it cost and how long do we have to do it?
Compare that with Shepherd
Shepherd offers a useful contrast.
Its published EULA says the client is the sole owner of its customer data. More importantly, its termination provisions say the client receives all of its data as raw tables exported in CSV format, together with up to two backups as needed.
Source: Shepherd Service Agreement / EULA, sections 4 and 5
A CSV export is not a guarantee that another PMS can recreate every workflow perfectly. Migrations are more complicated than that.
But this is still a much more practical promise. It tells the clinic that the exit process includes a structured, machine-readable export rather than merely confirming abstract ownership.
Provet gives practices a post-exit retrieval period
Provet's current public terms are also clearer than many suppliers on what happens after termination.
The customer retains ownership of its data. Following termination, the terms give the customer 60 days to retrieve or delete its data, after which Provet may delete what remains.
Source: Provet Terms of Service, sections 14.2 and 17.1
That does not answer every migration question. A clinic would still want to know the scope and format of the available export and whether its individual order form adds anything.
But the 60-day window is at least visible in the standard terms before purchase.
Data ownership also matters while you are staying
Portability is not only about changing PMS.
Practices increasingly want to connect their management system to accounting software, laboratories, online booking, analytics, payment providers, client applications, AI tools and other services.
That makes API access part of practical control.
Merlin's terms, for example, say API access may involve Professional Services Fees and a separate quotation. They also give MWI sole control over the API and allow it to modify the format of Customer Data and the means through which that data is accessed.
Source: Merlin Terms and Conditions, clause 6
There can be legitimate reasons for controlling an API. Security, reliability and data protection all matter.
But the commercial question remains: if a clinic owns its data and authorises another supplier to use it, should the incumbent PMS be able to impose an additional commercial toll simply for machine access?
That is a separate issue we examine in part 4: Who Controls the API?.
Anonymised data use is a different question
It is important not to confuse portability with the use of anonymised or aggregated data.
A software company using genuinely anonymised information to improve its product is not inherently acting against the interests of its customers. Analysing how features perform, where workflows fail and what practices use most can help build better software.
Provet is a good example of why the distinction matters. Its terms permit anonymisation, aggregation and benchmarking. The same terms also state that Provet will not enable settings that allow an AI service provider to use customer data to train that provider's models unless the customer explicitly instructs it to do so or law requires it.
Source: Provet Terms of Service, sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.3
Those are two different questions:
- Can the supplier analyse aggregated information to operate and improve its service?
- Can identifiable or customer-derived data be used for external AI training, research or separate commercial purposes?
A sensible contract review should distinguish them rather than treating all data processing as suspicious. Part 5 looks at those uses in more detail.
Six questions to ask before signing
When a supplier says "you own your data", ask these six follow-up questions.
1. Can we export all of it whenever we want?
A clinic should ideally be able to obtain a current copy while it is still an active customer, not only after termination.
2. Is the export free?
Charging for substantial bespoke migration work can be reasonable. Charging simply to hand a clinic a usable copy of its own records is a different proposition.
3. What format do we receive?
"Your data is available" is too vague. Structured formats such as CSV or documented database exports are far more useful than screenshots, PDFs or proprietary files that another system cannot ingest.
4. Does "all data" really mean all data?
Clinical notes are only part of the record. Ask about attachments, invoices, estimates, messages, appointments, laboratory results, audit history, forms and any other data the practice relies on.
5. Can systems we authorise access it?
If every integration requires commercial approval or additional payment to the incumbent PMS, the practice's practical control is narrower than the ownership clause suggests.
6. What happens on the day we leave?
Know the notice period, retrieval window, read-only arrangements, export charge, deletion timetable and any requirement to settle disputed or outstanding fees before data is provided.
The procurement question should change
Practices routinely compare PMS products on booking, invoicing, clinical workflows and price.
They should compare exit rights and data portability as well.
A PMS can become one of the deepest dependencies in a veterinary business. The longer a practice uses it, the greater the natural switching cost becomes.
Software suppliers do not need to make that switching cost higher through avoidable contractual or technical restrictions.
So when a PMS supplier tells you:
"You own your data."
The right response is not distrust.
It is one more question:
"Good. Exactly how can we take it with us?"
Contract analysis, not legal advice. Individual Order Forms, Statements of Work and negotiated terms can alter the standard position. Sources were reviewed from publicly available supplier documents on 2026-08-20.