#
SAPAudit
In April 2026, SAP introduced a revised API Policy (v4/2026) that significantly changes how SAP systems can be accessed by autonomous and generative AI systems. Under the new policy, such systems are only permitted to interact with SAP applications when operating through SAP-endorsed architectures, including SAP Business Technology Platform (BTP), SAP Business Data Cloud, and SAP Joule.
SAP positions the policy as a necessary response to growing risks around system stability, security, regulatory compliance, and uncontrolled AI automation in mission critical ERP environments. These concerns are legitimate. However, the timing, scope, and execution of the policy have raised substantial concerns among enterprise customers, partners, and user associations regarding innovation speed, architectural freedom, and vendor lock in.
SAP’s decision to implement this new policy is in our opinion necessary in the context of guaranteeing security and performance in their environments, but does have implications in the free choice of AI systems and middleware. Will SAP find a model that allows for free competition, protecting their own investments and the customers’ investments in application integration and AI? Let’s evaluate the details.
This whitepaper examines:
The updated policy introduces three structural shifts with direct impact on a free choice of enterprise AI strategies (AI best-of-breed):
Only APIs explicitly listed in the SAP Business Accelerator Hub or official product documentation are considered “Published APIs.” All other interfaces — including historically tolerated internal or undocumented APIs — are now considered unsupported and may be changed or removed without notice (surprisingly threatening tone).
The policy explicitly prohibits the use of SAP APIs by:
unless these interactions occur through SAP approved pathways.
Scraping, systematic harvesting, or bulk replication of SAP data is restricted unless executed via SAP approved data services.
Key Point:
SAP is not restricting data ownership, but it is asserting control over how data may be accessed and operationalised by AI systems.
It would be naïve to think that SAP wouldn’t take measures to protect their business and their assets, even their customer base, but: is this the right way to pursue this target? Shouldn’t they strive to offer the best product in the market and compete with quality and customer satisfaction? Is SAP not, once again, making decisions out of fear instead of acting boldly, as the leader they are? Let’s look back at SAP’s past.
Let’s chat and find the best strategy for yourbusiness! It’s about individual expert advice tailored to your business needs. Tools are only as good as their application. We don’t leave you alone with your solutions, we help you get the most out of them.
SAP’s current API policy cannot be fully understood without considering its earlier decision to enforce charges for indirect usage, later formalized as the Digital Access licensing model introduced in 2018. That model shifted licensing from a user based concept to a document based pricing framework, charging customers when third party systems create specific business documents (such as sales orders or financial postings) in SAP. From SAP’s perspective, this change responded to legal ambiguity and the rapid growth of automation, APIs, RPA, e commerce, and non human access.
Over the last five years, Digital Access has had mixed but instructive consequences. On the revenue side, it created a defensible monetisation model and supported license upsell activities during audits, S/4HANA migrations, and RISE negotiations. SAP reinforced this approach through adoption programs and significant transition discounts, embedding Digital Access as a durable revenue mechanism in an increasingly automated enterprise landscape.
At the same time, customer satisfaction proved more fragile. Enterprises consistently reported challenges around pricing opacity, forecasting difficulty, unpredictable audit exposure, and integration disincentives, particularly in high volume automated scenarios where document creation scales exponentially (as for instasnce all documents related to EDI) User groups and independent advisors frequently highlighted that uncertainty surrounding indirect usage delayed innovation initiatives and increased friction in commercial negotiations, even as SAP sought to standardise measurement.
This historical pattern matters. Digital Access strengthened SAP’s commercial position and revenue protection, but it also eroded trust among customers who perceived the model less as value aligned pricing and more as a tax on integration. As a result, many customers approach today’s API policy through the lens of past experience: a technically rational decision that —without[VP1.1] sufficient transparency, contractual clarity, and viable technical alternatives —risks repeating the same tension between revenue assurance and ecosystem confidence.
SAP positions itself as a tightly governed platform where AI driven value creation occurs primarily through SAP products and services, governed by a restrictive pricing model.
Pros
Cons
SAP maintains strict governance while:
Pros
Cons
You force your own ecosystem onto your customers and, at the same time, focus on offering highest quality products. The model that worked out well for many years with Apple and now disappointed with Apple’s unclear AI strategy…
SAP competes on:
Pros
Cons
Restrictive policies combined with insufficient API coverage push innovation outside SAP systems.
Outcome
Let’s chat and find the best strategy for yourbusiness! It’s about individual expert advice tailored to your business needs. Tools are only as good as their application. We don’t leave you alone with your solutions, we help you get the most out of them.
SAP’s updated API policy is grounded in legitimate concerns: unrestricted AI agents interfacing with ERP systems pose significant operational, financial, and regulatory risks. However, such policies must be carefully balanced to avoid stifling innovation through overly restrictive measures, especially considering the historical context of indirect access and Digital Access licensing.
Historical precedents provide valuable insights:
SAP is currently at a pivotal juncture. For enterprise customers, it is evident that openness in ERP integration can no longer be assumed. Developing resilient AI strategies will require robust architectural planning, diligent contract management, and strategic flexibility. Ultimately, SAP’s approach seeks to secure its revenue and customer relationships by enforcing licensing and usage rights.
Provided SAP’s policies do not impede your organization’s innovation efforts or introduce unforeseen expenses, these policies should remain manageable. The priority should be maintaining oversight of SAP-related costs, particularly within AI initiatives, and ensuring that project-based ROI targets are met. If SAP’s pricing structure supports continued innovation without undermining expected returns, organizations are well positioned.
Conversely, if SAP’s cost model prevents reasonable ROI or imposes excessive software and infrastructure expenses that could jeopardize your ERP ecosystem, it may be prudent to explore renegotiation or consider alternative solutions.
We strongly recommend that SAP refrain from ambiguous audit policies or actions that could create uncertainty around compliance for customers due to shifts in usage policies.
Hast Du Fragen oder möchtest Du etwas hinzufügen? Hinterlasse uns bitte eine Nachricht! Deine Nachricht wird per E-Mail an uns übermittelt und nicht veröffentlicht.
