Does factually.co store user data

1. What the sources actually cover — Factual and Factual Data, not "factually.co"

The two primary documents in the provided reporting are Factual’s Terms of Service and Factual Data’s Privacy FAQ; neither document references a site called factually.co, so the sources speak to similarly named entities rather than the queried domain itself ^{[1] [2]}. The Terms of Service make clear that Site Data is provided for learning about Factual and its services and explicitly prohibits third parties from storing or repurposing that Site Data ^[1]. Separately, Factual Data’s FAQ discusses consumer rights like deletion requests under California law and states the company is U.S.-based and not intentionally directing services at EU/UK residents ^[2].

2. Do these materials show that those companies store user data?

Yes: the Privacy FAQ and related policy excerpts imply collection and retention of personal information because they describe mechanisms to request deletion and how California residents can exercise CCPA rights, which presumes the company maintains records about individuals and employees ^[2]. The Terms of Service also acknowledge user-contributed content and grants the company broad rights to use such User Content, which implies storage and processing of that contributed data ^[1]. Those are direct indicators that these organizations do retain user- or contributor-related information, even if the exact retention durations are not defined in the supplied snippets ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Limits of the evidence — what cannot be concluded from these sources

The supplied reporting does not provide a privacy policy or a data-retention schedule tied to the exact domain factually.co, nor does it list specific technical practices (log retention windows, third‑party sharing, or persistent identifiers) for any "factually.co" service; therefore it is impossible, on the basis of these sources alone, to assert whether factually.co exists, what data it stores, or for how long that data is retained ^{[1] [2]}. The Wikipedia entry on data retention explains general legal regimes and common practices for storing traffic and user data, but it is a general background source and does not connect to any one company’s practices ^[3].

4. Why naming matters — similarly named companies can obscure conclusions

The similarity between "factually.co" and companies named Factual or Factual Data underlines a frequent reporting pitfall: policies for one legal entity do not automatically apply to a different domain or company, even if names overlap; the Terms of Service and Privacy FAQ are authoritative for the companies that published them but cannot substitute for a privacy policy or terms tied to the specific domain in question ^{[1] [2]}. This is important because corporate structure, jurisdiction, and declared policy all determine whether data is collected, retained, or shared — facts not established for factually.co in the provided material.

5. Practical takeaways and alternative viewpoints

Practically, the documents supplied demonstrate that at least some organizations with similar names collect and retain user/contributor data and assert broad rights over user content while also offering CCPA-related deletion mechanisms for California residents ^{[1] [2]}. An alternate viewpoint is that the Terms’ prohibition on third parties storing Site Data ^[1] could be read as a strong protections stance against external scraping, even as the company itself retains contributed information; however, without a factually.co–specific policy, both the risk and the protection landscape for that domain remain unknown. The reporting does not allow confirmation or denial of factually.co’s practices; verifying that requires locating the actual domain’s published privacy policy or authoritative registry information, which are not present in the supplied sources.