BrandShield vs Red Points: how they compare in 2026
BrandShield and Red Points both use AI to find counterfeit listings, fake websites and impersonating profiles and then get them taken down for a brand's legal and security teams. Red Points sits in the top two bands on eight of fifteen axes and BrandShield on five of fifteen, identical on eight. Red Points' lead is what it publishes about the work and who has seen results. Its legal notice states that it is not a law firm and gives no legal advice, and that communications with it are not privileged. Customers such as Purple and Topcon are named with figures. It lists direct API connections with Meta, Google and Bing and more than 300 removal agreements. BrandShield's counterweight is reach into security threats and a choice of how hands on to be. It covers phishing, rogue apps, the dark web and, since 2026, what AI chatbots say about a brand, sold managed, self service or hybrid. Neither publishes what happens when a takedown hits a lawful seller.
At a glance
All 15 axes, side by side
The same grid applied to every vendor in the index, graded from public sources. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
Same shape as the other enforcement vendors in this lane and graded consistently with them. Detection is model work end to end: AI.ClusterX, described on the vendor's own marketplace listing as a proprietary predictive threat-clustering engine reading infrastructure, hosting patterns, content signals and behavioral indicators; image-based detection that catches altered logos and product visuals; AI-powered prioritization; and a 2026 product that prompts generative AI platforms and analyses their answers. Remove the models and what remains is still a business: an enforcement desk with a 24/7 security operations center, named enforcement managers, relationships with registrars, hosts and platforms, and a case and evidence workflow. That substrate is what the analyst-driven vendors in this market sell, so the models are the engine of detection layered on a workflow platform rather than the whole product. Graded from the home page, the vendor's AWS Marketplace listing and product-page text recovered through the search index; the product pages themselves were blocked to this fetcher on 12 September 2026 and are marked unread. Verified 12 September 2026.
The vendor's own framing is stronger than the band it earns: the Our AI page, modified 23 July 2026, states that AI is no longer the tool, it is the operator, and describes a five-layer Digital Risk Operating System of autonomous agents, governed deterministic logic, forward-deployed engineers, a brand knowledge layer of encoded judgment and a data bedrock of 2.7 billion data points analyzed monthly. Detection, prioritization, seller scoring and evasion-resistant image matching are all model work and none of it survives removing the models. What does survive is the reason this is B rather than A: the enforcement estate is not AI. More than 300 removal agreements, direct API connections with named platforms, priority reporting and escalation paths, the IP document repository and the case workflow would all still function, and an analyst-driven enforcement desk built on exactly that substrate is what the legacy vendors in this market sell. The models are the engine of detection layered on a workflow and channel platform that would still operate without them. Verified 12 September 2026.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
The index's rule governs: the product cites no legal authority, so the primary-authority grounding and citator limbs do not apply and are neither credited nor penalized. What bites is grounding and measurement. Grounding is described rather than asserted: the marketplace listing sets out what AI.ClusterX actually reads to reach a verdict on a domain or asset, and states that evidence is collected automatically and cases are structured for takedown readiness, so a reviewer sees the material a determination rests on. What is absent is any measurement of detection correctness. No precision, no recall, no false-positive rate and no test set is published anywhere located. The one figure the vendor does publish, a 98% takedown success rate, measures whether platforms grant removals rather than whether the detections were right, and the distinction matters on a product whose errors fall on third parties. Verified 12 September 2026.
The index's rule governs: this product cites no legal authority, so the primary-authority grounding and citator limbs do not apply to the product class and are neither credited nor penalized. What bites is grounding and accuracy disclosure. Grounding is real and documented in the product's own idiom: the vendor publishes that every decision is logged with what was detected, why, what triggered it and what happened next, that Vision AI shows the exact logos, patterns or products that triggered a match, and that evidence is generated automatically and formatted to each infringement type, platform and jurisdiction, so a reviewer opens the triggering artifact rather than a summary of it. What keeps this off A is that no measurement is published anywhere located: no precision, no recall, no false-positive rate, no test set, and no third-party validation, while the marketing does make accuracy claims, including that the AI eliminates false positives and that models are custom-trained per asset and overseen daily. The published figures are economic rather than accuracy figures: 10.3 times lower average cost per enforcement against analyst-based models, and 12.6 full-time-equivalents of average capacity per brand protected. Verified 12 September 2026.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
The mode structure is published more plainly than on most records in this lane, and one limb is still missing. Three delivery models are named and sold as a choice: fully managed, self-service and hybrid, so the customer sets how much the system does alone. The entry product applies automation across detection, investigation and, in the vendor's own words, response if desired, with single-click remediation and unlimited self-managed takedowns, while the listing states the design allows teams to maintain control and oversight. The route back to a human is named and staffed: a 24/7 security operations center available to assist, advise or intervene, and named enforcement managers who handle complex premium takedowns directly with registrars and hosts. What is not published is the same limb missing across this class: what happens after a detection is wrong. No remediation, appeal or withdrawal path for a wrongly removed asset was located on any readable surface. Verified 12 September 2026.
The published control structure is more explicit than most records in this corpus and still short of the A band on the two limbs the B band names. What runs alone is stated plainly: autonomous agents handle prioritization, tagging, enrichment, rule suggestion, documentation and reporting and, in the vendor's words, run the workflow rather than assisting it, escalating to a person only when it is required. What constrains it is a stated two-tier split, with a governed tier described as deterministic, fully auditable logic reserved for validation, enforcement and legal-ready evidence, the decisions the vendor says cannot go wrong. Review surfaces are real: live and custom dashboards, per-decision logs, generated evidence packages and a document repository, with a dedicated customer success manager and IP-operations specialists named in the plan tiers, and human-in-the-loop oversight sold as a feature rather than a slogan. Two limbs are missing. The threshold at which an agent escalates instead of acting is never published beyond the phrase when it is required. And nothing located addresses what happens after the system is wrong: a validated detection that removes a legitimate seller's listing has no published remediation, appeal or withdrawal path on any vendor surface read. Verified 12 September 2026.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Logos and unattributed claims stand in for evidence on the readable estate, which is the C band. The home page presents a Trusted by the world's leading companies band whose customer names did not render, four headline counters (verified takedowns per year, phishing takedown success, customer satisfaction, real-time security operations coverage) that rendered as zeros to this fetcher, a 98% phishing takedown success figure with no basis stated, and one testimonial fragment with no name, title or company attached. Recognition is recorded rather than credited, because analyst and award placement is not deployment evidence: a G2 category leader position, a Cybersecurity Breakthrough Award and a Frost and Sullivan leader listing. A success-story library exists in the navigation and was blocked to this fetcher on 12 September 2026, so named-customer material may well exist and could not be reached; the grade reflects the readable estate and is the first row to revisit when the block clears. Verified 12 September 2026.
Named customers and figures, attributed to each other, and undated with no method, which lands on B. Published on the vendor's own pages with a name, a company and a title: James Larson, VP and Deputy General Counsel of IP at Purple, against 4,700+ monthly enforcements; Satoru Ishiguro, Head of IP Division at Topcon, against $22M in infringements removed; Marta Benedetto, General Manager at FILA Italy, against 638,653 listings removed; Stephan Jacob, Founder and CGO at Cotopaxi, against 4,700+ fake websites removed and 130+ hours reclaimed in a quarter; Jennifer Carman Parker, Manager of IP and Global Brand Protection at KEEN; plus Kaspersky at $1.6M in infringements enforced and Burton at 4,600+ fake websites removed, each with its own case study page. That is fuller attribution than the B band's stated shape. What holds it off A is that not one figure carries a date and no method is stated for any of them, and the monetary figures are the ones that most need one: nothing published explains how $22M or $1.6M of infringements removed or enforced was valued. Analyst placement (Gartner and G2 ratings) is recorded rather than credited, because ratings are not deployment evidence. Verified 12 September 2026.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Nothing was located on how client confidences are handled by a product built to ingest them, which is the D band. The customer sends this platform its trademark portfolio, the assets it is protecting, its enforcement instructions and, on the vendor's own account of the Takedown Service, the documents needed to authorize cease and desist letters in its name. The privacy policy is scoped to the website by its own terms and addresses browsing, registration, cookies and marketing. The data processing agreement is not published and executes on entry into a Subscription Form, so the data terms cannot be read before subscribing. No confidentiality clause, no segregation statement, no retention or deletion commitment for customer material, and no position on privilege or work product was located on any readable surface or in the portions of the terms of service recovered through the search index. That agreement refused automated fetch on both URL forms on 12 September 2026 and is marked unread as a page; a confidentiality section is likely to exist in it, and it did not surface. The grade records the record as located. Verified 12 September 2026.
This record contains the most direct statement on privilege located anywhere in this corpus, and it is a disclaimer. The Legal Notice and Terms of Use states that Red Points is not a law firm, that its employees will not act as the customer's attorney, that no attorney-client relationship is created, and that while communications with Red Points are covered by its Data Protection Policy they are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. An IP counsel sending infringement evidence and enforcement instructions into this platform has been told in writing that the exchange is not privileged, which is a material fact for the buyer and is the reason this row is worth reading rather than skipping. Everything else on the axis is generic or absent. The customer agreement is not published at all: the same Legal Notice states that any provision of services is formalised individually through channels outside the site, so the terms that would govern training, retention, deletion and segregation cannot be read before signing. The Data Protection Policy, last updated July 2019, is a website and marketing policy whose collection channels are contact forms, the newsletter, the blog, demo requests, corporate email, social profiles and the careers page. The Security Policy is a statement of corporate security principles and objectives that speaks to protecting the confidentiality of the company's own communications. Confidentiality is therefore asserted in general terms and the operative commitment lives in a sales conversation, which is the C band on both of its limbs. Verified 12 September 2026.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
Nothing published on the advice line for a product that contracts to produce legal work, which is the D band. What the vendor does contract to do is now on the record: the terms of service define the Takedown Service to include cease and desist letters to websites, domain name holders, registrants, hosting providers and registrars, reports to ICANN on whois inaccuracy and DNS abuse, de-indexing requests to search engines, reports to anti-virus and security companies, app store and paid-advertising reports, marketplace and social platform reports, and general assistance concerning those actions. Sending a cease and desist letter on a customer's behalf is legal work by any ordinary description, and it is performed by a company that is not a law firm. Against that, no statement was located anywhere that BrandShield is not a law firm, that it does not provide legal advice, that no attorney-client relationship arises, or who may use the service, and no jurisdiction limits are named despite enforcement running across registrars and platforms worldwide. The comparison inside this lane is stark: Red Points publishes all of that in its legal notice. Retrieval limit, recorded so the grade is read correctly: the terms of service refused automated fetch on both URL forms on 12 September 2026 and is marked unread as a page; the clauses above were recovered through the search index, and a disclaimer could sit in a section that did not surface. The grade records the record as located on the date, not a finding that the vendor is silent in a document nobody has read. Verified 12 September 2026.
An unusually full published position on the advice line, and one that goes further than most vendors in this index are willing to. The Legal Notice and Terms of Use states that Red Points is not a law firm, does not provide legal advice, does not intend to engage in the practice of law, and provides only self-help services at the customer's specific direction; that it gives no advice, explanation, opinion or recommendation to a consumer about legal rights, remedies, defences, options, selection of forms or strategies; that no attorney-client relationship arises; and that the customer is representing itself in any legal matter it undertakes through the services. It also states that the intellectual property information it publishes is not legal advice and is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or current, because the law changes quickly, differs between jurisdictions and is interpreted differently by different courts and authorities. Two things keep this at B. Nothing addresses the competence and supervision duties of the lawyer who is in fact the buyer on many of these accounts, which the B band names as the common shortfall. And R50 applies to the instrument: this is a website legal notice, not the service agreement, though its disclaimer section speaks to Red Points' services and employees by its own words rather than only to the site, which is why it grades here at all. Verified 12 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
No governance position was located for a system that decides whether a named third party's domain, listing or profile is malicious and then acts to remove it. The page inventory is established from the vendor's own navigation and footer and contains no trust center, no security page, no responsible-AI page and no governance page; the footer's legal section holds three items, being the privacy policy, the terms of use and a cookie policy. Nothing on the readable estate names an accountable owner, describes pre-release testing, publishes evaluation results, or discloses anything about uneven output across sectors, languages or jurisdictions. That last gap is the one that matters here: false positives on this product fall on third-party sellers and site operators rather than on the buyer, and no error rate, appeal statistic or review of who is wrongly flagged is published. The product and solution pages were blocked to this fetcher, and governance material of this kind is not usually carried there. Verified 12 September 2026.
What is published is an architecture claim rather than a governance position. The Our AI page names a Governed AI tier described as deterministic, fully auditable and traceable across every validation and enforcement workflow, grounding every decision with evidence, logic and accountability, and states that every decision is logged with what was detected, why and what triggered it. That is real product auditability and it is recorded here. None of the A or B limbs is met. No accountable owner inside the vendor is named, no pre-release testing regime is described, no evaluation results are published, and there is no AI policy, model card, review board or published framework of any kind. Most notably for this product class, nothing is published about uneven output: the system makes consequential decisions about third parties rather than about the buyer, since a validated detection removes a named seller's listing and a Seller Risk Score labels a trading entity as a repeat infringer, and no error rate, no appeal statistic and no analysis across seller types, categories or jurisdictions is disclosed. Verified 12 September 2026.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
A generic website privacy policy covers the company without addressing what the platform does with what it holds, which is the C band. The privacy policy, updated July 2026 and read in full, states in terms that it applies solely to information collected by the website and in the course of transactions, and its subject matter is browsing, registration, cookies, third-party ad servers, promotional communications and payment-account information. None of the five limbs the A band asks for is addressed for platform data: no retention period for detections, evidence or case records; no deletion commitment on termination; no access-control description; no subprocessor list; and no incident or breach notification practice. Two structural facts belong on the record. A data processing agreement exists and, on the agreement's own incorporation language, executes on entry into a Subscription Form rather than being published, so a buyer cannot read the data terms in advance. And the security commitment on the readable estate is that the company takes precautions and implements data security systems, with an express statement that it does not guarantee its systems are immune. Verified 12 September 2026.
A generic privacy policy covers the company without addressing what the platform does with the material it holds, which is the C band. The Data Protection Policy, last updated July 2019, enumerates its collection channels as the website and contact forms, the newsletter, the blog, cookies and advertising partners, demo requests, corporate email, social profiles and the careers page, and states its processing purposes as answering queries, sending news and information of interest, and commercial prospecting. Its retention section keeps personal data for as long as needed to answer a query or until a consent period ends. None of the five limbs the A band asks for is addressed for platform data: no retention period for detections, evidence, seller records or the IP documents held in Document Management; no deletion commitment on termination; no access control description; no subprocessor list, despite operations in the United States, Spain and mainland China and an AWS deployment stated on the vendor's marketplace listing; and no incident or breach notification practice. The security commitment is that the company takes all reasonable measures and requires trusted third parties to do the same by contract, with the caveat that data sent over the internet travels at the user's own risk. Verified 12 September 2026.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
Nothing was located on who bears the loss when the system is wrong, which is the D band and which matters more here than on most records. The product's errors do not fall on the buyer. A false positive removes a third party's listing, domain or account, and the vendor contracts to send cease and desist letters and platform reports in the customer's name, so a wrong call exposes the customer to the party on the other end of it. No liability cap, no indemnity in either direction, no warranty, no insurance position and no remediation or withdrawal process was located on any readable surface. The AWS Marketplace listing publishes a payment term rather than a liability term: fees are non-refundable. The data processing agreement is unpublished. Retrieval limit, recorded so the grade is read correctly: the terms of service refused automated fetch on both URL forms on 12 September 2026 and is marked unread as a page; a limitation of liability clause is near certain to exist in it, and it did not surface through the search index. The grade records the record as located on the date and would move on a reading of that document. Verified 12 September 2026.
Liability is addressed only through a standard limitation clause that does not reach the exposure this product creates, which is the C band and the R50 shape confirmed on Eudia. The Legal Notice and Terms of Use disclaims responsibility for loss, injury, claim, liability or damage related to use of the site, for errors or omissions in site content, for site downtime and for third-party networks, and it runs an indemnity in the vendor's favor under which the user holds Red Points and its suppliers harmless. By its own words that instrument governs the site, so it is described here and not graded as the platform's position. The service agreement is individualised and unpublished, so no indemnity scope, cap, carve-out, warranty or insurance position can be read before signing. What is published on the AWS Marketplace listing is payment terms rather than liability: fees are due in advance, are based on services purchased rather than usage, and are non-cancellable, non-refundable and not subject to set-off. Nothing located addresses who bears the loss when a detection is wrong, which on an enforcement product is the exposure that matters: a validated false positive removes a lawful seller's listing and revenue. Verified 12 September 2026.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
What is published is procurement and channel coverage rather than documented integration, which lands on C. The one integration established is the AWS Marketplace listing: software as a service deployed on AWS, purchasable inside an existing AWS account with billing through the AWS bill, which the vendor presents as removing procurement and deployment friction for security teams already operating there. Everything else described as coverage is monitoring reach rather than integration: marketplaces, social platforms, app stores, domains, paid ads and the dark web are surfaces watched, and registrars and hosting providers are counterparties for enforcement, not systems the customer connects. No API or developer documentation was located, nothing describes what moves in which direction or what a customer must configure, and no connection to an IP portfolio, docketing, trademark management or document management system was found, which is where an IP counsel's own records sit. The product and solution pages were blocked to this fetcher on 12 September 2026. Verified 12 September 2026.
Real integrations, named and functionally described, short of documented depth. Published: direct API connections with Meta, Google and Bing described as enabling immediate action and bypassing geo-restrictions; more than 300 removal agreements with platforms and more than 50 global platform enforcement relationships; coverage of more than 5,000 platforms including Amazon, Alibaba, eBay, Taobao, Walmart, Instagram, TikTok, Telegram and the domestic Chinese platforms Douyin, WeChat, Little Red Book and Pinduoduo; a customer login at a dedicated application subdomain; Document Management holding the IP rights the vendor enforces; and procurement through AWS Marketplace. Depth is the gap: no developer or API documentation was located on any surface, nothing describes what syncs in which direction or what a customer must configure, and the platform relationships are commercial escalation paths rather than documented integrations an implementer could work from. R15 applies in part to the legal-stack limb: the systems this product's work lives in are the enforcement platforms rather than a document management system, but no integration with an IP portfolio, docketing or trademark management system was located either, which is where an IP counsel's own records sit. Verified 12 September 2026.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Cloud delivery is stated and neither the tenancy model nor the region is, which is the C band. The AWS Marketplace listing records the product as software as a service deployed on AWS, and the vendor's own announcement frames the listing as letting security teams deploy domain and phishing protection inside their existing AWS environment. Beyond that nothing is published: no statement of whether tenancy is shared or dedicated, no list of available regions, no choice of region, no separation of where data is processed from where it is stored, and no transfer mechanism, which is a live question for a company whose contracting entity is in Israel and whose customers include European and United States enterprises. No data processing agreement is published in which residency terms would ordinarily sit. Verified 12 September 2026.
Cloud delivery is implied and neither the tenancy model nor the region is stated, which is the C band. The only deployment statement located is on the vendor's AWS Marketplace listing, which records the product as software-as-a-service deployed on AWS, and an AWS qualified software mark appears in the site footer. Nothing on any surface states whether tenancy is shared or dedicated, which regions are available, where data is stored as against where it is processed, or what changes between the Starter, Professional and Enterprise tiers. Two signals fall short of a statement and are recorded rather than credited: the customer login resolves at a host containing an eu-core segment, which implies a European core region but is a hostname rather than a published residency commitment, and the vendor operates offices in New York, Barcelona, Beijing and Salt Lake City with local teams stated for mainland China coverage, which speaks to where people work rather than where data sits. No data processing addendum, transfer mechanism or standard contractual clauses were located. Verified 12 September 2026.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
No independent security attestation was located. The page inventory is established from the vendor's own navigation and footer and contains no trust center and no security page; the footer's legal section carries three items and no certification marks of any kind, which distinguishes this record from the badge-without-scope shape at C. The ladder was run before this absence was written: the footer and full navigation of the page that rendered, and a targeted search for an ISO 27001 or SOC 2 attestation naming this vendor, which returned only aggregator profiles and market-data pages and nothing from the company. The one assurance statement on the readable estate is in the privacy policy and is a statement of precautions rather than an attestation, and it carries an express caveat that the systems are not absolutely immune to unauthorised access. Verified 12 September 2026.
Marks appear on the site with no scope, no date and no report available, which is the C band. Every page footer carries a TUV certificate image and an AWS qualified software mark, and neither is accompanied by any text naming what standard, scope or period it covers; the certificate image is not machine-readable to this index, so what the TUV mark certifies could not be established from the site. Also in the footer, and creditable only as program membership rather than security attestation: Google Trusted Copyright Removal Program member, Google Trusted Reporter, and YouTube Certified Multi-Channel Network. No trust center exists on any surface located. The Security Policy page, which is the natural home for this material, is a statement of corporate security principles, responsibilities and objectives naming a Security Manager role and management accountability; it names no standard, no control set, no auditor, no attestation and no report, and it addresses the company's own assets and personnel rather than the customer's data. Nothing was located to obtain a report through, and no independent security attestation naming Red Points was established. Verified 12 September 2026.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The vendor names its engine and not what sits underneath it, which is the C band, though the architecture description is fuller than most records that land here. AI.ClusterX is named as a proprietary predictive threat-clustering engine and its inputs are described: infrastructure, hosting patterns, content signals and behavioral indicators, used to decide whether an asset is malicious and how it connects to known threat activity. Image-based detection and AI-powered prioritization are named as capabilities. What is absent for anything above C: no model is named, no model provider is identified, nothing states where inference runs, and no commitment to notify customers when any of it changes was located. The AWS deployment stated on the marketplace listing is infrastructure and is spent on the deployment axis rather than here, per the ground rules against one fact working two axes. Verified 12 September 2026.
The vendor refers to proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath, which is the C band verbatim. Published across the Our AI page and the product pages: Vision AI proprietary models scanning logo, shape, packaging, text, color and known-fake images at once; brand-specific models trained on each protected asset; predictive models trained on 2.7 billion data points analyzed monthly; a Seller Risk Score computed across more than 17 million seller identities; an AI Copilot; and a decade of accumulated training described as an encoded brand knowledge layer. Not one model is named, no provider is identified, no architecture beyond ensemble visual matching is described, and no commitment to notify customers when any of it changes was located. The AWS deployment stated on the marketplace listing is infrastructure and is spent on the deployment axis rather than here, per the ground rules against one fact working two axes. Verified 12 September 2026.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
Real pricing is published for part of the range, which is B. The vendor's AWS Marketplace listing satisfies all three limbs of the R117(2) test: BrandShield is the seller of record, the listing copy is its own, and the listing carries its own end user license agreement. It publishes a twelve-month contract at $22,000 for the BrandShield Managed Anti-Phishing Solution, covering unlimited standard takedowns, a capped allowance of managed premium takedowns and 24/7 security operations support, on a single dimension billed by units where the price scales with units committed rather than with threat volume or takedown count. The refund position is published and absolute: non-refundable. What holds this off A is that the figure prices one entry-level product, BrandShield Resolve, while the two enterprise products, Online Brand Protection and External Cybersecurity, carry no published price, and the vendor's own site has no pricing page at all in a navigation and footer inventory that is otherwise unusually detailed. A pricing row is owed under R17 and is written. Verified 12 September 2026.
Real pricing is published for part of the range, which is B. The vendor's own AWS Marketplace listing, where Red Points is the seller of record and the listing copy and payment terms are its own, publishes a twelve-month contract dimension: a Professional Program covering three trademarks with marketplace and social media coverage and image protection at $39,000. That is a vendor-authored storefront and a published price. The vendor's own pricing page then publishes the structure in unusual depth without any figure: five programs for counterfeits, gray market, brand impersonation, domain abuse and piracy, each with named tiers, and a feature-by-feature comparison across Starter, Professional and Enterprise covering trademark counts, channel coverage, managed service inclusion, dashboards and the ten-plus add-ons, each cell marked as included, add-on or not available. The charging model is explained: a flat fee scoped to channels, markets, brand count and reporting depth, with unlimited detections, takedowns and users inside the agreed scope and no per-detection or per-takedown metering. What holds this off A is that every tier on the vendor's own site routes to Request Pricing, so the single marketplace figure is the only number published and it is not the entry rate, since the Starter tier sits below it unpriced. A pricing row is owed under R17 and is written. Verified 12 September 2026.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
Coverage is segmented with real precision and the boundaries are left open, which is B. The vendor publishes dedicated pages for twelve industries (pharmaceuticals, financial services, cryptocurrency, fashion and apparel, retail, online gaming, luxury, SME and SMB, manufacturing, sports and entertainment, technology and internet, travel and hospitality, plus an enterprise page), for five use cases, and, unusually for this lane, for six buying roles: founders, legal counsel, compliance teams, IT managers, CISO threat intelligence and information security teams. Publishing a legal counsel page alongside a CISO page tells a buyer plainly that both are addressed, and it is what clears the membership screen's route A on this record. Segment intent is stated at the product level too: the entry product is positioned for entry-level or lean security teams. What is not stated is where coverage stops, and the industry and role page bodies were blocked to this fetcher on 12 September 2026, so this grade rests on the published taxonomy rather than on what each page says. Verified 12 September 2026.
Coverage is described with substance and the boundaries are only partly stated, which is B. Published precisely: five program families; channel coverage named platform by platform across marketplaces, social media, search engines, ads, mobile apps, domains, video platforms and AI shopping surfaces; regional coverage named as North America, EMEA, APAC, LATAM and mainland China, with the Chinese platforms listed individually; and buyer functions named on the pricing page as legal, brand protection, e-commerce, security and executive teams, with IP titles appearing among the named customer references. Size segmentation is stated and so is one real boundary: the pricing material states that Red Points works with mid-market and enterprise companies, which tells a smaller brand it is not the intended buyer. What is left open is everything else about the limits: no statement of which infringement types or jurisdictions fall outside scope, no statement of what the platform does not detect, and nothing on the practice-area dimension. R15 applies to the firm-segment and practice-area limbs, which do not bite on a product bought by a brand owner's IP and brand protection function rather than by a law firm or a practice group. Verified 12 September 2026.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
An agreement is published and no training position was located in it. Read the retrieval limit first: the terms of service is published at the URL shown and refused automated fetch on both URL forms on 12 September 2026, so it is recorded here from portions recovered through the search index and is marked unread as a page. The portions recovered are substantial and include the formation clause, the definition of the Online Services and Enforcement Services, the Takedown Service scope, the account and login provisions, and the allocation.
In them, Your Data is a defined term, the customer warrants it is entitled to transfer that data and must inform data subjects where required, BrandShield is designated a CCPA Service Provider and the customer a Business, and a data processing agreement executes on entry into a Subscription Form. A Service Provider designation restricts use of California personal information to the business purpose, which is a real constraint and is not a training term.
Nothing in the recovered portions, and nothing on the privacy policy or any other readable surface, states whether customer material may be used to train or improve models. The value records that the published agreement, so far as it could be read, says nothing on the question.
No customer agreement is published on any surface located, and no policy page states a position on training either way. The Legal Notice and Terms of Use is a website instrument by its own terms and says expressly that any provision of services is formalised individually, at the user's request, through channels external to the site, so the terms that would answer this question are negotiated and unpublished. The Data Protection Policy, last updated July 2019, is a website and marketing policy: its collection channels are contact forms, the newsletter, the blog, cookies, demo requests, corporate email, social profiles and the careers page, and its purposes are answering queries, sending news and commercial prospecting.
It states that data will not be used for purposes beyond those in the policy, which is a commitment about website personal data and not about brand assets, product images, trademark records or detection data held in the platform. The Security Policy names no data use. The AWS Marketplace listing reproduces payment terms referring to a Scope of Services, which evidences that a written agreement exists without publishing it. Nothing is granted and nothing is withheld, so a client has no term to hold the brand owner to.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
No located public material states how long the platform keeps what a customer puts into it or what it generates. The privacy policy, updated July 2026 and read in full, is scoped to the website by its own terms and its deletion provision concerns personally identifiable information submitted through the site, handled by written request with an invitation to inspect the records at the company's Herzliya offices within thirty days.
Nothing addresses the material that matters on this product: the customer's trademark and brand assets, the detection record, evidence collected for takedowns, case history or the seller and domain intelligence built from it. No retention period, no customer control and no deletion commitment on termination was located in the readable estate or in the portions of the terms of service recovered through the search index; that agreement refused automated fetch on 12 September 2026 and is marked unread as a page.
The data processing agreement, which would ordinarily carry a retention schedule, is not published and executes on subscribing.
No located public material states how long the platform keeps what a customer puts into it or what it generates. The only retention language found is in the website Data Protection Policy and is scoped to inquiry and marketing data: personal data kept for the time needed to deal with a query, or until the end of a consent period, with some retained for legal, regulatory, statistical or historical purposes and anonymized when no longer needed.
Nothing addresses the material that matters here, which on this product is the brand's uploaded trademark records and catalog images, the detection and evidence record, the Seller Risk Score history and the enforcement audit trail. Document Management is published as one place to store and access the IP rights the vendor enforces, so storage is a named feature, but no period, no customer control and no zero-retention option is stated for it, and no deletion commitment on termination was located.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses segregation between users, brands or matters. The platform plainly contemplates multi-brand and multi-user work: a customer console at a dedicated subdomain, a dashboard presenting everything included in a subscription, three delivery models including self-service, and enforcement staff who act on the customer's behalf. Nothing states whether one brand's detections, evidence or seller intelligence are separated from another's inside an account, whether roles or permissions exist, or how access by the vendor's own security operations and enforcement staff is controlled.
The privacy policy is scoped to the website and carries no product access model, and the page inventory contains no security or trust page in which one would sit. Recorded as of 12 September 2026 on the surfaces named in the build log.
No located public material addresses segregation between users, brands or matters. What is published bears on the question without answering it: the pricing tiers include unlimited users within an agreed scope, live and custom dashboards, and Document Management as a shared store of the customer's IP rights, and the Enterprise tiers add five to ten custom dashboards, so a multi-brand or multi-entity customer is plainly contemplated.
Nothing states whether one brand's detections, evidence or seller intelligence are separated from another's inside a customer account, whether roles or permissions exist, or how access is enforced. The Security Policy speaks to the company's own personnel and assets rather than to a product permission model, and no agreement is published in which a segregation term could sit. Recorded as of 12 September 2026 on the surfaces named in the build log.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Compelled disclosure is addressed and customer notice is not. The privacy policy, updated July 2026 and read in full, lists four circumstances in which BrandShield may transfer personal information to third parties without obtaining consent, and receipt of a court order instructing it to give details or information to a third party is one of them. The other three are breach of the user's agreements or unlawful acts, any dispute or legal proceeding between the user and BrandShield, and a corporate reorganisation.
No commitment to notify the customer appears anywhere in that document, and none was located on any other readable surface or in the portions of the terms of service recovered through the search index. Two limits belong on the record: the policy is scoped to website-collected information rather than to platform data, and the terms of service refused automated fetch on 12 September 2026 and is marked unread as a page, so a notice commitment could exist in a section that did not surface. On the record as located, disclosure to authorities is contemplated and notice is not promised.
Nothing located addresses third party requests for customer data. The closest published statement is in the website Data Protection Policy, which says Red Points will not provide users' personal data to third parties and that if it decides to do so the user will be informed in advance and consent requested. That is a commitment about website and marketing personal data, not about a brand's material in the platform, and it addresses voluntary sharing rather than compelled disclosure: no surface read mentions a subpoena, a court order, law enforcement or any other legal process, and there is no transparency report.
The policy does state that data may be retained to administer the company's rights, including to assert claims in court. With no customer agreement published, the confidentiality section that would ordinarily carry a notice commitment could not be read. Recorded as of 12 September 2026.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No primary law corpus is identified because the product does not answer from one. What it reads is described in outline on the vendor's marketplace listing and product material: domain registrations and DNS and hosting attributes, content signals, behavioral indicators, marketplace and social platform listings, mobile app stores, paid ads, dark web sources, and the answers generative AI platforms return to brand-specific prompts.
Against that it matches the customer's own trademarks and brand assets. Nothing published identifies where that detection corpus comes from, how it is acquired or refreshed, or on what basis, and no licensing question is addressed. The value records that the corpus behind the product's determinations is not identified.
No primary law corpus is identified because the product does not answer from one. What it answers from is published in outline: 2.7 billion data points analyzed monthly, more than 17 million seller identities, cross-platform behavioral signals, investigation evidence, live trend capture, and the customer's own trademark and design registrations held in Document Management. The nearest thing to encoded law is the statement that generated evidence is formatted to each infringement type, platform and jurisdiction, which implies jurisdiction-specific requirements are encoded somewhere, and nothing published identifies where those requirements come from, how they are maintained or on what basis the underlying detection corpus is collected or licensed.
The value records that the corpus behind the product's determinations is not identified, which is the honest reading for a product whose source material is marketplace and seller data rather than case law.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
The product cites no legal authority, so nothing located addresses checking subsequent history, and nothing would be expected to. The currency mechanisms it publishes concern threats rather than authority: continuous monitoring, real-time detection and rescreening as new domains, listings and profiles appear. Recorded so the row states the position rather than leaving a reader to infer it from silence.
The product cites no legal authority, so nothing located addresses checking subsequent history, and nothing would be expected to. The currency mechanisms it does publish are about threats rather than authority: continuous rescreening as new sellers and listings appear, a quarterly discovery audit of infringing platforms beyond a plan's scope, and live capture of new evasion trends. Recorded so the row states the position rather than leaving a reader to infer it from silence.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The vendor describes a hand-off to a person in public materials, short of anything demonstrable. Automation is stated to run across detection, investigation and, in the vendor's words, response if desired, with the design allowing teams to maintain control and oversight; a 24/7 security operations center is available to assist, advise or intervene when needed; and complex cases are routed to named enforcement managers who work them by hand with registrars and hosting providers.
So the published behavior where the system is not confident, or the case is hard, is that a human takes it. What is not published is any threshold, any rate at which escalation happens, or any evaluation demonstrating it, and the same estate carries an unmeasured accuracy claim alongside.
The vendor describes an abstention path in public materials, short of anything demonstrable. The Our AI page states that the autonomous agents run the high-volume work and escalate to a person only when it is required, and separates that agentic tier from a governed tier reserved for the decisions the vendor says cannot go wrong, being validation, enforcement and evidence generation. The vendor's own brand protection guide adds that human experts review complex edge cases to prevent false positives and protect authorized sellers.
So the published behavior when the system is unsure is to hand the case to a person rather than to decide it. What is not published is any threshold, any rate at which escalation occurs, or any evaluation demonstrating it, and the same material claims elsewhere that the AI eliminates false positives, which is an accuracy assertion rather than an abstention description.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
Searched on 12 September 2026, on both the product name and the company name, against published trackers of AI hallucination decisions including coverage of the Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases database, for court records addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in this product's output. None located. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject as of that date, and this signal does not record enforcement or takedown litigation.
Searched on 12 September 2026, on both the product name and the company name, against published trackers of AI hallucination decisions including coverage of the Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases database, for court records addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in this product's output. None located. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject as of that date, and this signal does not record enforcement or takedown litigation.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance. The vendor publishes a legal counsel role page and sells enforcement work that produces legal notices, and nothing on the readable estate addresses ABA Formal Opinion 512, any state bar opinion on generative AI, or the professional responsibility of the counsel who directs an enforcement program run on this platform. The terms of service, which is the surface most likely to carry a professional-responsibility statement, was blocked to this fetcher on 12 September 2026 and is an operator item; this row records the absence on the marketing and policy estate, which is where bar-guidance engagement is normally published when it exists at all. Recorded as of 12 September 2026.
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance. The vendor addresses professional responsibility in one direction only, and firmly: its Legal Notice states that it is not a law firm, that its employees will not act as the customer's attorney, that it does not provide legal advice and does not intend to engage in the practice of law, and that it provides only self-help services at the customer's specific direction.
That is a disclaimer of legal practice rather than engagement with the guidance a lawyer buyer is bound by, and nothing located addresses ABA Formal Opinion 512, any state bar opinion on generative AI, or the duties of a supervising attorney whose enforcement program runs on this platform. Recorded as of 12 September 2026.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It is bought by a brand owner's legal, IP, compliance or security function to enforce that company's own rights, and no client is billed for the work the detection and takedown engine performs. Savings claims are published and aimed at the buyer's own cost rather than at a client invoice: the entry product is presented as saving time, reducing costs and making high-level protection available to businesses of all sizes by automating tasks traditionally handled by threat hunters, and the pricing model is sold on cost predictability, with standard takedowns uncapped so cost does not rise with threat volume. Under the value's own terms those are recorded here and do not make this a savings-claims row.
The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It is bought by a brand owner's IP, brand protection or legal function to enforce that company's own rights, and no client is billed for the work the detection and enforcement engine performs. Savings claims are published and are aimed squarely at the buyer's own cost rather than at a client invoice: 10.3 times lower average cost per enforcement against analyst-based models, 12.6 full-time-equivalents of average capacity per brand protected, 130+ hours reclaimed in a quarter at a named customer, and a flat fee explicitly sold as removing analyst hours from the bill.
Under the value's own terms those are recorded here and do not make this a savings-claims row. Two adjacent fee arrangements belong on the record without changing the value: the Revenue Recovery Program is described as zero-cost litigation that recovers funds from infringing sellers, reported at more than $20M to date, and IP registration, UDRP and domain dispute resolution are sold as add-on services, so legal work is billed alongside the platform but not as AI-assisted time charged to a client.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The material a firm would need exists behind an executed agreement rather than in public. The terms of service state that where the Standard Contractual Clauses apply according to the data processing agreement, entry into the agreement or a Subscription Form is itself treated as execution of those clauses as described in the DPA, and that BrandShield is a CCPA Service Provider and the customer a Business. So a DPA exists, and it takes effect on subscribing rather than being published: no URL for it exists in the public index, and the ladder was run for one before this row was written.
No subprocessor list and no model provider statement was located anywhere on the estate, and there is no trust center or security page in the navigation where either would sit. A firm asked by its client to evidence this vendor under an AI or data clause would have to obtain the pack through the sales process. The terms of service itself was blocked to this fetcher on 12 September 2026 and is read here only through the search index, marked unread.
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation. No subprocessor list, no model provider statement, no data processing addendum and no consent or notification pack was found on any surface read, and no customer agreement is published from which an annex could be forwarded. The Data Protection Policy states only that Red Points requires trusted third parties handling personal data to protect it by contract, without naming any of them, and the vendor operates in the United States, Spain and mainland China with an AWS deployment stated on its marketplace listing, none of which is reconciled into a processor list.
A firm asked by its client to evidence this vendor under an AI or data clause would have nothing published to forward. Recorded as of 12 September 2026.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Elements of a record exist and they are built for platform enforcement rather than for a court's AI disclosure. The vendor states that evidence is collected automatically and that cases are structured for takedown readiness, with remediation workflows triggered from them, and the console presents case status and enforcement outcomes to the customer. That is a per-case evidence record, assembled by the system, which is more than several products in this corpus produce.
What is absent is the part a certifying lawyer would need: nothing states that the record identifies which model or classifier reached the determination, what it analyzed, or which named person reviewed it before the notice was sent, and no disclosure template or court-facing guidance was located.
Elements of a record are published and they are built for platform enforcement rather than for a court's AI disclosure. The Our AI page states that every decision is logged with what was detected, why, what triggered it and what happened next, that legal-ready evidence is generated automatically and formatted to each infringement type, platform and jurisdiction, and that it is filed simultaneously to multiple agents; Vision AI is stated to show the exact logos, patterns or products that triggered a match; and Document Management holds the IP rights being enforced.
That is a per-incident, exportable, jurisdiction-formatted evidence record, which is more than most products in this corpus produce. What is absent is the part a certifying lawyer would need: nothing states that the record identifies which model or classifier made the call, what it retrieved, or which named human verified it before the report was filed, and no disclosure template or court-facing guidance was located.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Prompt and Output Retention
- Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
- Bar Guidance Alignment
Which one fits
Choose BrandShield if
- Your brand threats reach into security. BrandShield monitors phishing domains, rogue apps, paid ad scams, executive impersonation and the dark web alongside marketplaces, and since 2026 checks what ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Grok say about a brand and acts against their cited sources.
- You want to choose how much you run yourself. BrandShield sells fully managed, self service and hybrid models, with single click remediation in its entry product, a 24/7 security operations center that can intervene, and named enforcement managers for complex takedowns.
- You buy through AWS and want an entry price. BrandShield's AWS Marketplace listing prices its managed anti phishing product at $22,000 for twelve months, with unlimited standard takedowns and 24/7 support, billed through the AWS account.
Choose Red Points if
- You want the advice line and privilege position in writing. Red Points' legal notice states that it is not a law firm, provides no legal advice, forms no attorney client relationship, and that communications with it are not protected by privilege or work product.
- You sell on marketplaces in China as well as the West. Red Points covers more than 5,000 platforms, including Taobao, Douyin, WeChat and Pinduoduo, with direct API connections to Meta, Google and Bing and more than 300 removal agreements.
- You want evidence from named brands. Red Points names customers with figures, including Purple at more than 4,700 enforcements a month, Topcon at $22 million of infringements removed, and Cotopaxi at more than 4,700 fake websites removed.
In summary
BrandShield
BrandShield, from Brandshield Ltd. of Herzliya, Israel, is an AI brand protection and external cybersecurity platform that detects and removes threats to a company's brand, executives and customers across marketplaces, domains, social media, ads, app stores, the dark web and generative AI answers. Detection runs on AI.ClusterX, its proprietary threat clustering engine, with image detection for altered logos, and takedowns are handled by its own team. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on five of fifteen capability axes. It is sold managed, self service or hybrid, and its entry product is priced at $22,000 a year on AWS Marketplace. As of 12 September 2026 the index located no named customer, security attestation or readable customer agreement.
Red Points
Red Points, based in Barcelona, is an AI brand protection platform that detects and removes counterfeit listings, fake websites, impersonating profiles, fraudulent ads and pirated content across more than 5,000 platforms, scoring sellers across more than 17 million identities and logging each decision with its trigger. It is sold in tiers across five programs as a flat fee for an agreed scope, with expert services and a litigation program alongside. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on eight of fifteen capability axes. It names customers including Purple, Topcon and FILA with figures, and publishes $39,000 a year for one package on AWS Marketplace. As of 12 September 2026 the index located no published customer agreement or named model.
Questions buyers ask
BrandShield vs Red Points: which is better for brand protection?
Red Points sits in the top two bands on eight of fifteen AI Legal Index capability axes and BrandShield on five of fifteen, identical on eight. Red Points publishes named customer results, platform connections and a clear advice line. BrandShield reaches further into security threats such as phishing and the dark web and offers managed, self service and hybrid delivery. Security led teams have reason to look at BrandShield.
Is Red Points a law firm?
No. Its legal notice states that Red Points is not a law firm, does not provide legal advice or intend to practice law, and offers self help services at the customer's direction; no attorney client relationship arises. It adds that communications with Red Points are not protected by attorney client privilege or work product. BrandShield publishes no equivalent statement that this index could read. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 27, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Do BrandShield and Red Points train AI on customer data?
Neither position could be read. Red Points publishes no customer agreement, and its data protection policy covers website and marketing data. BrandShield's terms of service, as far as they could be read, say nothing on training, and its data processing agreement takes effect on subscribing rather than being published. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 27, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How much do BrandShield and Red Points cost?
Each publishes one price, on its AWS Marketplace listing. BrandShield's managed anti phishing product costs $22,000 for twelve months with unlimited standard takedowns. Red Points' Professional Program for three trademarks costs $39,000 a year, charged as a flat fee with unlimited detections and takedowns inside the agreed scope. Other tiers from both are quoted. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 27, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do BrandShield and Red Points both leave unpublished?
What happens when a takedown is wrong. Neither publishes an error rate for its detections, and neither describes a remediation or appeal path when a lawful seller's listing or domain is removed. Neither names the models behind its detection, and neither publishes a retention period for the evidence and seller data it holds. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 27, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Three readings to weigh. BrandShield's terms of service, which define its takedown service to include cease and desist letters sent for the customer, could not be read in full by this index, so its grades on advice, confidentiality and liability record that limit. Neither vendor publishes its customer agreement or data processing agreement in readable form. Each vendor's only published price is on its AWS Marketplace listing and covers one package. BrandShield and Red Points were both verified on 12 September 2026. Neither vendor reviewed this page.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything above comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.