Darrow vs Pattern Data: how they compare in 2026

Section 8.3 states that the AI features are mandatory and integrated by default, and that a customer who does not accept the AI service providers' terms has no remedy other than to stop using the service. The published architecture is four layers of model work: ingesting raw signals at scale, interpreting them through legal context, reasoning across the result to prioritize and orchestrate action autonomously, and surfacing it to the teams responsible. Published throughput is more than 5 million signals detected monthly. Without the models there is no product.

The product reads records, extracts exposure, injury and treatment data, scores every claimant against litigation criteria and decides eligible claims automatically. Pattern Data has sold nothing else since its founding, and it names the models it tailors to each litigation as the product.

The knowledge base is described in principle as connecting the laws that create obligations, the organizational weaknesses that emerge when they are not met, and the enforcement actions that follow. The inputs are described by category as regulatory filings, incident reports, litigation patterns and market activity. Nothing describes how an output traces back to the input that produced it: no citation, source link or retrieval method. Hallucination is addressed only as a disclaimer. Section 8.3 records that generative AI involves uncertainties as to quality and accuracy and that the company has no control over output. The trial terms disclaim liability for undetected, misdetected or mischaracterized events, signals, risks or cases. No accuracy figure or test set is published, and section 12.1 expressly disclaims any warranty of accuracy. Darrow also publishes Research and Domain Coverage pages.

Retrieval augmented generation over language models underpins the platform, Pattern Data's FAQ states, with case reviewers validating the findings the AI aggregates. The platform page states clear sourcing and human validation at every step and that every result can stand up to review, audit or settlement. A third party review gives a figure of 98 percent accuracy, which is not the vendor's own. No figure, test set or evaluation from the vendor is published. The product reads records and cites no primary law.

The published description of the agentic layer says advanced AI systems reason across the intelligence, identify emerging opportunities, prioritize signals and orchestrate action autonomously. The product is framed as an always on legal red team. The only oversight statements are contractual disclaimers. Section 8.3 makes the customer responsible for evaluating the results of its use of the AI features and says the service is not a substitute for legal advice, legal research and independent review. Nothing published separates what the system does unattended from what a person approves. No threshold is stated at which it escalates or stops, no review surface inside the portal is described, and nothing addresses what happens when a signal is wrong. Darrow also publishes platform, law firms and FAQ pages.

Eligible claims are decided automatically by the proprietary AI while complex or outlier cases are flagged for human review, the FAQ states, and case reviewers validate the findings the AI aggregates. On its home page, Pattern Data states that every extraction, classification and score is built to support the team's review rather than bypass it. The threshold is the eligibility and allocation logic set by the settlement criteria, recalculated when criteria change. The review surface shows validated data, record status and what each case needs next, with sourcing on every result. Flagged outliers go to a person. Nothing states a confidence level below which automatic decisions are withheld, beyond the criteria themselves.

Roughly thirty customer organizations are shown by name: Baron and Budd, Milberg, Girard Sharp, Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann, Zuckerman Spaeder, Singleton Schreiber, Kahn Swick and Foti, Lynch Carpenter, Bailey and Glasser, Nichols Kaster, Loevy and Loevy, Wolf Haldenstein, Stephan Zouras, Schneider Wallace, Freed Kanner, Kozyak Tropin and Throckmorton and Consovoy McCarthy, alongside Microsoft and Armis on the corporate side. Figures are published at corporate level: more than 22 billion dollars in legal exposure surfaced, over 80 organizations, more than 5 million signals detected monthly, over 22,000 legal professionals and more than 10,000 active matters. No figure is attached to any named firm, no case study is published, nothing is dated, and no testimonial from a named individual appears on the home or segment pages.

More than thirty litigations and 1.4 million cases sit on the platform, Pattern Data's FAQ states, alongside roles appointed by courts in major settlement programs, settlement submissions in one day rather than fifteen and review costs cut by up to five times. None is attributed to a named firm or program, and the testimonials on the home page are unnamed. The chief executive's conference biography names the 3M Combat Arms Earplug and Philips CPAP litigations as deployments, without figures.

The confidentiality regime at section 11 defines Confidential Information as business, product, technology and marketing information that is not public, and does not bring Customer Data within that definition, so the mutual confidentiality obligations do not by their terms reach what a customer puts into the service. Section 5.1 grants the company and its subprocessors an irrevocable, perpetual, sublicensable license over Customer Data that expressly extends to training foundation models. Section 11.3 reserves a broad right to access, read, preserve and disclose any information obtained in connection with the service. Nothing addresses privilege or work product, nothing addresses segregation between customers or matters, and no retention period exists. Section 7.3 commits to reasonable industry standard technical and organizational security measures to protect Customer Data, which is a security promise rather than a confidentiality one. Section 5.2 separately prohibits the customer from submitting protected health information.

Confidentiality measures in Pattern Data's FAQ are TLS encryption, environments that comply with HIPAA for protected health data, multifactor authentication, stringent access controls and staff training. No customer agreement is published, so nothing binds a training position. No statement is published on training use, retention, deletion, segregation by matter or docket, third party model providers, or privilege and work product.

Section 8.3 states that the customer acknowledges the service is not a substitute for legal advice, legal research and independent review, and the trial terms go further, adding that it is not a substitute for audit, assessment or any medical, legal or regulatory conclusion and that the customer is solely responsible for obtaining necessary legal, medical, scientific or regulatory advice and for its own due diligence. Both sit inside the AI features and warranty clauses rather than in a dedicated position. Nothing on the home page or the segment pages addresses the question at all. No competence or supervision language appears, no rule of professional conduct is named, and jurisdiction is handled by disclaimer rather than by limit, with section 12.1 disclaiming any guarantee that output is suitable for the customer's jurisdiction. The product recommends which matters a firm should pursue.

No advice line or supervision statement is published. The product is sold to law firms and to administrators appointed by courts. Pattern Data's home page states the AI amplifies rather than replaces human judgment. No page states that outputs are not legal advice or how the product supports a supervising lawyer's duties, and no customer agreement is published to carry such a statement.

The system decides which potential claims a firm sees. There is no responsible AI statement, governance framework, named owner accountable for model behavior, description of evaluation before release, or published testing result. Nothing addresses bias, though the system prioritizes signals and so determines which exposures surface and which do not. The company describes itself as an AI lab and publishes a Research page. The agreement records at section 8.3 that the company has no control over the output of the AI features.

The AI does not replace human judgment and every output supports review, Pattern Data's home page states, and the FAQ describes validation by people in the loop. No responsible AI framework, ISO 42001 or equivalent, accountable owner, results of testing before release, or statement about uneven output across litigations or record types is published.

Section 7.3 commits to reasonable, industry standard technical and organizational security measures during the subscription term, with no control named: no encryption standard, access model, logging or testing cadence. There is no security page anywhere in the site navigation or footer. Retention is not addressed. Section 10.4 says only that after termination the company may delete Customer Data, which is permissive and sits against the perpetual license granted at section 5.1. Section 8.1 acknowledges that subprocessors exist and names none. No incident or breach notification practice is published. The privacy policy is incorporated by reference at section 7.1. Section 7.1 is headed Privacy Policy and DPA, but no data processing agreement is linked or published.

TLS in transit, storage that complies with HIPAA for protected health data, multifactor authentication, stringent access controls and continuous staff training make up the safeguards in Pattern Data's FAQ, with adherence to SOC 2 and regular audits. No retention period, deletion commitment, subprocessor list or practice for notifying incidents is published. No customer agreement is published.

Section 14.1 gives a narrow company indemnity covering third party claims that the right to use the service infringes a valid United States patent, with five named exclusions and remedies at section 6.4. The agreement states that these are the sole and exclusive remedy for intellectual property infringement. Section 13 caps aggregate liability at fees paid in the preceding twelve months, dropping to 50 US dollars for trial and prerelease services under section 2.3 and for the drug and device intelligence trial. No warranty is given. Section 12.1 disclaims accuracy, completeness, availability and security outright. Section 8.3 states the company is not liable for the performance of the AI features and does not guarantee the accuracy or reliability of any output. The trial terms disclaim liability for undetected or mischaracterized signals, risks or cases. No insurance position is published.

No liability position is published. The site's navigation and footer carry Privacy, Security, Careers and an AI search page, and no terms of service or customer agreement. The FAQ describes pricing as tailored per firm, so the agreement is a negotiated document that is not published.

Section 8.4 of the agreement refers to integration with certain third party applications set out in the company's documentation or within the service, then disclaims responsibility for them without naming any. No case management system, document management system, intake platform or CRM appears on the home page, the terms or the navigation, and there is no integrations page or developer documentation in the navigation or footer. Plaintiff firms, the segment named first on the site, get case signals with no stated route into an intake or matter system. Darrow also publishes Platform and Law Firms pages.

The navigation carries an Integrations page and a dedicated Litify page. Pattern Data's FAQ states an open API with customizable scripts for automated actions, bulk imports from cloud storage systems and drag and drop upload, and describes integration with existing case management systems. The platform page states that settlement packets are generated in the formats claims administrators require. What syncs with Litify, and in which direction, is not described in the FAQ or on the platform page.

No region, country, hosting provider or data center is named on any surface, and no tenancy model is described: nothing states whether the platform is single or multi tenant or how one customer's data is separated from another's. The agreement says only, at section 8.1, that the service is hosted and made available by certain subprocessors, none of them named. No deployment option, private tier or residency commitment of any kind is offered. The one geographic signal is indirect, in the export control clause at section 15.1 referring to Israeli, United States or foreign export controls.

The platform is delivered as a cloud service. Pattern Data's FAQ states that protected health data is stored in secure environments that comply with HIPAA and that bulk import from cloud storage is supported. No hosting provider, region, residency option or tenancy model is named.

No SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA or any other framework is claimed anywhere, no auditor or certifying body is named, no report is offered at any access tier, and no penetration testing is mentioned. There is no security page and no trust center: the site navigation carries Law Firms, Insurance, Compliance, Research and a Company menu, and the footer carries only a cookie policy, a privacy policy and the terms of use. The agreement offers section 7.3 alone, promising reasonable industry standard measures without naming a standard. No unsupported badges are displayed.

Pattern Data's FAQ states adherence to SOC 2 compliance, regular comprehensive security audits and full HIPAA compliance. It does not state that a SOC 2 report has been issued. No report type, auditor, coverage period or route to a report is stated. The footer links a Security page.

Section 8.3 identifies the AI service providers as third parties including Anthropic Claude and OpenAI, both misspelled in the published text, and makes clear that the AI features are mandatory and integrated by default. The disclosure sits in the agreement rather than in marketing. The same clause reserves the right to use different AI service providers at any time without prior notice, and a customer who objects to a current or future provider has no remedy but to stop using the service. The word including leaves the list open. No specific model or version is named, no location is given for inference, and no subprocessor list is published; section 8.1 acknowledges subprocessors without identifying any.

Pattern Data's FAQ states a retrieval augmented generation approach and large language models, and the litigation pages describe models tailored to specific litigations. No provider, model, inference location or commitment to notify customers of changes is named.

There is no pricing page, no tier names, no feature split, no indication of whether charging is per user, matter, signal or case, and no free trial or self-serve route. Every call to action leads to a demo request or a booking with the team. The agreement shows the shape of the arrangement rather than its price. Fees are set in an Order Form in US dollars and paid annually in advance. They cannot be canceled or refunded, renew automatically unless canceled 30 days before expiry, and carry overage fees for excessive use. A banner states that 78 percent of production is already reserved.

Pattern Data's FAQ describes a transactional pricing model, with fees based on case volume and the specific services used. It names case analysis, settlement award allocation and settlement packet generation as priced services, tailored per firm to caseload and budget, and claims review fees cut by up to five times against manual review. No figure, rate card or pricing page is published.

Each segment has its own page and stated job: law firms identifying emerging litigation earlier and building case portfolios, insurers detecting exposure and pricing risk, and corporate compliance teams surfacing exposure across their external digital footprint. Practice breadth is put at more than 50 legal exposure categories, and the footer links a Domain Coverage page. The named customers, overwhelmingly plaintiff and class action firms, corroborate the primary segment. No individual practice area is named on the home or segment pages, firm size is not addressed, no jurisdiction of coverage is stated, and nothing says which exposure types or industries fall outside the system.

Buyers are plaintiff firms, defense firms, settlement administrators and special masters. The litigation pages name Roundup, AFFF and PFAS, Camp Lejeune, Depo-Provera, hair relaxer, GLP-1, Paraquat, social media, talc and Zantac, with more than thirty litigations supported. Pattern Data states the platform is built for mass tort and multidistrict litigation. No jurisdiction outside the United States is addressed.