E
Eudia
Eudia is an AI platform for large in house legal departments. It turns a company's own contracts, policies and know how into what it calls an Enterprise Brain, then runs legal agents on top of it. The platform covers five areas: marketing compliance, contracting and deal speed, self service decisions for the business, mergers and acquisitions, and litigation. A separate offering serves government acquisition teams. It connects to the systems where the work already sits, including Google Drive, SharePoint, Box, Salesforce, DocuSign, Onit and LinkSquares.
Published customer stories name Duracell, Graybar and Cargill, each with a figure. Eudia's SafeBase trust center lists SOC 2 Type 2, ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001:2023 and GDPR, and a subprocessor list that names Anthropic and OpenAI. Eudia also runs Eudia Counsel, a separately branded legal services arm with a law firm, on the same platform. This entry covers the software platform sold at eudia.com. Eudia is the trading name of Cicero Technologies, Inc.
Eudia, head to head
Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.
Alternatives to Eudia
Vendors in the same categories as Eudia whose graded profiles look most alike, with a line on what each product does.
Similar is not the same, so check that each one does the job you need. No vendor pays for placement.
- LLexiLexi is an AI workspace for legal work from a Y Combinator company founded by Harshit Garg and Kiran Mohan, with offices in the United States, India, Australia and Singapore.
- OOrbitalOrbital is an AI platform for commercial real estate legal work, sold to the real estate practices of law firms, to real estate businesses such as investors, developers and REITs, and to…
- FFlankFlank runs supervised AI agents that take over high volume legal work for enterprise in house teams, delivered by a forward deployed team rather than as a software rollout.
- LLegoraLegora is an agentic operating system for law firms and in house legal teams, built so lawyers, agents and clients work in one place.
- PPrime Legal AIPrime Legal AI is an AI workspace for German lawyers, legal departments, courts and public administration that analyzes whole case files, drafts pleadings and letters, reviews contracts and…
- CCORTOCORTO is an AI workspace for law firms from CORTO Pty Ltd in Sydney, which also runs CORTO AI Inc. in the United States and an office in San Francisco.
Ordered by how closely the graded profiles match across the 15 capability axes, inside the same categories. See how each axis is graded in the methodology.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. 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.
Eudia has no conventional product underneath its AI. It holds no repository, matter management or contract lifecycle system of its own. Records stay in Google Drive, SharePoint, Box, Salesforce, DocuSign, Onit and LinkSquares, and Eudia connects to them. What it sells is the intelligence layer, turning a company's own data and know how into legal agents, marketed as expert digital twins and an Enterprise Brain. Remove the models and nothing is left to sell.
One qualification: delivery is partly human. Forward-Deployed Engineers is one of the seven listed solutions, and the separate Eudia Counsel arm runs on the same platform. Neither replaces the models as what the buyer pays for.
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.
One grounding claim is made, with nothing behind it. Eudia's home page says it connects systems, documents and workflows so every decision is grounded in current, company specific context. No retrieval method, source linking, accuracy figure, test set or evaluation is published. Eudia's trust center lists AI Security and AI Risk Management documents behind an access request.
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.
Eudia is explicit about autonomy and says little about oversight. It sells Decision Self-Service, described as delivering governed intelligence across the enterprise, and says the Enterprise Brain makes the business self sufficient without adding headcount. That means business users getting legal answers without the legal team involved. Oversight appears only as adjectives: intelligence is described as secure, governed and auditable.
Nothing names a review point, approval step, confidence threshold, a point where an agent stops, or what happens when an agent is wrong. Human in the loop appears as a phrase, not a described control.
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.
Three large customers are named, each with a figure and its own case study. Duracell reports 50 percent savings on contracting costs using the AI Contracting MIND. Graybar reports 98 percent faster diligence, with contract review falling from four hours to five minutes, using the AI M&A MIND. Cargill reports a 50 percent cut in contracting research time using Contract Insights, and its Chief Legal and Compliance Officer, Rishi Varma, is quoted by name and title on the home page.
These are Fortune 500 legal departments, which is real deployment evidence. The success stories index gives no dates and no basis for any of the three figures.
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.
How client confidences are handled goes unstated before signing, for a platform sold to Fortune 500 legal departments. No customer agreement, master subscription agreement or data processing addendum is published. The only agreement on the site is a website terms of use. The privacy policy says expressly that it does not cover personal data stored for customers, which is governed by contracts with each customer. So every key question is unanswered in public: there is no training commitment for customer content, no privilege or work product treatment, no matter or tenant separation, no retention or deletion terms, and nothing on what the named model providers may keep.
Related documents exist behind an access request on the trust center: a Data Protection Policy and an AI Training Data and Bias document.
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.
The only disclaimers sit in the website terms of use and apply to the website. Section 5.1 says site content is for information and that the user alone must verify its accuracy. Section 11 disclaims all warranties for the Site and the Technology that runs it. Nothing says platform output is not legal advice, and nothing addresses supervision, competence or jurisdiction limits. The marketing, meanwhile, describes the product in decision terms: Decision Self-Service delivering governed intelligence across the enterprise, agents encoding expert judgment, and an Enterprise Brain that makes the business self sufficient.
That points at business users outside the legal department, so the question of who relies on the output is live. No bar or ethics guidance is engaged.
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.
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 is listed as a current certification in the public section of Eudia's trust center, alongside SOC 2 Type 2, ISO/IEC 27001 and GDPR. That is an independently audited standard for managing AI, not a self written principles page. The trust center also has an AI section listing AI Training Data and Bias, AI Security and AI Risk Management, so Eudia has prepared bias material; its contents sit behind an access request. Nothing public names a person or team accountable for model behavior, and no test result or bias finding is disclosed.
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.
Of the five areas that matter for data stewardship, Eudia publishes one. Its subprocessor list is public and specific, naming Elastic, Amazon Web Services, Anthropic, OpenAI and Microsoft Azure. Retention and deletion of customer content are addressed nowhere. The privacy policy's retention section covers personal data Eudia holds for itself, says only that it is kept as long as necessary, and expressly excludes data held for customers.
No incident or breach notice commitment is published, and no access control detail beyond the fact of SOC 2 Type 2 and ISO 27001. Eudia's trust center shows the material exists: it lists Data Breach Notifications, Certificates of Destruction, Data Asset Classification, Access Monitoring, a Data Protection Policy and a Backup Policy, all behind an access request.
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.
Liability terms reaching Eudia's product are not published. Its only published agreement is a website terms of use, which by its first sentence governs content at www.eudia.com. It caps total liability at five hundred dollars at section 13, has an indemnity running only from the user to Eudia at section 12, and disclaims all warranties at section 11. Section 5.2 says access to specific areas of the Site is subject to a further agreement called an Annex.
That is where platform terms sit, and it is not published, so no indemnity, cap, exception or output warranty for the Enterprise Brain is public. Eudia lists cyber insurance as a document on its trust center, behind an access request. The five hundred dollar cap governs the website, not the platform.
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.
Seven integrations are named, with nothing on what they move. They are grouped by function: document storage, contract management, revenue and business systems, and signing. The seven are Google Drive, SharePoint, Box, Onit, Salesforce, LinkSquares and DocuSign, including two legal tools in Onit and LinkSquares. Each has one line of marketing describing an outcome, such as the Salesforce connection linking legal workflows with deal and customer data.
Nothing says what syncs, in which direction, on what trigger, or what a customer must set up. No developer documentation, API reference or implementation guide is published.
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.
Delivery is clearly cloud based, but neither region nor tenancy is stated. Eudia's trust center names Azure for infrastructure and the subprocessor list adds Amazon Web Services, so the hosting providers are known. That identifies infrastructure, not where a customer's data sits. No region or residency option is published. The privacy policy says only that Eudia is based in the United States, works with service providers in the US and other countries, and may store information outside the reader's home country. No tenancy model is stated: nothing describes the platform as shared, single tenant or privately deployed.
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.
The trust center is public and detailed, but its reports sit behind an access request. A SafeBase trust center at trust.eudia.com lists four current standards by name: SOC 2 Type 2, ISO/IEC 27001, GDPR and ISO/IEC 42001:2023. It lists thirteen documents, including a SOC 2 Report, a Pentest Report, a Security Whitepaper, a Network Diagram and a Data Flow Diagram, plus third party security ratings from SecurityScorecard and Qualys SSL Labs.
The list is public, but the reports sit behind a Get access flow, which the portal calls starting a security review and requesting access, without saying whether access comes after an email and a click through or through a sales conversation. No auditor is named and no coverage period appears on any public page.
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.
Model providers are named publicly, but the models are not. The trust center's subprocessor entry lists Anthropic and OpenAI as model providers, alongside Elastic, Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure for infrastructure, and can be read without an access request. The models themselves are not named, only the companies that make them. Nothing commits to telling customers when the supply chain changes, and no change notice term is published, since no customer agreement or data processing addendum is published at all. Where the models run is not stated.
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.
Pricing is absent at every level, down to the unit of charge. There is no pricing page in the navigation, footer, solution pages, government page, integrations page, success stories, terms or privacy policy, and the only commercial route is to schedule or book a demo. Solution areas are named, and so are three products, the AI Contracting MIND, the AI M&A MIND and Contract Insights. But a product list is not a price list: no tier, seat or usage unit, term or figure appears.
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.
Eudia describes its coverage by practice area and buyer, but not where it stops. It names five solution areas: marketing compliance, contracting and deal speed, self service decisions, mergers and acquisitions, and litigation. It separates an enterprise track from a government track built for government acquisition teams. Named customers at the top of the market, Duracell, Graybar and Cargill, support the enterprise claim.
The boundary is left open. Nothing says what the platform does not support, no minimum company size is given, and no jurisdiction or geography is named. The link between the platform and the separate Eudia Counsel services arm is not explained, so where the software stops and the service begins is not clear.
2 public documents
The public pages on file for Eudia, with the recorded signals each one supports and the date it was last read. Open any of them and check the reading against the record.
-
eudia.com/legal/privacy-policy2 signals
Client Data in Training, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 2, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 2, 2026
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
A published agreement or policy exists and none of it addresses the question either way, or the document that would answer it could not be read and the summary names the retrieval limit. The summary states which shape the silence takes: an improvement right granted that never names training, or no improvement right granted at all.
Nothing published addresses whether customer content trains models, in either direction. The quoted line is real, but it sits in the privacy policy's table of legal bases for European residents, and that policy says at the outset that it does not apply to personal information stored or maintained on behalf of customers, which is governed by contracts with each customer. So Training AI System is disclosed as a processing purpose for the data Eudia holds as controller, which is website, marketing and account information, and no improvement right over customer content is granted in anything published.
No customer agreement or data processing addendum is published. An AI Training Data and Bias document on the trust center sits behind an access request and was not available to read.
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 prompts and outputs are retained.
No public material says how long prompts, outputs or uploaded documents are kept. The privacy policy has a retention section, but it governs personal information Eudia holds as controller, says only that data is kept as long as necessary to fulfill the purpose of collection, and expressly excludes data held on behalf of customers. Eudia's trust center lists Certificates of Destruction and a Backup Policy, which shows a retention and destruction practice exists, behind an access request.
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 walls or matter level segregation.
Nothing addresses walls, matter separation or whether retrieval respects the access model of the systems it draws from. That matters because the platform indexes across Google Drive, SharePoint, Box, Salesforce, Onit and LinkSquares, so whose permissions govern at query time is a live question, and the marketing answers it only with the assertion that intelligence is secure, governed and auditable, meeting enterprise requirements for access control.
Eudia's trust center lists Environment Segregation under infrastructure, which concerns separation of environments rather than of matters or users, behind an access request.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Published terms or policy address disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and no commitment or reservation regarding customer notice is located anywhere. The vendor has told the customer that data can leave and has said nothing about whether the customer hears of it.
Eudia's privacy policy says it may disclose data when compelled, and says nothing about telling the customer. It says Eudia will use personal information as it believes necessary to comply with lawful requests and legal process, including subpoenas, and may disclose data to law enforcement, government authorities and others in response to valid requests by public authorities. No commitment to notify the customer, and no reserved discretion over notice, appears.
The policy covers data Eudia holds for itself and expressly excludes customer content, for which no agreement is published.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
No corpus is identified. Eudia works on the company's own contracts, policies, precedent and know how, drawn from its existing systems, not on a published body of law, so questions about coverage and title to a legal corpus do not arise in the usual way. Nothing suggests the product retrieves primary law, and no statement of jurisdiction coverage is published.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
No public material addresses subsequent history, treatment flags or citator coverage, including on the litigation solution page. The product is built on enterprise documents rather than primary authority and claims no citator function, and no weaker form of checking is described.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
Nothing describes what the platform does when it cannot ground an answer. No abstention path, no way of saying it has no answer, and no confidence or grounding score is documented. The only related statement is that decisions are grounded in current, company specific context, which asserts grounding without saying what happens when the context lacks the answer.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, and reporting based on it, records no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Eudia or its corporate name, Cicero Technologies. The same company operates a legal services arm and law firm under the Eudia Counsel brand, which this record does not cover.
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.
No public material engages with ABA Formal Opinion 512, any state bar opinion, or any other named ethics guidance, and nothing addresses professional responsibility even in general terms. That stands out against the product's positioning, which has business users outside the legal department getting legal answers through Decision Self-Service.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
Eudia publishes savings claims: 50 percent savings on contracting costs at Duracell, 98 percent faster diligence at Graybar, and a 50 percent cut in contracting research time at Cargill. The Duracell story describes a shift from billed hours to billed outcomes, which concerns how the customer pays for legal work, not how AI work is recorded or disclosed, and no record of AI work per matter is described. Eudia's buyer is the legal department that receives bills, not the firm that sends them, so the savings it markets fall on outside counsel spend and internal capacity.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.
Eudia publishes a current subprocessor list on its trust center, readable without an access request. It names Anthropic and OpenAI as model providers, alongside Elastic, Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure for infrastructure, so a legal department asked which providers see its content can answer. Material for clients that can be forwarded is missing: the Data Processing Agreement, Security Whitepaper and Data Protection Policy all appear on the trust center behind a Get access flow, and none is published or available without a request.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
Nothing addresses judicial standing orders, disclosure of AI use or verification certification, including on the litigation solution page, and no exportable record of model use, sources retrieved or human review is described. The marketing says intelligence is auditable, but no audit record is documented and nothing indicates one could be produced for a document. The platform is sold to in house departments, so a filing disclosure duty would usually fall on the outside counsel handling the matter rather than on the buyer.