H

Haast

Haast applies AI agents to marketing and communications compliance before publication and throughout the life of published content. Each agent handles a particular compliance task using regulations, internal policies and earlier review decisions. The customer sets a risk tolerance for individual rules, and reviewer feedback changes later analysis. Findings identify suspect content, explain the applied requirement and suggest a correction.

Continuous monitoring extends the same work to websites, social channels and authorized partner material. Approval routing and audit history support that analysis. Removing the models would remove the automated interpretation and review service that Haast sells to enterprise compliance teams.

Findings trace back to configured rules and explain the text or claim that triggered a concern. Haast separates checks into dedicated agents and adjusts analysis through reviewer feedback. A September 2026 comparison claims 98.7% accuracy across more than 400,000 compliance checks, but gives no reproducible test set, error breakdown or evaluation protocol. Configured company standards can be inspected, yet an openable primary authority link for each legal assertion is not specified.

Nor is there a described mechanism for checking subsequent legal treatment. The product provides reasoning about rules, without a public evaluation that establishes reliable citation accuracy across those rules.

Content creators can correct flagged wording, repeat a review and submit unresolved findings to compliance. Reviewers see the analysis, leave comments and approve or reject material within the existing approval process. Risk tolerance can vary by agent, product, region or campaign, including a strict setting for claim language. In Google Docs, an unresolved submission generates an email link for the reviewer to open the same sidebar.

These are concrete review and escalation surfaces. The public control description does not specify an automatic stop for unsupported legal reasoning, a mandatory reviewer threshold or a recovery procedure after an incorrect approval reaches publication.

Equity Trustees uses Haast to precheck regulated materials, newsletters and fact sheets and to monitor fund manager and superannuation marketing online. Its November 2024 account describes more than 80 custom compliance requirements and monitoring across thousands of resources. Those details identify an operating workflow and the scale of its rule configuration. Wessel van Keulen also describes using Haast during regulatory change work at Zurich.

Figures such as faster review and reduced manual effort accompany the broader product offering, but a dated baseline, comparable sample and measurement method are not supplied for the Equity Trustees deployment. Its account establishes use without a controlled outcome study.

Customer content is limited to running compliance reviews and improving accuracy within that customer's account. Haast expressly excludes training shared or third party models in its product policy. Google integration data has a further purpose restriction and passes to infrastructure providers only as necessary for enabled functionality. Encryption and authenticated access protect stored and transmitted information.

The public usage agreement does not reproduce an express training prohibition, and attorney client privilege and work product treatment are not specifically addressed. Granular administrative controls are available, but matter level segregation and the retention terms of individual model providers remain outside the public confidentiality description.

The intended users include enterprise lawyers, compliance staff and marketers. Marketing teams receive an initial review, while compliance reviewers resolve findings and make publication decisions. Haast's implementation staff translate customer policies into automated checks, and the platform is described as an AI legal reviewer. A separate statement defining the boundary between software output and legal advice is not supplied in the current usage policy or product materials.

Nor are lawyer competence duties, consumer disclosures or jurisdictional limits on legal services set out. The authorized content restriction governs what customers may monitor; it does not explain professional responsibility for an erroneous legal interpretation.

Haast emphasizes explainable decisions, customer control of rule settings and ongoing feedback from legal reviewers. Each task has its own agent, and a finding exposes the rule applied and the reason for the flag. Those features support a customer's compliance governance, while legal engineers help encode the customer's standards during implementation. A separate vendor governance framework does not name an accountable AI officer, describe release approval testing or report uneven performance across industries, languages or protected groups.

The aggregate accuracy claim also lacks a published evaluation protocol. The available commitments concern transparent operation and customization rather than a defined vendor assurance program.

The March 2026 privacy policy covers use of the compliance platform as well as the website. It specifies encryption, multifactor authentication for sensitive systems, intrusion detection, vulnerability assessments and an incident response plan with legally required breach notice. Information is retained while a legitimate purpose continues, then deleted or anonymized; backups may remain securely stored when deletion is not possible.

Individuals can request access, correction or deletion by email. Google data has a separate restriction to enabled functionality and equivalent protections for infrastructure providers. No current list of subprocessors, prompt specific retention schedule or fixed backup deletion deadline accompanies these controls.

The public terms page contains a usage policy covering authorized users, lawful activity, prohibited content and restrictions on competitor monitoring. Haast may throttle or suspend access for violations and can modify that policy without advance notice. The policy does not allocate financial loss from an incorrect compliance finding or an approval that misses a regulatory issue. No output warranty, vendor indemnity, liability cap or contractual correction remedy is stated there.

Customer support and reviewer feedback provide operational assistance, but their availability does not establish compensation rights. Any additional commercial allocation of those risks remains outside the publicly available agreement.

The Google Docs add on has a published installation and review sequence. A customer installs it from the Workspace Marketplace, grants permissions and signs in with Haast credentials or single sign on. Content is analyzed from a sidebar, with findings linked to the relevant passage. Authors edit in the original file and run another review; unresolved issues are submitted to compliance, whose reviewer receives an email link to that file and sees the same findings and comments.

Haast retains the audit history. This describes configuration and movement of content and review work, beyond the separate lists naming Word, Figma and Workfront connections.

Haast is delivered as software as a service, with account login, browser access and connections inside content creation tools. Its Google Docs integration authorizes access to the specific content needed for the requested functionality. Customer rules can vary across brands, teams and geographic markets within a deployment. The published delivery description does not identify hosting regions, distinguish storage location from AI processing location or explain whether customers share underlying infrastructure.

International regulatory coverage concerns the rules being applied, rather than where information is processed. Private cloud, installation on customer infrastructure and region selection are not specified as purchasing options.

The current privacy policy identifies ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II certifications and describes independent audits. Platform materials repeat ISO 27001 certification and SOC 2 compliance. The accompanying controls include encryption, authentication, vulnerability review and incident handling, while procurement teams can request security documentation through the RFP process. The public materials do not provide the audit period, certification scope, issuing assessor or an immediately accessible report.

A reader can identify the standards Haast claims, but cannot establish their coverage of individual AI services from those statements alone. No specific model provider assurance is incorporated into that certification description.

The processing architecture assigns an individual agent to each compliance task instead of using one general agent for every rule. Customer policies, past decisions and risk settings shape those agents, and feedback from reviewers adjusts later work. This explains how analysis is organized and customized. It does not identify the underlying model families, their providers, versions or inference locations. Google APIs supply an integration channel, not an identification of the models performing compliance analysis.

Shared model training is excluded by policy, but provider retention terms and a commitment to notify customers about model substitutions are not included in the public architecture description.

Haast charges according to usage rather than the number of individual users. Its enterprise pricing description permits the broader team to use the service without a separate subscription for every person. Rates and the exact metered unit are not published, and no named package table sets out included volumes, overage prices or minimum commitments. Implementation is tailored to users, rules, content and integrations with legal and technical staff involved.

The associated implementation charge is not stated. The commercial structure is therefore a negotiated usage subscription with an identified basis, while the amount and the boundary of included deployment services remain private.

The product serves enterprise legal, compliance and marketing departments reviewing regulated communications. Financial services coverage includes FINRA, SEC, FCA and consumer protection requirements; separate industry workflows address retail, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, gaming and other regulated businesses. Teams can apply different rule sets across products, regions, campaigns and brands. Supported material includes text, images, presentations, audio and video, with monitoring of websites and authorized partner channels after publication.

The published scope explains these supported compliance tasks but does not offer a definitive jurisdiction exclusion list or limits for unusual content. It is an enterprise review platform rather than a general case management service for law firms.