R
Responsiv
Responsiv is a regulatory change platform used by compliance and in-house legal teams at banks, broker-dealers, asset managers, insurers and consumer technology companies. It monitors regulatory sources across more than 50 jurisdictions, routes changes to the people responsible, breaks regulatory text into discrete requirements, and maps those requirements to a firm's own policies and controls so that gaps can be assigned, tracked and closed.
Policy Scanner reads an uploaded policy and returns a ranked list of the rules driving it, each citing the specific rule with a short rationale and a relevance score a reviewer accepts or dismisses; Policy Manager holds the policy library; and an agentic research feature answers regulatory questions with citations to the regulation, article and paragraph. The platform keeps a timestamped record of compliance decisions for examinations.
Responsiv AI, Inc. is a venture-backed company based in Chicago, Illinois, and its terms describe the service as an informational system for attorneys, paralegals and legal researchers that does not provide legal advice.
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.
The models do the interpretive work; the platform around them would still stand without them. Responsiv's own material describes the models shredding hundreds of pages of regulatory text into an executable checklist of requirements, mapping those requirements against a firm's existing policies and controls to surface gaps, and answering regulatory questions with citations to the regulation, article and paragraph. Policy Scanner, released 17 June 2026, reads an uploaded policy and returns a ranked list of the rules driving it, section by section.
Underneath sits a compliance system a firm could run without any of that: a register of applicable rules, a policy library, alert routing by business unit and jurisdiction, task assignment and an audit trail. That is what separates this from a product where removing the models leaves nothing. Verified 20 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.
Output is traceable to the rule it came from, and no accuracy figure is published. The Platform page says every answer cites the exact regulation, article and paragraph so a reader can verify in seconds, and the Policy Scanner release shows each suggested obligation citing a specific rule, such as 15 U.S.C. section 78m, with a short rationale for why it applies and a relevance score marking it a direct policy driver or a control reinforcer.
Section 3(b) of the Terms of Service is unusually candid for a compliance product, acknowledging that machine learning is probabilistic and that use of the service may result in incorrect output that does not accurately reflect real cases or facts. What is not published is any measurement: no test set, no accuracy figure, no evaluation of how often a driving rule is missed, which for a product whose value is exam defensibility is the number a buyer would most want. Verified 20 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.
Responsiv states plainly that a person decides, and it builds the decision point into the product. The Policy Scanner release says the tool does not replace judgment, that it removes the grunt work that comes before it, and that the user still decides what a mapping means; suggestions arrive as a ranked list a reviewer accepts or dismisses one at a time, with the option to re-scope the analysis with a prompt and regenerate.
Section 3(b) of the Terms tells the customer to evaluate output as appropriate, including by human review by a knowledgeable attorney or expert. Alerts and obligations are routed to named owners who confirm completion. What is not published is any limit the system imposes on itself: nothing states when it declines to suggest, what a low relevance score means in practice, or what its output may not be used for. Verified 20 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.
Real users speak on the record, but neither the customer nor the result can be pinned down. The homepage carries four quotes with names and titles, three of them legal or compliance leaders, including a General Counsel describing reduced outside counsel spend and a Senior Associate General Counsel describing use by an in-house legal department; none names an employer. The one case study, dated 3 June 2026, describes an independent investment bank of about 1,000 employees across the US, UK, Ireland and the EU that built a register of its obligations, and quotes its Director of Compliance, but the firm is not named and the only figures given are headcount and footprint. Nothing published states time saved, coverage found, or any other measured outcome. Verified 20 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.
The promises and the agreement point in different directions, and the agreement is the one a customer signs. The homepage Responsible AI block says data remains yours, that it is never used to train the AI, and that sensitive data can be de-identified before analysis. Section 4 of the Terms of Service, last updated 8 March 2024, entitles Responsiv to use Input to train and improve its algorithms and models, and section 3(a) lets it continue to use Output within the service and in its business generally, in both cases unless a separate enterprise agreement says otherwise.
The Privacy Policy states expressly that it does not apply to Customer Data, so the material a firm uploads, including its policies and procedures, sits outside the only published data commitment. Nothing addresses segregation between customers, privilege or work product, or what any model provider may retain. A buyer relying on the no-training statement would need the separate agreement to carry it. Verified 20 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.
Section 2(d) of the Terms of Service is a full statement of what the product is and who it is for: an informational system intended for use by attorneys, paralegals, legal researchers and others engaged in legal research, with Responsiv not a licensed attorney, the output not legal advice, no attorney-client relationship formed, and a direction not to disregard or delay professional advice on the strength of it. Section 3(b) adds that output should be reviewed by a knowledgeable attorney or expert, which reaches the supervision dimension most vendors leave out.
What is missing is jurisdiction: the platform covers more than 50 jurisdictions and nothing states where its analysis is reliable, where local qualification matters, or which regimes it does not cover. Verified 20 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behaviour: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
There is a Responsible AI section on the homepage and nothing a buyer could audit behind it. It makes three claims: that the models deliver precise, reviewable, audited industry-specific information; that customer data is never used for training, which the Terms of Service contradict; and that sensitive data can be removed before analysis. No one inside Responsiv is named as accountable for model behaviour, nothing describes what is tested before a release ships, no evaluation results are published, and nothing addresses whether the models perform unevenly across regulators, jurisdictions or document types, which matters for a product sold on coverage across more than 50 jurisdictions.
Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Financial Services page, the Resources index, the Policy Scanner release, the case study, the Terms and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026. Verified 20 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.
What is published covers the company's handling of personal data, not the firm's documents. The Privacy Policy, last updated 14 May 2024, describes appropriate technical and organisational security measures, says Responsiv may notify of a breach consistent with applicable law, and keeps personal data only as long as necessary; it then says expressly that it does not apply to Customer Data, which is what a compliance team actually uploads.
The Terms describe collecting performance data that may include Content to monitor and improve the service, and allow Responsiv to subcontract parts of it. No retention period or deletion commitment for uploaded policies, no access control model, no subprocessor list and no incident notification timeline was located on any page read. Checked the homepage, Platform, Financial Services, Resources, Policy Scanner release, case study, Terms and Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026. Verified 20 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.
The published position allocates the risk of a wrong answer to the customer. Section 6 of the Terms of Service disclaims all warranties, including fitness, uninterrupted operation, any level of security and any business result, and caps direct damages at one hundred dollars in aggregate across the customer, its employer and its affiliates, with indirect and consequential damages excluded entirely. Section 5 runs an indemnity from the customer to Responsiv and none runs back.
No warranty attaches to the requirements, gap findings or citations the product generates, and no insurance position appears. An enterprise buyer's real allocation would sit in the separate agreement the Terms refer to, which is not published. Verified 20 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.
No integration into the systems a compliance or legal team already runs was located. The platform is described as a place to upload policies, maintain the register and assign work, with dashboards and alerts configurable per team; nothing names a connection to a document management system, a GRC or risk platform, a policy repository, email or a ticketing tool, and no API, developer documentation or integrations page exists.
The case study describes policies being scanned after upload, which is a manual route in. Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Financial Services page, the Resources index and its posts, the Terms and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026, and searched for Responsiv integration and API material; none located. Verified 20 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.
Nothing published says where the software runs or where a firm's policies are stored. The estate is specific about regulatory geography, covering all 50 US states, the Americas, Europe, Asia and the Middle East, but that is the coverage of the content rather than the location of the processing. No tenancy model is described, no hosting provider or region is named, and neither the Terms of Service nor the Privacy Policy states a processing or storage location; the Privacy Policy addresses personal data only and does not reach Customer Data.
A UK, Irish or EU customer, the shape described in the vendor's own case study, would have to establish all of this in a sales conversation. Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Financial Services page, the Resources posts, the Terms and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026. Verified 20 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. There is no security page, no trust centre, and no mention of SOC 2, ISO 27001, a named auditor, a penetration test or any certification anywhere on the estate; the only security language is the Privacy Policy's statement that appropriate technical and organisational measures are in place and its acknowledgement that absolute security cannot be guaranteed. For a product sold to banks, broker-dealers and insurers, whose own vendor diligence turns on exactly these artifacts, the absence is the finding.
Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Financial Services page, the Resources index and its posts, the Terms and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026, and searched for a Responsiv trust centre or SOC 2 report; none located. Verified 20 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 models are described as the vendor's own and never identified. The homepage says our models deliver precise, reviewable, audited industry-specific information tailored to regulated companies; no model, version or provider is named, nothing states whether inference runs on Responsiv's own infrastructure or on a third party's, and no commitment to notify customers when the models change was located. The Terms reserve the right to subcontract portions of the service without naming anyone, and no subprocessor list exists on any page read.
A firm subject to third-party risk rules cannot tell from the published record who processes its policies. Verified 20 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.
No price, rate or unit of charge is published. There is no pricing page in the navigation or the footer, and every route through the site ends at a demo request. The Terms of Service are the only commercial material: they say Responsiv may elect to charge fees at its discretion, may create different levels of access, and may offer free trials, and they refer to a free tier a user may not open multiple accounts to exploit, but no tier is named, described or priced, and fees are otherwise left to a separate agreement.
Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Financial Services page, the Resources index, the Terms and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026. Verified 20 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.
The buyer and the regulatory scope are set out in detail. Three industry pages address financial services (banks, broker-dealers and asset managers, with SEC, CFTC, Treasury, Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC and CFPB material, self-regulatory organisations, exchanges, state law and international regulators including the FCA, PRA and ESMA), health and property and casualty insurance (CMS, NAIC and state DOI updates), and consumer technology (minors' online safety, content moderation, subscription and dark pattern rules, privacy and AI obligations).
The subject areas are named down to AML, supervision and surveillance, recordkeeping, reporting and disclosures, market conduct and data protection, across more than 50 jurisdictions. What is not stated is the boundary: nothing says which regulators or regimes fall outside the coverage, how current the content is for any given source, or what size of firm the platform is built for. Verified 20 September 2026.
7 public documents
The public pages on file for Responsiv, 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.
-
responsiv.ai1 signal
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
responsiv.ai/financial-services1 signal
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
responsiv.ai/privacy1 signal
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
Good Law Verification
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
Court Disclosure Support
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
responsiv.ai/terms1 signal
Client Data in Training
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 20, 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?
The published agreement expressly reserves a right to train on customer content, with no opt out located. Any de identification, anonymisation or aggregation qualifier is recorded in the summary.
Section 4 of the Terms of Service, last updated 8 March 2024, reserves the right to use what a customer puts into the product to train and improve Responsiv's models, unless a separate enterprise agreement says otherwise, and no opt-out is described. The homepage states the opposite, that customer data is never used to train the AI. The Terms are the document a customer signs, and the separate agreement that could reverse this is not published.
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.
Checked the Terms of Service, the Privacy Policy, the homepage, the Platform page and the June 2026 product posts on 20 September 2026. No retention period is published for uploaded policies, questions put to the product or generated output, and no deletion commitment applies on termination. The Privacy Policy's retention section covers personal data and states expressly that the policy does not apply to Customer Data.
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.
Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Financial Services page, the June 2026 product posts, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026. Alerts and obligations can be routed by business unit, topic or jurisdiction, and policies carry an owner, but nothing describes how access is restricted between users or teams, and nothing addresses separation between customers.
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.
The Privacy Policy, last updated 14 May 2024, says personal data may be disclosed where legally required, including in response to a court order or subpoena and to public authorities for national security or law enforcement purposes, and says nothing about telling the customer. It also states that it does not apply to Customer Data, and the Terms of Service address legal process nowhere, so a firm has no published position on what happens if Responsiv is served for the policies and questions it holds.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Sources are identified without stating the licence or rights basis.
The sources are identified by issuer rather than by database. The Platform page describes thousands of regulatory sources across more than 50 jurisdictions, and the Financial Services page names the bodies whose material is carried: the SEC, CFTC, Treasury, Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC and CFPB, self-regulatory organisations, exchanges, state regulators and international authorities including the FCA, PRA and ESMA, covering acts, regulations, guidance and enforcement actions. No licence or rights basis is stated for any of it, and the update cadence is described only as always current.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
The vendor computes and surfaces subsequent history itself, with the method described.
For a regulatory corpus the currency question is whether a rule is still in force, and Responsiv answers it itself rather than passing through another provider's signal. Obligations in the register are anchored to the live source rule, and the case study of 3 June 2026 describes a horizon scanner watching the regulators in scope so that when one changes a rule the affected obligations and their owners are flagged automatically.
The method is described at that level; no treatment history for individual authorities, and no case law citator, is offered.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
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.
Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Policy Scanner release, the case study, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026. Nothing describes what happens when the product cannot find an answer or cannot tie a policy to a rule. Suggested obligations carry a relevance score, but that ranks how central a rule is to the policy rather than how confident the system is, and no abstention path is described. Section 3(b) of the Terms acknowledges that output may be incorrect and directs the reader to review it.
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.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 20 September 2026 on the product name Responsiv and the corporate name Responsiv AI, Inc. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product, which is sold for compliance work rather than for court filings.
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.
Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Financial Services page, the Resources posts, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026. Section 2(d) of the Terms states that the product is an informational system for attorneys, paralegals and legal researchers and does not give legal advice, but no material engages with ABA Formal Opinion 512, a state bar opinion or any other named ethics guidance on lawyers' use of AI.
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 operates before an engagement exists, or it is bought by a team that bills no client for the work. Savings claims aimed at the buyer’s own cost are recorded in the summary and do not make the row a savings claim, because no client bill is in the loop.
The buyer is the in-house compliance or legal team doing its own firm's work, so no client is billed for what the product does and no lawyer-to-client fee question arises. The savings claimed are the buyer's own: a General Counsel quoted on the homepage describes spending less on outside counsel, and the case study describes replacing a multi-day manual mapping exercise.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Financial Services page, the Resources index and its posts, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026, and searched for a Responsiv trust centre or subprocessor list. No subprocessor list, model provider list or client-facing disclosure material was located; the Terms reserve the right to subcontract parts of the service without naming anyone.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
The record the product keeps is built for a regulatory examination rather than for a court. Suggested obligations cite the rule they map to and are accepted or dismissed one by one by a named reviewer, and the platform maintains a timestamped record of every compliance decision and an audit trail of assigned work. Nothing records which model produced a suggestion, and no per-document export of AI use and human verification is described.