S
SingleFile
SingleFile keeps US business entities in good standing and gives the people responsible for them one place to see everything. It acts as registered agent in all fifty states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, scanning service of process and government mail into the customer's account the day it arrives. Around that sits the filing work a corporate calendar generates, from annual reports and franchise tax filings to formations, foreign qualifications and UCC-1 filings.
The platform holds the entity record underneath, with formation documents and officer and ownership data in a searchable vault, and a compliance calendar that tracks each entity against every state it is qualified in. Org Charts turns ownership data into diagrams a team can edit with plain instructions and export as PDFs. The AI layer, sold as SingleFile Intelligence, mostly works behind the service: it researches each state's requirements, fills intake forms from data already held and flags gaps, and the company's own compliance specialists approve every filing before it goes out. Law firms can hold client entities in separate workspaces and have SingleFile invoice their clients directly.
SingleFile, 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 SingleFile
Vendors in the same categories as SingleFile 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.
- SSecuritiSecuriti sells what it calls the DataAI Command Platform, built on a knowledge graph that maps data and AI objects across hybrid multicloud, SaaS and on premises systems, in four pillars…
- TTrustArcTrustArc is a privacy management platform for privacy, legal and compliance teams, sold as a suite of applications.
- 44CRisk.ai4CRisk.ai is a regulatory and compliance AI platform from 4CRisk.ai, Inc., founded in 2020 and acquired by CUBE in February 2026; its site says it is proud to join CUBE and continues to…
- HHadriusHadrius is an AI compliance platform for firms regulated by the SEC and FINRA, sold by Quantbase Investments, Inc. of New York.
- AAscentAIAscentAI is a regulatory lifecycle management platform for financial institutions.
- CCredo AICredo AI, based in Los Altos, California, sells an AI governance platform that inventories the AI an organization runs and checks it against regulatory obligations.
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.
Most of the AI serves SingleFile's own staff, not the customer. The vendor says so repeatedly: Intelligence powers our team so we can keep your entities compliant, and the published flow runs research, collect, review, file, with our experts verifying every detail. The workbench screenshot shows the vendor's own filing queue. What the customer receives is registered agent coverage, filings prepared and submitted on its behalf, and an entity platform holding records, documents, a calendar and permissions, none of which needs a model.
Two features do face the customer. Org Charts builds ownership diagrams from entity data and edits them from plain instructions, and the filing readiness review writes its findings to the customer. Both sit on a platform whose value stands without them.
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.
Accuracy is asserted throughout the marketing and never measured. The claims are firm: filings handled accurately and on time, every time, and entities kept compliant faster and more accurately than ever. No accuracy figure, test set, evaluation or error rate goes with them. Nothing says where the automated research draws state requirements from or how they are kept current, which is the live grounding question for a product that depends on knowing what each jurisdiction requires this year.
What is published is a plain limitation on the AI output itself. The filing review carries a line saying it was generated by AI and may contain errors or miss issues, and that the customer should always verify their information before submitting.
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.
Human approval is a stated gate with a named actor and a fixed point in the workflow. Nothing files without it: the vendor's compliance specialists review every AI suggestion, verify accuracy and approve filings before they are submitted for the customer. That names who reviews, what they review and when, which goes beyond a bare human in the loop phrase. What is missing is the boundary. The published workbench shows items labeled AI Ready, Needs Review and Auto-Validation, with nothing explaining what routes an item into each, so the point where the system validates something without a person is unstated.
Nothing describes what happens when a review misses an error. The customer's own oversight is not addressed either: the reviewers are the vendor's staff, and the customer sees an approved filing rather than a decision to check.
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.
A long logo wall and anonymous quotations stand in for attributed evidence. 25 organizations are displayed as customers, among them DLA Piper, Wilson Sonsini and AngelList, and none is tied to an outcome. Every testimonial is stripped of attribution and identified only by role and company type, such as a Corporate Attorney at a regional law firm, so none can be checked. The published figures are corporate totals rather than deployment results, among them 7,500 companies, 18,000 annual reports filed in the last twelve months and 84.7 percent of inquiries answered within eight hours.
None states a method, and only the filing figure carries a measurement window. No named customer is joined to any figure.
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.
Confidentiality commitments in the current published agreement are substantive, and privilege is not addressed. Section 17 makes all Content and Entity Data the customer's confidential information, defining Entity Data to include company records, officer and beneficial owner details, organizational and financing documents and ownership relationships. SingleFile is bound to at least reasonable care, may not use the information for any purpose outside the agreement, and may share it only with personnel and providers who need it and carry obligations at least as protective.
It commits to safeguards against unauthorized access and states that it will not sell Content or Entity Data or use Entity Data for any party's independent commercial benefit, except in aggregated form that identifies no one. Section 17(e) adds return or destruction on request, with certification. Privilege and work product are not treated anywhere.
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 advice line is drawn in published terms more than once and tied to specific outputs. Section 4(h) is headed no legal, tax or compliance advice. It provides that the entity management services and any reports, charts, alerts, calculations or other output from them are for convenience and information only, and are not legal, tax, accounting or compliance advice or a substitute for qualified professionals. The customer remains solely responsible for its own legal, regulatory and corporate governance compliance.
Section 18(c) repeats that information provided through the services is not legal advice and is not guaranteed correct, complete or current. Section 18(d) adds that SingleFile does not guarantee that use of the services will enable compliance with applicable law. Together these set out where the product stops. No professional conduct position is published for the law firms that run client entity work through the platform.
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 of any kind is published. There is no responsible AI page, principles statement, named owner, testing regime before release, management system or certification such as ISO 42001. The Intelligence page describes what the AI does and not how it is governed, and nothing addresses uneven output. The site navigation and footer were inventoried in full on 4 September 2026, and the only policy documents published are the terms of service, the privacy policy and a cookie policy.
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.
The agreement covers most of this ground, and the supplier picture is the gap. Data has a fixed end point, with a sixty day window to retrieve it after termination and a separate route to return or destroy it on request. Section 17 ties access to the purpose of the service, commits to administrative, physical and technical safeguards and rules out selling Content or Entity Data. Who else touches the data is not disclosed.
Outside providers are acknowledged repeatedly in the terms and not one is named, no subprocessor list exists, and no commitment to tell the customer about a breach is published in the terms. The privacy policy was not opened, and that is the limit on the breach point.
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.
A remedy aimed at the product's actual failure mode sits in section 18(d). Where a filing is late or inaccurate solely because of a mistake by SingleFile or another cause within its reasonable control, SingleFile agrees to pay the relevant late fees, the cost of resubmitting and other out of pocket costs directly resulting, on supporting documentation. For a compliance filing product that is the loss that matters, and it is committed rather than disclaimed.
Section 21 adds infringement remedies ending in termination and a pro rata refund, and section 24(g) refunds prepaid unused fees where a service is discontinued. Otherwise the services are provided as is with warranties disclaimed, and aggregate liability is capped at fees paid in the preceding twelve months. Indemnity under section 20 runs one way from the customer, and liability for trial and beta features is capped at fifty dollars. Nothing warrants the AI output itself, and no insurance position is published.
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.
A programmatic route is claimed, and no counterparty or documentation is published. A comparison chart on the home page lists API access for integrations against traditional providers, and a developers section sits in the site navigation. Section 13(c) of the terms contemplates tools that export content to third party providers. Nothing more is specified: no document management, matter management, CLM, billing or accounting system is named, and no integration partner appears on any page read.
Nothing says what data moves, in which direction or on what trigger. The developers page was not opened and is the limit on this finding.
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 cloud only, and neither tenancy nor residency is stated. The service runs in a browser at a named application subdomain behind an account, and no option to run it on the customer's own servers is offered. Nothing read says whether customers share infrastructure, and no dedicated or isolated option appears; the segregated client workspaces offered to law firms are a permission boundary inside one account, not a tenancy model.
No region is named for storage or processing and no cloud provider is identified. The only geographic statement is a restriction on use: section 26(l) says the services are intended for visitors located within the United States and makes no representation about availability elsewhere. That says who may use the product, not where the data sits.
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.
A SOC 2 Type II attestation is claimed and nothing behind it is published. The footer of every page carries a SOC 2 Type II badge reading achieved, linked to the AICPA, and the comparison table lists SOC 2 Type II as an independent security audit against varies for traditional providers. A Type II report is an examination by an independent firm over a defined period against a defined system boundary. None of that is published here: no auditing firm, examination period, scope or system description is given, and no report or bridge letter is offered.
There was no trust center, portal or request route anywhere on the site, so which systems were examined, and when, cannot be established. No other certification is claimed.
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.
A distinct, named AI layer is described and nothing underneath it is identified. Intelligence is presented as a capability that researches requirements, fills forms, maps structures and reviews filings, and the marketing speaks of AI suggestions and automatic validation. No model, version, provider or hosting arrangement is named, and no commitment to notify customers of a model change is published. The terms acknowledge outside providers without naming one.
The question carries weight here because the system handles beneficial ownership records, officer personal data and government identifiers, and no published source says whose model reads them.
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 figure is published at any level, and the marketing claims a transparency the site does not deliver. The terms set out the structure in section 16, with one time filing fees, annual subscriptions and state fees charged on top. The shape of an invoice can therefore be described before contacting the company, but not its size. Section 16(a) sends customers to onboarding and a fee schedule available on request for fees and refunds, so the schedule exists and is held back.
The home page comparison table, meanwhile, advertises transparent service based pricing against fees charged per entity. That claim sits on a site whose every commercial route is a contact or demo request.
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 described with substance across customer type and geography, and the boundary is only partly drawn. Three audiences have their own pages and definitions: law firms managing client entities, investment organizations such as private equity and venture capital firms, and corporate legal and compliance teams. Jurisdictional coverage is stated precisely and often as all fifty states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, with registered office services in five further global markets listed separately.
The service list shows practice depth, reaching specialized work such as placing independent directors and springing members for special purpose entities. One limit is published in the vendor's own site summary: it specializes in US business entity compliance rather than international entities or general corporate legal services. Firm size, the entity volume the platform suits and the edges of its US entity work are not stated.
2 public documents
The public pages on file for SingleFile, 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.
-
singlefile.ai/terms-of-service4 signals
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention, Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation and 1 more
Read Sep 4, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 4, 2026
No published figure
- SingleFile does not publish a price. There is no pricing page, and you have to ask for a quote or a demo.
- The contract explains how the charging works even though it never says how much.
- Some things are one time fees you pay when you order them, like a single filing.
- Other things are subscriptions: you buy twelve months up front and it renews every year unless you cancel at least thirty days before.
- On top of SingleFile's own fees you also pay whatever the state charges for each filing.
Pricing structure is set out in section 16 of the terms, with no figure at any level. The fee schedule itself is available only on request. Some ordered services carry a one time fee payable when requested, with no recurring billing. Subscriptions run for an initial twelve months, charged in full on purchase and billed annually after that in the anniversary month. Notice of cancellation is due thirty days or more before renewal to avoid the next charge.
State fees and related filing expenses are charged on top, directly or through a payment processor. SingleFile may change fees at its discretion, effective on notice or posting, and unpaid accounts may be suspended with collection and chargeback costs added. Under section 5(a), some platform services come without an additional fee alongside ordered services, and the vendor may price them later; this is the basis for the offer letting law firms use the platform at no cost. No standing free tier is offered.
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.
Training is not addressed either way, and the license over customer content is drawn narrowly. Section 9(c) gives SingleFile a limited, revocable, nonexclusive right over Content solely as needed to provide the services and support. It may also create usage or aggregated data that identifies neither the customer, its clients nor any individual and cannot permit reidentification, or act as required by law or separately agreed in writing.
That is a closed list, not an open improvement right. Section 4(g) adds that Entity Data will not be sold or used to benefit any other party commercially, outside that aggregated exception. Training, machine learning and models are not mentioned, so nothing is permitted or prohibited. The terms searched were those dated 16 June 2026.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
A specific retention period is published and the customer cannot change it.
A fixed period applies at the end of the relationship, and retention during it is not addressed. Under section 24(h), on termination other than for the customer's breach, SingleFile will use commercially reasonable efforts to make the customer's content and related filing data available on written request within sixty days. It has no obligation to retain any content after that and may delete it. Registered agent mail has its own period, held sixty days in secure storage before commercial shredding.
The customer can also ask for return or destruction while the agreement runs. Nothing says how long anything is kept during a live subscription, including research output, prefilled form data and the AI filing reviews, none of which appears in any retention provision.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.
Separation between clients is claimed on a product surface and no mechanism is published. The law firms material offers segregated client workspaces inside a single dashboard, with access set for each client so a client can see its own entities or be kept internal. That speaks directly to the customer type where the question matters most. Nothing says how the separation is enforced: no tenancy model is stated, no permission or role model is documented, and no administrator guide, security whitepaper or trust portal exists where a firm could test it.
The agreement limits who may access confidential information, which is an access rule rather than a partition. The point has weight because the product holds beneficial ownership and officer data for competing clients of the same firm.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
Notice before a compelled disclosure is committed in the confidentiality section of the published agreement. Section 17(d) permits disclosure required by law, regulation, subpoena or court or governmental order, on conditions. Where legally permitted, the disclosing party gets prompt prior written notice and reasonable help, at its own cost, if it wishes to contest the disclosure or seek a protective order. Only the portion legally required is disclosed, with reasonable efforts to keep it confidential.
Because section 17(a) covers all of the customer's Content and Entity Data, the commitment reaches the material at issue. No transparency report or record of requests received is published. Section 17(c) separately permits disclosure of Content and Entity Data as described in the privacy policy, a route with no notice condition.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Coverage is described by jurisdiction with no identification of the underlying corpus.
State requirements are covered by jurisdiction, and no source behind them is named. The automated research is said to find every filing requirement across all 52 US jurisdictions, including deadlines, fees and forms. A worked example on the Intelligence page shows Delaware annual report requirements with a franchise tax due date and a flat fee. The product depends on that body of regulatory content, and nothing published says where it comes from.
No Secretary of State data feed, commercial provider, publisher or licensing position appears, and nothing says how often the requirement set is refreshed or how a customer would know it is current. The coverage is listed precisely by jurisdiction throughout; the provenance is not.
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.
Checking authority for later history does not arise in published material, because the product neither retrieves nor cites primary law. Its outputs include requirement summaries, prefilled forms and readiness reviews, and none cites a statute or decision to a user. The nearer question is currency, since state filing requirements change and the research capability depends on tracking them; nothing published says how that is verified. The terms and the site's main pages, including the Intelligence page, were read for this on 4 September 2026.
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.
What the system does when it cannot reach a reliable answer is not described anywhere located. Two nearby items are not described behaviors. The caveat on the filing review is a limitation notice, not an account of how the system acts when uncertain. The workbench labels separating ready items from those needing review appear only in an illustrative interface, with nothing stating what threshold routes an item. No confidence score is shown, no abstention path is described, and nothing covers a jurisdiction whose requirements cannot be established. As of 4 September 2026, neither the terms nor the main site pages carried such an account.
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 was searched on 4 September 2026 on the product name SingleFile and on the corporate name SingleFile Technologies. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product or the company was located. This records the state of the public record on that date and is not a finding about the product.
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.
Bar and ethics guidance is not engaged at any level. No bar association, rule of professional conduct, ethics opinion or local guidance is named or referred to in general terms. Nothing addresses the professional questions the product raises for its law firm customers, such as supervising an outside provider that prepares client filings, or what responsibility stays with counsel when a machine researches a requirement and a vendor's specialist approves the filing.
The advice disclaimers in sections 4(h) and 18(c) of the terms draw the advice line and do not reach these questions. The terms, the home page, the Intelligence page and the site navigation were searched on 4 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 vendor’s charge reaches the client as a disbursement or case expense, typically advanced by a contingency firm and recovered from a settlement, so the fee question is disclosure of a pass through cost rather than compressed hours. The summary records whether the vendor addresses that disclosure.
The one billing practice published concerns who is invoiced, not what is disclosed. SingleFile offers to bill a firm's clients directly for the services they use, so the firm does not front costs. That passes costs through to the client and is not a record of AI work. Time and cost claims are published as well: multistate registrations and filings without adding headcount, and an anonymous customer saying that work which took days now takes hours.
None reaches the billing question. No record of AI work for each matter is offered, no fee or disclosure guidance is published, and nothing addresses what a law firm tells a client when entity work it bills for was researched by a model and done by an outside provider.
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.
Nothing in located public material would let a firm answer a client's AI clause. No subprocessor register is published, no model or model provider is named, no cloud or hosting provider is identified, and no data processing addendum or client notification pack exists or is offered on the surfaces read. The terms acknowledge the gap rather than filling it. Section 13(a) states that SingleFile does or may work with third party providers of its choice to provide some or all of the services, and that those providers may serve the customer directly, without naming any.
The only item the agreement offers on request is the fee schedule. The SOC 2 Type II claim says nothing about which providers process client content.
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.
Exporting an account of how AI was used is not addressed in any located material. Nothing describes an export showing which model produced a research result, a prefilled form or a readiness review. Nothing marks output as coming from a machine once it reaches a filed document, and no disclosure template or guidance is published. Two nearby features do a different job. The platform keeps evidence logs and filing receipts, which show that a filing was made and accepted, not how it was prepared, and the certificate of destruction available under the terms is a record about deletion.
The gap has an edge here because filings prepared on the platform become public state records a firm may later have to account for, and because the vendor's specialists, not the customer, approve them.