Ambient AI scribes
79% clinician opt-out and $5K-per-recording CIPA suits because nobody could defend the consent posture in real time.
We can monitor consent state per encounter, giving clinicians the confidence to turn the scribes on.
Continuous monitoring of the outcomes the law cares about —
in production, under privilege.
38% of companies are stalled in their AI adoption because laws and regulations apply with full force whether the decision came from a model, a vendor's API, or a person.
Federal enforcement is still very much active, and circuit courts continue to apply the existing law even where the federal commissions have paused. Meanwhile, states like California, New York, Colorado, Texas, and Illinois are ramping up — new statutes, new bulletins, new AG sweeps, with private rights of action that don't pause for federal posture.
In an environment of regulatory and legal whiplash, continuous detection is the only durable answer. Other tools test your model before it deploys. We test your outcomes in real time, against the current state of the law.
78% of employees report using unapproved AI tools at work. Shadow AI — copilots in the browser, vector stores on the laptop, third-party extensions in the workflow — creates exposure whether or not the official program is paused. The visible program is the part you can defend. Detection is how you find out what's actually running.
Because our modules oversee outcomes, they catch employee-discretion exposure (off-policy commitments, leaked information, unauthorized advice) just as readily as they catch deployment-level exposure. The pause buys you time. It doesn't buy you safety.
We get you unstuck by moving from scoping to live oversight
in a matter of weeks, not months.
Our legal engineers tune Privlex's coverage modules to your AI exposure. Your markets, industry, regulatory landscape, and AI stack.
Pre-built coverage modules connect to your stack and turn on.
Counsel reviews findings under privilege and works with you to remediate them before they become an issue.
Governance platforms hand your team questionnaires.
We put our questions to your systems, and measure the answers.
Incumbent tools assign hundreds of pages of templates, model inventories, and AI questionnaires that end up on the shelf or in the filing cabinet. Worse, every artifact you generate and every dashboard they deploy is discoverable and can become evidence of wilful misconduct.
No attestations, no self-assessments, no evidence-collection sprints; we watch what your operation actually does, and counsel tells you what it means. Privlex monitors the outcomes the law actually cares about, live, in production, 24/7. Finally a way to validate your systems without manufacturing testimony against yourself.
No. AI governance platforms provide a structured place to inventory your technology and organize policies around it. They can also help you track that work against voluntary frameworks like the NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001.
Privlex monitors tangible outcomes at scale, under counsel, inside privilege. The goal is lawful operation and legal defensibility. Governance documentation is a byproduct.
We evaluate your deployment—the model, the prompts, the rules, and the people in the loop—through legal classifiers overseen by counsel. Compliance is rarely a property of a single model in isolation; it's a property of a system in operation.
During configuration, we can run monitoring against a simulated data trail. Once live, the same instrument runs against reality, continuously.
(Nothing illegal has ever happened on a benchmark.)
By the time findings circulate, they describe a system you no longer run. Continuous monitoring closes that gap, and replaces much of the routine audit cycle outright.
Selection rates trip the 4/5ths threshold for protected class. Counsel review recommended before next requisition wave.
Your policy, running in production. Live evaluation of the outcomes the law actually cares about, on every decision.
Every evaluation grounded in an actual legal regime with quantified thresholds and real dollar exposure.
Counsel-drafted fixes, codified into reusable playbooks. Ready for boards, regulators, and auditors without piercing the protections.
Case law has been remarkably consistent: the vendor is a co-defendant, not a shield. Mobley v. Workday named the vendor as the employer's agent. EEOC guidance holds the deployer liable for vendor tools. HHS treats a missing BAA as the violation itself. The regimes attach to the deployment, and the deployment — along with everything upstream and downstream of it — is yours.
Privlex monitors what your stack actually does end-to-end: your inputs, the vendor's processing, your downstream actions. The result is evidence that your tools are operating defensibly — the kind your GC needs to stand behind the vendor's work, not just rely on the vendor's assurances.
Two parties make a discoverable record.
Three make a privileged one.
You own the system, the data, and the deployment timeline. Nothing changes about who runs your business.
Continuous testing, monitoring, and findings run as a technical consultancy under the law firm's engagement.
Yours, or a Privlex partner firm. The bar-licensed firm scopes ongoing AI oversight and holds the privilege.
Of course they can — and they probably are. The typical engagement runs as a months-long assessment producing a point-in-time evaluation. New ways of working demand legal and technical expertise paired with the underlying data, evaluated in real time.
The triangle is what makes that possible. Your counsel (or one of ours) holds the engagement; Privlex runs the continuous instrument under that engagement; the findings flow to counsel under privilege. You don't end up with a dashboard cataloguing what's wrong — you get counsel-vetted remediation you can deploy quickly and keep delivering value.
A slice of the laws that already apply to AI today, monitored as outcomes, 24/7, with the patterns producing real exposure right now.
Federal court certified the case as a collective. ~1.1B applications via the screener.
Strict liability for protected-class outcomes. Adverse-action reasoning still required.
Federal Fair Housing settlement after AI score blocked protected applicants.
DOJ-readable obligations on chat surfaces and AI customer interfaces.
AI scoring decisions still trigger consumer notice and dispute rights.
$500 to $1,500 statutory damages per call. Private right of action.
CFPB and state AGs still bring these. The framework didn't go away, the enforcer rotated.
Harassment, false statements, and contact-time rules apply to AI messages too.
Reportable application data extends to AI-assisted underwriting flows.
EEOC enforces a flat ban on requesting or using genetic info in employment decisions.
OCR enforces privacy, security, and breach notification rules on every byte that touches PHI.
FTC's amended Safeguards Rule covers vendor management, encryption, and incident response.
NLRB views certain AI monitoring as interfering with protected concerted activity.
DOL Wage & Hour brings claims when AI systems direct work outside paid time.
Unsubscribe handling and sender ID requirements apply at AI throughput.
FTC has assessed $20M+ penalties under COPPA. AI inference is no exemption.
CFPB enforces accuracy and timing on every disclosure, AI-drafted or not.
DOJ pursues lenders whose AI applies disqualifying terms to protected military borrowers.
Effective dates landing across 2025 and 2026. Audit and disclosure rules diverge by jurisdiction.
CFPB monitors AI referrals that move borrowers toward affiliated providers.
Rigorous validation no longer compounds exposure. The more you test, the stronger your position gets (which is how testing was supposed to work).
Legal review has a defined path through it instead of an infinite loop around it. Counsel sees continuous evidence, not a quarterly memo.
The functions that have been held back, anything customer-facing or touching protected classes or producing adverse outcomes, become workable.
“Is the Model Safe?” is the Wrong Question.
Asking whether an AI model is safe is asking the wrong question. Safety isn’t a property of an artifact at rest; it’s a property of the system in motion. The law attaches to outcomes the way cholera does at the point of consumption: per house, per glass, per decision.
By Joe Ewing, Co-Founder and CTO
Privlex's principals have built AI systems for regulated enterprises, advised the White House and federal regulators, and led delivery in defense and intelligence environments.
Get started in as little as two weeks. Bring a stalled AI initiative (or one that's giving you heartburn); bring your own law firm or work with one of ours. A thirty-minute call between you, your legal counterpart, and the Privlex team kicks it off.
hello@privlex.io