Your Questions, Answered

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.

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.)

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.

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.