You remain the author.
We deliver the evidence‑layer.
Per case: a sealed forensic anomaly analysis of the review corpus, an exhibit-ready dossier (K1 + per-review exhibits) and an editable DRAFT of the DSA Art. 16 notice. Observational language throughout — indicators, not proof. Every legal assessment, every filing: yours.
What you get per case
K1 — Findings sheet
Observational summary: counts, coordination finding in indicator language (statistically validated: exact hypergeometric test against the null hypothesis, Bonferroni-corrected), both hashes, verification URL, countersignature field and an AI transparency note under Art. 50 of the EU AI Act.
Exhibits K2 ff. — Per-review evidence
One exhibit per flagged review: verbatim text, source location, signal families, capture timestamp — plus an editable substantiation draft citing BGH VI ZR 1244/20 (the platform's secondary burden of substantiation) — as a quotation inside the draft; the legal assessment remains expressly reserved to you.
Art. 16 notice — DRAFT
Pre-filled from the sealed findings (Art. 16(2)(a)–(d)), bilingual DE/EN, stamped “counsel review and filing required”. Addressed to the platform only — never to reviewers.
Sealing + offline verification
RFC 8785 canonical data, RFC 6962 Merkle tree, RFC 3161 timestamps. The reviews cleared as genuine are sealed in as well — cherry-picking breaks the verification. Anyone — including the opposing side — can verify at legalsandwich.com/verify, without trusting us.
Your compliance, documented: More and more law firms use AI — it is rarely documented. Our dossier documents the AI assistance and your human review for you — the Art. 50 note remains part of the document even after your countersignature.
The time-lock — when your evidence existed
The moment a pack is sealed, its SHA‑256 integrity hash is timestamped by DigiCert (RFC 3161; primary authority, independent fallbacks — every token is cryptographically verified before we accept it). From that second the state of the corpus is fixed: neither the client, nor the platform, nor we can backdate or quietly amend it. Procedurally, that answers the standard objection that online evidence was “assembled after the fact” — the timestamp provably predates the notice built on it, so the notice’s factual basis is contemporaneous, not reconstructed.
SHA-256 9f2c7a1e…c6e83a
TSA DigiCert · signed
TIME 2026-06-30T14:02:11Z
Admissibility, honestly framed: under eIDAS Art. 41(1), an electronic timestamp “shall not be denied legal effect and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that … it does not meet the requirements of the qualified electronic time stamp.” Ours is a non-qualified timestamp and every artifact says so — it proves existence-at-time, subject to free evaluation of evidence (§ 286 ZPO). A qualified tier (the Art. 41(2) presumption) is on our roadmap and will be labeled as such when it ships — not before.
Built for the objections you will actually face
Every artifact assumes a hostile reader — the platform’s trust team, opposing counsel, their expert. The substantiation that used to cost an associate an afternoon arrives pre-drafted, exhibit by exhibit; you edit, classify and sign.
“That’s just a screenshot.”
It is not. Exhibits carry the verbatim capture bound into a Merkle root (RFC 6962). A screenshot can be edited invisibly; editing this corpus breaks the root — visibly, for anyone who re-derives it. Electronic records remain objects of judicial inspection (§ 371 ZPO) under free evaluation (§ 286 ZPO); the re-derivable chain is what makes them hold.
“An AI decided the reviewer is fake.”
No verdicts, anywhere. Indicator language throughout; the only coordination statement is statistically validated (exact hypergeometric test, Bonferroni-corrected) and still framed as a pattern for review. The Art. 50 AI Act note documents the assistance — and survives your countersignature.
“The dataset was cherry-picked.”
The reviews cleared as genuine are sealed into the same root as the flagged ones. Remove or reorder a single one and verification fails. The corpus is complete by construction — the strongest answer to a completeness challenge.
“You depend on a vendor at trial.”
You don’t. Verification is offline and source-available at /verify; the opposing expert re-derives every hash without our involvement. If we vanished tomorrow, the evidence would still verify.
Where the dossier plugs into your practice
The notice draft is structured element-by-element on the completeness requirements.
A sufficiently precise, substantiated notice gives rise to actual knowledge for Art. 6(1). Precision is the entire game — that is what the per-review exhibits are for.
The platform’s secondary burden of substantiation (verifying the reviewer’s customer contact); each exhibit ships with an editable substantiation draft citing it.
Exhibits built to carry Unterlassungs-/Beseitigungs argumentation on false factual assertions; the fact-vs-opinion classification remains expressly yours.
Stated boundary: erasure belongs to natural persons, not companies. We put that in writing instead of selling around it.
Electronic timestamps: legal effect may not be denied for non-qualification alone; the qualification status is disclosed on every artifact.
The frame the artifacts are built to serve — the classification, the claims and the filing remain yours (RDG).
Sample dossier FICTITIOUS DEMO EXAMPLE
A fully synthetic dataset (“Ristorante Fittizio”), produced by the real pipeline — every artifact is unmistakably marked as fictitious; all demo PDFs — findings sheet, exhibits and evidence pack — carry a permanent watermark on every page. The demo dossier is produced in German, as built for German DSA and court practice; the Art. 16 notice draft is bilingual DE/EN. The seal, however, is real — check it yourself:
Note on this demo run: the global statistical coordination test does not reach significance at n=9; the coordination signals sit at the level of individual reviews (exhibits K2 ff.). No RFC 3161 token was requested for this demo run — optionally included in real runs. Alternatively: download the verification bundle and drop it on /verify.
We have no public case studies yet. We are early, and we say so instead of inventing one. The first real case runs exclusively inside a counsel engagement — you are the controller and the filer, we deliver the evidence layer.
How a pilot case works
What we are NOT
Not a removal agency. No guarantees. Nobody can guarantee a removal — neither can we. Anyone selling you (or your client) a “guaranteed deletion” right after negative reviews appear is following a documented extortion or fraud pattern. We deliver substantiation; the decision rests with the platform or a court.
- Not a legal service: classification (statement of fact vs. opinion), prospects of success and filing are exclusively for counsel (in Germany: RDG).
- No contact with reviewers — notices address the platform only (anti-SLAPP by design).
- No qualified timestamp: RFC 3161 proves existence-at-time, but is NOT an eIDAS-qualified timestamp (no QTSP).
- No published success rates: we consider “90% success” figures a red flag, not a selling point.
Frequently asked questions
Can anyone guarantee the removal of a Google review?
No. Nobody can guarantee the removal of a review — neither can we. The decision rests with the platform or a court. Anyone selling a “guaranteed deletion” right after negative reviews appear is following a documented extortion or fraud pattern. The serious approach: document the indicators cleanly, report with substantiation, and name the outcome as open.
What is a forensic evidence layer for review cases?
A sealed, independently verifiable anomaly analysis of the entire review corpus: statistically validated coordination analysis (exact hypergeometric test against the null hypothesis, Bonferroni-corrected), signal families per review, cryptographic sealing (RFC 8785 canonical data, RFC 6962 Merkle tree, RFC 3161 timestamps) and an exhibit-ready dossier. Reviews cleared as genuine are sealed in as well — cherry-picking breaks the verification. The result is indicators, not proof; the legal assessment remains with counsel.
Who files the DSA Art. 16 notice — the provider or the lawyer?
The affected business or its lawyer — never us. We deliver a pre-filled, editable DRAFT (Art. 16(2)(a)–(d)) stamped “counsel review and filing required”. In Germany, legal classification and commercial assertion are regulated legal services (RDG) reserved to lawyers. Notices address the platform only, never the reviewer.
Is the RFC 3161 timestamp a qualified (eIDAS) timestamp?
No. RFC 3161 proves that the sealed hash existed at a specific point in time — it is not an eIDAS-qualified timestamp (no QTSP). We state this explicitly on every artifact. Verification of the seal works offline and without trusting us: legalsandwich.com/verify.
How does the dossier document the use of AI (Art. 50 EU AI Act)?
Every dossier carries an AI transparency note under Art. 50 of the EU AI Act (“AI-assisted analysis — human review required”) plus a countersignature field for counsel review. The note remains part of the document even after countersigning — AI-assisted stays AI-assisted. That way the use of AI is documented in the case file instead of hidden.
Contact
You usually reach this page via our e-mail — simply reply to it with a case or a question. Or write directly to kontakt@legalsandwich.com. A 20-minute call is enough to see whether the evidence layer fits your workflow.