Data Protection
Data Legal Drive
EU origin, foreign-owned Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Data Legal Drive SAS · datalegaldrive.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Data Legal Drive is a French GDPR compliance platform whose bench results are strongest on privacy regime coverage and the privacy core: records & DPIA depth scores 4-6 and data subject rights & incidents 4-6, crediting a cartography of data, applications, recipients and linked processings, automatic RoPA population from assessment results, and DSR automation end-to-end from receipt to final response. The weak flank is integrations & automation at 1-2 — the evidence states 'No API, webhook or integration details' — and audit readiness & evidence at 2-4, where the rationales note that 'full audit trail' and 'audit-ready records' attach to the whistleblowing, approvals and ESG cockpits, not the privacy register, and no revision-safe history or evidence packs are evidenced. Sovereignty scores 3-4: a French SAS (RCS Nanterre) hosting in France on Scaleway/Outscale with a SecNumCloud option, offset by an ownership chain running through EQS Group to Thoma Bravo and no DPA or subprocessor list in the captured pages. Pricing is unpublished (pricing transparency 0-0, demo-request CTA only) and is reported but not counted. No disagreements rose above threshold.
Speaks for it
- Linked privacy data model — a cartography of data, applications, recipients and linked processings with automatic RoPA population from assessment results
- DSR handling claimed end-to-end from receipt to final response with preconfigured scenarios and secure online intake, plus structured breach intake
- Framework breadth: GDPR plus AI Act, CCPA, LGPD and PDPA, with native EU/UK/US/APAC mandate claims
- French hosting on named providers — Scaleway and Outscale — with HDS and SecNumCloud options and dedicated environments on request
Held against it
- No API, webhook or integration details stated, so the register is fed by hand rather than from the real IT estate
- Audit-trail claims ('full audit trail', 'audit-ready records') attach to the whistleblowing, approvals and sustainability cockpits, not the privacy register; no revision-safe history or evidence packs evidenced
- TOMs, legal bases and processor/DPA management appear nowhere in the captured pages, capping records & DPIA depth below the connected-model anchor
- No evidence of Art. 12 or 72-hour deadline handling, authority-report output, or any deletion capability tied to the RoPA
- No DPA or up-to-date subprocessor list in the captured pages, and the ownership chain runs to EQS Group under Thoma Bravo
Best for
- You need GDPR-first RoPA, DPIA and DSR intake workflows centralized in one cockpit, with statutory-deadline handling managed outside the tool
- You operate under multiple regimes — GDPR plus AI Act, CCPA, LGPD or PDPA — and want a broad framework list on one platform
- You want hosting in France on named providers with a SecNumCloud or dedicated-environment option
- You are an in-house team maintaining one organization's records rather than reusable multi-client or group mandates
Avoid if
- You need API, SSO, directory or ticketing integrations to populate the platform from your real IT estate — the evidence states none exist
- You must show revision-safe change history or exportable evidence packs for the RoPA at a supervisory-authority audit
- You depend on the tool for Art. 12 or 72-hour clocks, authority-report output, or deletion workflows tied to the RoPA — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You require a fully documented processing chain — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
Records & DPIA depth
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The DSMS core: records of processing (RoPA/VVT), data protection impact assessments, processor/DPA management and TOMs — how deeply the legal artifacts are modeled and connected.
0 — Document templates in a folder tree; the "register" is a Word file with version numbers in the filename.
3 — A structured RoPA with basic fields and a DPIA questionnaire, but processors, TOMs and legal bases live outside the system.
5 — RoPA and DPIA as linked modules with templates; processor management and TOM assignment exist but are shallow, and group reuse is copy-paste.
8 — A connected data model — processing activities linked to systems, processors, TOMs and legal bases — with DPIA triggers derived from the record, reusable group templates, and outputs a supervisory authority accepts.
10 — Privacy records as a system of record: the RoPA drives DPIAs, processor management and TOM coverage from one data model, multi-client/mandate capability included, and the documentation is audit-ready without manual assembly.
The External DPO
The cartography links data, applications, recipients and processings and the RoPA auto-populates from assessments with RoPA/DPIA/DSR on one cockpit — decent connected bones. But processor/DPA management, TOMs and legal bases appear nowhere in the evidence, and no group or multi-mandate template reuse is evidenced, so for my thirty clients this is per-mandate copy-paste. 3 2 1
The In-House Counsel
RoPA and DPIA are genuinely linked — a complete cartography of data, applications, recipients and linked processings, with the register auto-populated from assessment results. But the evidence shows no processor/DPA management, no TOMs register, no DPIA triggers derived from the record, and no reusable group or mandate templates, so the connected model an Art. 30 audit requires is only half built. 3 2 1
The Drafted Generalist
RoPA, DPIA and a 'complete cartography of data, applications, recipients, and linked processings' are real linked modules, with assessments auto-populating the RoPA and AI-generated pre-filled forms — that earns the mid-anchor. But the evidence says nothing about processor/DPA management, TOMs or legal bases living in the system, and that's exactly the depth my supervisory authority would ask about. 3 2 1
The Lead Auditor
RoPA, DPIA and DSR are linked modules with automatic RoPA population from assessment results and a cartography connecting data, applications and recipients — that's a real data model, not copy-paste. But TOMs, legal bases, processor/DPA management, DPIA triggers derived from the record, and group or multi-client templates are all silent, which caps it well below the connected-model anchor. 3 2 1
The IT Integrator
RoPA, DPIA and a 'cartography of data, applications, recipients, and linked processings' read as linked modules, but TOMs, legal bases, processor depth and DPIA triggers derived from the record are nowhere evidenced — rubric level 5 territory. The auto-population from assessment results is internal plumbing, not the connected legal data model I'd need to sync from the CMDB. 3 2 1
The Skeptic
The product page claims a real data model — 'complete cartography of data, applications, recipients, and linked processings' with DPIA-to-RoPA auto-population — but TOMs, legal bases, DPA/processor management and group templates appear nowhere across the captured pages, which is exactly the anchors' 'living outside the system' territory, so I can't credit anchor-5 depth. 3 2 1
Data subject rights & incidents
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The operational half of the DSMS: data subject request handling with statutory clocks, breach register and authority notification, deletion concepts that actually delete.
0 — Requests arrive by email and live there; breaches are a phone call and a memo.
3 — A request log and a breach list exist, but deadlines are manual, intake is unstructured, and deletion rules are documentation rather than workflow.
5 — DSR workflows with the Art. 12 clock tracked, structured breach register with the 72-hour clock, deletion concepts assignable to records; automation is reminders.
8 — Intake channels for requests (portal/form), identity-check support, deadline automation with escalation, breach severity assessment and authority-report output, deletion rules tied to the RoPA with execution tracking.
10 — Rights and incidents as operations: end-to-end request handling an authority audit walks through, breach workflows that produce the Art. 33 notification, and deletion automation with evidence that the deletion happened.
The External DPO
DSR handling is claimed end-to-end from receipt to final response with preconfigured scenarios and secure online intake, plus structured breach intake forms — real workflow, not an email log. But the evidence is silent on the Art. 12 and 72-hour clocks, escalation, Art. 33 authority-report output and any deletion automation tied to the RoPA, and I cannot put a client on a workflow whose statutory deadline handling is unevidenced. 3 2 1
The In-House Counsel
Structured intake via secure online forms and end-to-end DSR automation with preconfigured scenarios are evidenced, and breach intake is structured rather than a phone call. But nowhere does the evidence show the Art. 12 clock, the 72-hour clock, authority-notification output, or deletion rules tied to the RoPA — those clocks are the product, and silence on them is information. 3 2 1
The Drafted Generalist
DSR handling is claimed as 'end-to-end automation from receipt to final response with preconfigured scenarios' plus secure online intake forms, and breach intake is structured via internal reporting forms — real workflow, not email. But nowhere does the evidence mention the Art. 12 clock, the 72-hour breach clock, authority notification output or deletion concepts, and those deadlines are precisely what I'd be personally liable for missing. 3 1
The Lead Auditor
Structured online intake for 'fully qualified' requests, end-to-end DSR automation with preconfigured scenarios, structured breach intake and AI case management are solidly evidenced — beyond a mere log. But nothing evidences the Art. 12 or 72-hour clocks, identity checks, severity assessment, authority-report output, or any deletion capability at all, which are exactly the pieces an authority audit walks through. 3 2 1
The IT Integrator
Online-form DSR intake with preconfigured end-to-end scenarios and structured breach intake are anchor-8 features on paper, but the evidence shows no statutory clock, no 72-hour breach-register discipline, no authority-report output and zero deletion-concept evidence. The missing deletion workflow is what keeps it between 5 and 8. 3 2 1
The Skeptic
Secure online-form DSR intake and structured breach intake are concrete and quotable, but no page mentions the Art. 12 or 72-hour clocks, identity checks, authority-report output, or deletion — deletion is a word that never appears — and 'AI-powered case management' is substance-free logo copy. 3 2
Privacy regime coverage
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Which privacy regimes the product actually operationalizes — GDPR, BDSG, Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy, EU AI Act privacy duties — and whether one record maps across them or each regime is a fresh island.
0 — One regime, hard-coded; anything else is "on the roadmap".
3 — GDPR plus one national law as separate checklists; the same processing activity is documented once per regime.
5 — The major regimes for its market with partial cross-mapping; newer duties (AI Act, ePrivacy changes) present as content packs of varying depth.
8 — Broad current coverage with one-record-many-regimes mapping and visible maintenance as regimes evolve.
10 — Regime coverage as a living product: multiple privacy regimes on one data basis, per-country variants, and documented update cadence when the law moves.
The External DPO
GDPR plus AI Act, CCPA, LGPD and PDPA with 'native support for EU, UK, US, and APAC mandates' is genuinely broad for one platform. What's missing is the mechanism: no evidence that one processing record maps across regimes, no per-country variants like BDSG or Swiss nDSG, no documented update cadence — this is a framework list, not regime coverage as a living product. 3 2
The In-House Counsel
GDPR, UK, US and APAC mandates plus CCPA, LGPD, PDPA and AI Act documentation are claimed natively, which is the breadth a multinational actually needs. What's missing is the part I care about: no evidence of one record mapping across regimes rather than parallel documentation, no per-country variants like BDSG or Swiss nDSG, and no documented update cadence when the law moves — the AI Act support reads as a module, not maintained legal content. 3 2
The Drafted Generalist
GDPR, AI Act, CCPA, LGPD, PDPA 'and more', with 'native support for EU, UK, US, and APAC mandates', is genuinely broad for one vendor. I stop short of the high anchor because there's no evidence one record maps across regimes, no per-country variants, and nothing about how fast they update when the law moves — 'centralized RoPA management' is a marketing phrase, not a mapping mechanism. 3 2 1
The Lead Auditor
GDPR plus CCPA, LGPD, PDPA and operational AI Act documentation tools are named, with native EU/UK/APAC mandate claims — broad for the market. What's missing is evidence of one-record-many-regimes mapping mechanics, per-country variants, or any update cadence when the law moves. 3 2 1
The IT Integrator
GDPR, AI Act, CCPA, LGPD, PDPA plus 'native support for EU, UK, US, and APAC mandates' is broad coverage, but nothing shows one record mapping across regimes or a documented maintenance cadence when the law moves. These read as parallel content packs, not a living one-record-many-regimes engine. 3 2
The Skeptic
GDPR is native, the AI Act gets actual tooling, and CCPA/LGPD/PDPA plus EU/UK/US/APAC mandates are listed with 'centralized RoPA for GDPR and global frameworks' hinting at one-record-many-regimes; but no nDSG or ePrivacy anywhere and zero evidence of a documented update cadence when the law moves. 3 2 1
Audit readiness & evidence
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the system produces defensible proof: revision-safe history, evidence collection, reports for auditors, authorities and management.
0 — Exports are screenshots; history is overwritten in place.
3 — PDF reports exist but evidence is attached ad hoc and changes leave no reliable trail.
5 — Versioned records, standard report generators for the core registers, evidence attachments per activity; assembling a full audit file still takes days.
8 — Revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, management and authority reports current at a click, auditor access roles.
10 — Audit readiness as a standing state: continuous documentation status per regime and scope, exportable proof packs an auditor accepts as-is, and a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X".
The External DPO
Audit-trail language exists only in the sibling cockpits ('full audit trail' on whistleblowing, 'audit-ready records' on approvals) and SOC 2 attests the vendor's own controls; for the privacy core there is no evidenced revision-safe history, evidence packs, auditor roles or a report a supervisory authority accepts. Assembling a defensible file per client stays an unknown, and unknowns cost me billable hours. 3 2 1
The In-House Counsel
Audit-trail claims appear only in sibling modules — whistleblowing investigations, policy attestations, ESG reporting — while the privacy register itself shows no revision-safe change history, no evidence packs, no auditor access roles. I cannot defend a RoPA whose state on date X the vendor does not document anywhere I was shown. 1 3
The Drafted Generalist
The audit-trail claims all attach to other cockpits — whistleblowing's 'full audit trail', third-party attestations, Approvals' 'audit-ready records' — while the privacy modules get nothing on revision-safe history, report generators for RoPA/DPIA, auditor roles or answering 'show me the state on date X'. For the compliance record I'd actually be audited on, the evidence is silent. 2 1
The Lead Auditor
This is the disqualifier for me: 'full audit trail' and 'audit-ready records' appear only for whistleblowing, third-party attestations, approvals and ESG reporting — nothing evidences revision-safe history, evidence packs, auditor roles or report generators for the privacy cockpit itself. Per the evidence, the DSMS core has no defensible answer to 'show me the state on date X', which is where I put the pen down. 2 1
The IT Integrator
Audit trails and 'audit-ready records' are claimed for the approvals, whistleblowing and sustainability cockpits, not the privacy registers, and SOC 2 certifies the vendor rather than the evidence the privacy module emits. No revision-safe history, evidence packs or auditor roles for RoPA/DPIA appear in the evidence — below the anchored 5. 2 1
The Skeptic
The only audit-adjacent language — 'audit-ready records', 'full audit trail', attestation of receipt — belongs to the whistleblowing and approvals modules, not the privacy cockpit; SOC 2 shows up as a bare 'highest security standard' logo with no report or link, and nothing evidences revision-safe history or exportable evidence packs for the RoPA. Bonus tell: the '14,000+ organizations' on the privacy page is the EQS group-wide count spanning IR and whistleblowing clients, not this product's book. 2 1
Integrations & automation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the platform feeds from the real IT estate — directory import, ticketing, API — and automates the recurring privacy work instead of re-typing it.
0 — A closed island: manual entry in, PDF out, no API.
3 — CSV/Excel import and export; no live connections, no API worth the name.
5 — Directory import (AD/Entra), a documented REST API for core objects, a handful of native connectors (ticketing or SSO); automation is reminders and recurrence.
8 — Real connector set (ticketing, HR or asset sources), webhooks, SSO/SCIM, workflow automation with delegation and escalation, useful AI assistance with human review.
10 — The platform behaves like infrastructure: API parity for the data model, event streams, bidirectional sync with the estate, and automation that measurably removes the recurring toil (reviews, attestations, evidence pulls) rather than renaming it.
The External DPO
No API, webhook, connector, directory import or SSO appears anywhere — integrations surface only as a cost of fragmented tooling. The automation that exists (DSR scenarios, RoPA auto-population, AI case management) is internal to the tool; feeding thirty clients' real estates by hand is precisely the toil I pay software to remove. 3 2 1
The In-House Counsel
The evidence affirmatively states no API, webhook or integration details are published — integrations appear only as marketing copy about the cost of fragmented tooling. No directory import, no ticketing, no connectors of any kind; internal automation like the DSR scenarios does not feed from the real IT estate. 1 3
The Drafted Generalist
The evidence states outright: 'No API, webhook or integration details stated' — so directory import, ticketing, SSO and any estate connection are invisible to me. There is internal workflow automation (DSR scenarios, automated routing, auto-populated RoPA), but nothing that feeds from our real IT instead of me re-typing it, which is the whole point. 3 1
The Lead Auditor
The evidence states outright that no API, webhook or integration details exist — integrations appear only as a marketing talking point about tooling costs. Internal automation (DSR scenarios, RoPA auto-population) is real, but with no directory import, ticketing connector or documented API, the platform is fed by hand. 1 3
The IT Integrator
The evidence says it flat out: 'No API, webhook or integration details stated' — no directory import, no SSO, no ticketing, no asset feed, nothing for my Entra ID or Jira to talk to. The automation that does exist (DSR scenarios, RoPA auto-population, AI pre-fill) runs entirely inside the island, which makes it a re-typing engine, not infrastructure. 1 3
The Skeptic
The captured homepage states outright that no API, webhook or integration details exist — integrations appear only as a pain point to sell consolidation — and the automation that is claimed (preconfigured DSR scenarios, auto-populated RoPA) is internal workflow, not feeding from the real IT estate; one point above closed island for that. 3 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the compliance record of the whole company actually lives and under whose law — entity, hosting, subprocessors, DPA. A platform that maps your processing is itself your most concentrated processing.
0 — Non-EU entity, non-EU-default hosting, no public DPA or subprocessor list — for the system holding your RoPA.
3 — A DPA exists and an EU region is available on request or on top tiers; subprocessor exposure to US CLOUD Act reach is broad or undocumented.
5 — EU hosting is the default, DPA and subprocessor list published; the vendor or a critical subprocessor is still within non-European jurisdictional reach.
8 — EU entity, EU hosting with named data centers, published subprocessor list free of content-touching non-EU processors, DPA and TOMs public.
10 — Jurisdictionally clean end to end: European ownership, EU-only hosting and subprocessors, on-premises or sovereign-cloud options, and the whole chain documented publicly.
The External DPO
The hosting half is right: French SAS with French providers named, SecNumCloud-qualified Outscale, dedicated environments on request. But the ownership chain ends at US private equity via the 2023 Thoma Bravo takeover of EQS, and no public DPA, subprocessor list or TOMs is evidenced — the platform holding my clients' RoPA is not documented end to end. 4 5 6 2
The In-House Counsel
French SAS with French hosting — Scaleway/Outscale with HDS and SecNumCloud options and dedicated environments on request — which is the right default and more than an EU region on top tiers. But the copyright line and takeover history place the vendor under EQS Group and ultimately US private equity Thoma Bravo, no DPA or subprocessor list is published, and the hosting providers are not formally named as subprocessors — the chain holding my most concentrated processing is not documented end to end. 4 5 6
The Drafted Generalist
Hosting is French by default at Scaleway and Outscale with a SecNumCloud option and the publisher is French — better than 'EU on request'. But the ownership chain ends at EQS Group under US private equity (Thoma Bravo, 2023), and the evidence contains no public DPA, no subprocessor list, and even the hosting providers aren't formally named as subprocessors — the paperwork proving the chain my RoPA lives in is missing. 4 5 2
The Lead Auditor
EU-only hosting is the default on named French providers including a SecNumCloud option, and the vendor is a French SAS with full RCS details — better than 'EU on request'. But the chain above is German EQS under US Thoma Bravo ownership, no public DPA is evidenced, and the hosting providers are not formally named in an up-to-date subprocessor list, so the exposure is undocumented. 4 5 6 2
The IT Integrator
A French SAS on named French hosts with HDS/SecNumCloud options is genuinely strong residency, but the chain is murky: ultimate ownership is US private equity (Thoma Bravo via EQS), the hosting providers aren't formally named in an up-to-date subprocessor list, and no DPA appears anywhere in the evidence. EU-default hosting lifts it above 3; the undocumented chain keeps it under 5. 4 5 6
The Skeptic
The good half is real: French SAS (RCS Nanterre), French hosting on Scaleway/Outscale including a SecNumCloud option. The bad half: the site copyright reads EQS Group GmbH, the chain ends in US private equity (Thoma Bravo, 2023), and no captured page publishes a DPA or subprocessor list — the sovereignty page's own hosting providers aren't formally named as subprocessors, which is marketing sovereignty, not documented sovereignty. 4 5 6
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real invoice — per module, per entity, per year, with consulting unbundled — from public pages alone. Unpublished pricing is the B2B norm in this market, so this criterion describes rather than condemns; the benches weight it accordingly.
0 — No public prices at all; every configuration is a sales conversation.
3 — An entry price exists, but module add-ons, entity counts or bundled consulting make the real total incomputable.
5 — Most editions carry real numbers with billing period stated and software separated from services; at least one commonly needed module or scale step is unpriced.
8 — Every edition and module priced publicly with entity/user boundaries and setup fees stated; only genuine corporate-group contracts are custom.
10 — Complete price computability: modules, scale steps, service packages and renewal rules public, so the invoice for a 100-employee company and a 10-client consultancy is a two-minute exercise.
The External DPO
No prices, plans or trial information anywhere; the sole CTA is 'Demander une démo'. On a modular platform where you 'start with one module, scale as needed', the per-module, per-client invoice for a ten-client consultancy is incomputable from public pages — a straight anchor-0 case. 1
The In-House Counsel
No prices, plans or even trial information anywhere captured; the sole call to action is 'Demander une démo'. That is rubric level 0 exactly — the invoice is a sales conversation, whatever the market norm. 1
The Drafted Generalist
No prices, no plans, no trial information — just a 'Demander une démo' button, so every configuration is a sales conversation and I cannot compute an invoice from anything published. That's normal in this market, but the anchor says what it says. 1
The Lead Auditor
No prices, plans or trial information anywhere in the captured pages; the only call to action is 'Demander une démo'. Every configuration is a sales conversation — the market norm, but it matches the zero anchor exactly. 1
The IT Integrator
Zero public numbers: 'No prices, plans or trial information stated on homepage; demo request CTA only'. With a modular 'start with one module, scale as needed' structure and no edition boundaries published, the real invoice is a pure sales conversation — rubric level 0 exactly. 1
The Skeptic
Captured homepage shows no prices, no plans, no trial, and a 'Demander une démo' CTA as the only path — the textbook anchor-0: every configuration is a sales conversation. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Incorporated in FR ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 6 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Foreign-controlled ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 5 Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | EU only ⚠ unverified | 2/2 pts | 6 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 24 Aug 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Ownership. The page does not state Thoma Bravo's domicile or stake; classifying it as foreign control rests on Thoma Bravo being a US-headquartered private equity firm.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. The site banner announces "Data Legal Drive rachetée par EQS Group" and footers show "© EQS Group GmbH", a German entity, so the contracting entity may have changed after the acquisition.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The statement sits in an April 2024 marketing blog post predating the EQS Group acquisition, and the newer EQS-branded pages repeat only a marketing-level "European server hosting for data sovereignty"; no contractual default region is stated.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Only the hosting subprocessor is named on the legal notice, and the blog presents Outscale (a subsidiary of Dassault Systèmes) as a second French hosting option; no complete subprocessor list covering support, email or payment providers appears in these excerpts.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 70 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 19 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 9 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 7 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 hosting facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 pricing fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage (FR) datalegaldrive.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 +2 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 11 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor homepage (EN) en.datalegaldrive.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 24 Aug 2026 Details →
- 3 Product page en.datalegaldrive.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 31 Aug 2026 Details →
- 4 Security/sovereignty page en.datalegaldrive.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 About page en.datalegaldrive.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Legal notice/imprint datalegaldrive.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 7 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap datalegaldrive.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap datalegaldrive.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap datalegaldrive.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap datalegaldrive.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →