Whistleblowing Portals
Lighthouse Services Ethics Hotline
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Lighthouse Services, Inc. · www.lighthouse-services.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Lighthouse Services Ethics Hotline at a glance
- Vendor
- Lighthouse Services, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Lighthouse Services Ethics Hotline 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Lighthouse Services, Inc.'s page presents Mitratech's Ethics Hotline in two tiers: a Standard Hotline for small to mid-sized organizations and an Enterprise Hotline built for high-volume, multi-departmental reporting. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 3 Nov 2026. all sources
Lighthouse Services Ethics Hotline alternatives, European ones first →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Lighthouse Services, Inc.'s page presents Mitratech's Ethics Hotline in two tiers: a Standard Hotline for small to mid-sized organizations and an Enterprise Hotline built for high-volume, multi-departmental reporting. The scoring favors intake and case handling: reporting channels score 5-6 and case management clusters at 6, resting on phone and web intake routed to one case system, optional anonymity, two-way anonymous dialogue through a confidential inbox, and stated Admin and Case Investigator roles, audit trails, retention policies, automated escalations, dashboards and board-level case-trend reporting. The weaknesses are just as consistent: compliance alignment and security assurance each cluster at 2 — we found no public information naming the EU whistleblowing directive or any national transposition, and none on encryption, penetration tests or certifications behind the words "secure" and "confidential". Multi-entity scale scores 3-4, the Enterprise tier described in departments with no public information on separate channels per legal entity. Sovereignty scores 0-2 — the widest spread on any criterion — the only hosting statement being "international data centers" with no country named. No prices are published; pricing transparency scores 0-1.
Speaks for it
- Phone and web intake both route into one case management solution, with no software installation required.
- Optional anonymity and a confidential inbox enable secure, anonymous two-way dialogue between reporters and investigators.
- Admin and Case Investigator roles, audit trails, retention policies, automated escalations, dashboards and board-level case-trend reporting are stated.
- Multilingual capabilities and case translations are stated for the Enterprise Hotline.
- Quick onboarding and implementation is stated for the Standard Hotline, described as ideal for small to mid-sized organizations.
Held against it
- We found no public information naming the EU whistleblowing directive or any national transposition, and no statutory duty is mapped to a feature.
- We found no public information on encryption, penetration tests, certifications, or IP and metadata handling behind the security and anonymity claims.
- Automated escalations serve "organizational standards", with no public information tying them to statutory acknowledgement or feedback deadlines.
- The Enterprise tier is described in departments, with no public information on separate channels per legal entity, delegated administration or external ombudsman access.
- The only hosting statement is "international data centers" with no country named, and we found no public information on a data processing agreement or subprocessors.
Best for
- You need phone and web intake feeding one case system, with optional anonymity and two-way anonymous dialogue through a confidential inbox and no software installation.
- You want case handling with Admin and Case Investigator roles, audit trails, retention policies and board-level case-trend reporting within one organization.
- You are a small to mid-sized organization and value quick onboarding and implementation.
- You report at volume across departments and want SSO, HRIS integration and board-level trend reporting.
Avoid if
- You are obligated under the EU whistleblowing directive and need a named statute or duty-to-feature mapping — compliance alignment scores cluster at 2.
- You must see encryption, penetration testing or certification before trusting an anonymity promise — security assurance scores cluster at 2.
- You are a group of separate legal entities needing channels per entity, delegated administration or ombudsman access — multi-entity scale scores 3-4.
- You must establish hosting jurisdiction, subprocessors or a data processing agreement before signing — sovereignty scores 0-2.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Reporting channels & reporter experience | 3 of 5 |
| Case management & deadline discipline | 3 of 5 |
| Legal compliance alignment | 1 of 5 |
| Security & anonymity assurance | 1 of 5 |
| Group & multi-entity capability | 1.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 of 5 |
Reporting channels & reporter experience
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The intake side: how a reporter actually submits — web form, anonymous dialogue, phone or voice message, languages, accessibility — and whether anonymity survives first contact.
0 — Not a reporting channel; a general contact or survey form with no anonymous route and no way to reach the reporter afterwards.
3 — A web form that accepts anonymous reports, with a case number or access code the reporter can use to check the report later.
5 — Anonymous two-way dialogue through a protected mailbox or access code, the reporting page in several languages, and use on mobile devices without an app or account.
8 — Several channels (web, voice message or phone hotline, in-person meeting requests, QR or intranet entry points), broad language coverage with translation of messages, accessibility addressed, and voice distortion or another anonymity measure for spoken reports.
10 — Intake engineered around the frightened reporter: every channel usable anonymously, dozens of languages, WCAG conformance stated, no app or account required, and the vendor documents how the reporter's identity is kept out of the channel itself.
The Compliance Officer
Phone and web intake are both stated, with optional anonymity and an anonymous two-way dialogue through a confidential inbox where reporters check status and investigators ask follow-ups — that dialogue is what I insist on before any channel goes live. The page claims multilingual capabilities and case translations, but gives no language count, no accessibility statement and no anonymity measure for spoken reports, so it falls short of the top anchors. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
Phone and web intake both land in one case system, and the promise I look for is there in words: secure, anonymous two-way dialogue through a confidential inbox where the reporter checks status and answers investigator questions, no software installation, and multilingual intake with case translations. I found no public information on accessibility, on mobile use without an account, or on any anonymity measure for spoken reports — a night-shift caller has no documented protection beyond the words "optional anonymity". 1
The SME Operator
Reports come in by phone and web, both routed to one case solution, with anonymous two-way dialogue through a confidential inbox where reporters check status updates, plus multilingual intake and case translations. I found no public information on accessibility or on protecting a caller's voice identity, so it sits below the top marks. 1
The Group Counsel
Phone and web intake both feed one case system, and reporters get anonymous two-way dialogue through a confidential inbox with optional anonymity and case translation — a real dialogue rather than a form dump. I found no public information on how many languages are covered, on accessibility, or on how spoken reports protect a caller's voice, which I would need before a dozen-country rollout. 1
The Security Auditor
Web and phone intake feed one case management system, optional anonymity and a confidential inbox enable two-way anonymous dialogue with status checks, and no software installation is required — a solid mid-level intake. But we found no public information on how anonymity is preserved on the voice channel, on accessibility, or on how many languages the intake covers; multilingual capability and case translations are stated as adjectives for the Enterprise line. 1
The Skeptic
Phone and web intake feed one case system, reporters can hold an anonymous two-way dialogue through a confidential inbox, and the page states multilingual capability with case translations and no software installation — that reaches the protected-dialogue level. But anonymity is sold as an option 'when needed,' not engineered into every channel, and we found no public information on accessibility, voice-anonymity measures for spoken reports, or how many languages the intake actually covers. 1
Case management & deadline discipline
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The case worker's side: triage, the statutory deadlines (7-day acknowledgement, 3-month feedback), roles for case handlers, documentation of each case, and retention and deletion.
0 — No case handling; reports are forwarded by email and handled outside the product.
3 — Reports collected in a case list with status, notes and messages to the reporter.
5 — Reminders or deadline tracking for the 7-day acknowledgement and 3-month feedback, case handlers assigned with roles and permissions, and notes, documents and the full dialogue kept per case.
8 — Statutory deadlines tracked automatically with escalation, conflict-of-interest handling that excludes implicated case handlers, a tamper-evident case history, retention and deletion periods applied per case, and caseload statistics or management reports.
10 — A case system an external investigator can rely on: configurable investigation workflows, a complete audit trail of every access and change, deletion automated to the statutory retention periods with evidence, and statistics prepared for the annual report or the regulator.
The Compliance Officer
All reports route into one case management solution with distinct roles for Admin and Case Investigators, automated escalations, audit trails, retention policies, dashboards and board-level reporting — the bones of a defensible case file. What I cannot see is the statutory discipline: nothing ties the escalations to the 7-day acknowledgement or 3-month feedback clock, and exclusion of implicated case handlers is not addressed anywhere on the page. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
Cases are worked in one system with Admin and Case Investigator roles, audit trails, retention policies, automated escalations, dashboards and board-level reporting on case trends, and investigators collect evidence through the confidential dialogue. The clocks a reporter actually waits on — the 7-day acknowledgement and 3-month feedback — are not in evidence: the escalations serve the organisation's own standards, and I found no public information on statutory deadline tracking, conflict-of-interest exclusion or per-case deletion. 1
The SME Operator
Case handling is real: admin and case investigator roles, automated escalations, audit trails, retention policies, documentation tools, dashboards and board-level reporting are all stated. I could not find anything tying escalations to the statutory acknowledgement and feedback clocks, or conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers — the parts a 60-person shop cannot check by hand. 1
The Group Counsel
The case side shows distinct roles (Admin, Case Investigators), audit trails, retention policies, automated escalations, dashboards and board-level case-trend reporting, which is more than a plain case list. But I found no public information tying escalations to the seven-day acknowledgement or three-month feedback deadlines, or on handling that excludes an implicated investigator from a case. 1
The Security Auditor
Admin and Case Investigator roles, secure dialogue with evidence collection, audit trails, retention policies, automated escalations, dashboards and board-level trend reporting are all stated. The escalations serve 'organizational standards' — we found no public information tying them to the statutory acknowledgement and feedback deadlines, nor on conflict-of-interest exclusion or tamper-evidence of the case history. 1
The Skeptic
Case roles (Admin, Case Investigators), documentation tools, audit trails, retention policies, dashboards, board-level reporting and automated escalations are all stated. The escalations, though, are tied to 'organizational standards' rather than the statutory acknowledgement and feedback deadlines, and we found no public information on conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers or tamper-evidence of the case history. 1
Legal compliance alignment
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How specifically the product implements EU Directive 2019/1937 and its national transpositions (HinSchG et al.): which statutory duties it maps to features, which countries it names, and how it keeps up when the law changes.
0 — Generic feedback or survey software with no reference to the whistleblowing obligations.
3 — The directive or HinSchG named on the vendor's pages, with the product presented as a way to meet the duty to provide an internal reporting channel.
5 — The statutory duties described as product features for at least one named national law — confidentiality, the acknowledgement and feedback deadlines, documentation of reports, and deletion after the retention period.
8 — Several national transpositions supported with their differing details, templates or process guidance (reporting policy, employee information) provided, and legal review by named counsel or a documented process.
10 — The product is a legal instrument: per-country rule sets kept current with a stated update process, documented legal review, and guidance for edge cases (group-wide channels, external ombudsman set-ups, works council involvement under the BetrVG) published.
The Compliance Officer
The page sells a dedicated ethics hotline and speaks generically of supporting defensible reporting and data governance compliance, but it never names the EU whistleblowing directive or any national transposition such as the German HinSchG. An ethics hotline is not a compliance mapping; I found no statutory duty translated into a named feature on the captured page. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
The page speaks of defensible reporting and data governance compliance in general terms and frames an ethics hotline around transparency and accountability. I found no public information naming EU Directive 2019/1937, HinSchG or any national transposition, no country-specific duty turned into a product feature, and no legal review process. 1
The SME Operator
This is squarely an ethics hotline with anonymous intake and defensible reporting, but the captured page names no EU directive and no national transposition, and maps no statutory duty to a feature. As an operator obligated under a whistleblowing statute, nothing here shows the legal duties are handled by the product. 1
The Group Counsel
The captured page frames the product as an ethics hotline and offers generic "data governance compliance" language, but I found no public information connecting it to EU Directive 2019/1937 or any national transposition such as the German HinSchG — no per-country rule sets, no templates, no counsel. For twelve jurisdictions this is not something I can diligence from these pages. 1
The Security Auditor
The captured page presents an ethics hotline — an internal reporting channel with optional anonymity — which is the generic shape of the duty, but we found no public information naming the EU whistleblowing directive or any national transposition, and no statutory duty is mapped to a feature. For an EU-obligated buyer the legal alignment is unevidenced beyond the product category itself. 1
The Skeptic
The captured page markets an ethics hotline with generic phrases like 'defensible reporting and data governance compliance,' but names no whistleblowing statute — neither the EU directive nor any national transposition — and no legal-review process or named counsel. I can find no duty-to-feature mapping an EU buyer could lean on; it is a hotline with compliance words, not a compliance instrument. 1
Security & anonymity assurance
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the confidentiality promise is engineered and evidenced: encryption, IP and metadata handling, penetration tests, certifications of the vendor and its hosting.
0 — Reports are not protected as confidential data; the product makes no security or confidentiality commitment for them.
3 — Encrypted transmission and storage of reports stated, and a commitment that reports are confidential.
5 — Encryption of report content described with some technical detail (end-to-end or at rest with key handling), a statement that IP addresses or metadata are not logged, and an ISO 27001 certificate for the vendor or its named hosting provider.
8 — A certified ISMS covering the product itself, regular third-party penetration tests stated, the encryption architecture documented, metadata minimisation explained, and a security contact or disclosure policy published.
10 — Assurance a hostile auditor accepts: current certificates with their scope published, recurring pentest summaries public, the cryptographic architecture documented, and anonymity analysed against the operator itself — the vendor explains why it cannot unmask a reporter.
The Compliance Officer
The only assurance language captured is a secure case management solution and a confidential inbox. No encryption architecture, no ISO certificate, no penetration testing and no statement on IP address or metadata handling appears on the page — a confidentiality promise with nothing behind it that a regulator could inspect. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
What backs the anonymity promise is a "secure case management solution" and a "confidential inbox" — a confidentiality commitment, but stated in marketing words. I found no public information on encryption, IP or metadata handling, penetration tests or any certificate; for someone whose job is on the line, that is thin assurance. 1
The SME Operator
The page promises a "secure case management solution" and a "confidential inbox" for anonymous dialogue, which is a confidentiality commitment in words. I found no public information on encryption specifics, IP or metadata handling, penetration tests, or any certification for the vendor or its hosting. 1
The Group Counsel
The vendor commits to a "secure case management solution" and a "confidential inbox" with optional anonymity — a confidentiality promise in words. I found no public information on encryption architecture, IP or metadata handling, penetration tests, or certifications standing behind that promise. 1
The Security Auditor
Every security claim on the page is an adjective: a 'secure case management solution', a 'confidential inbox', 'secure, anonymous dialogue'. We found no public information on encryption, penetration tests, certifications, key handling, or IP and metadata logging — the anonymity promise rests entirely on the vendor's word. 1
The Skeptic
The entire security story on the captured page is the words 'secure' and 'confidential inbox' — no encryption statement, no word on IP or metadata logging, no penetration test, and no certificate for the vendor or its hosting. A confidentiality promise with no certificate or architecture behind it is marketing until evidenced otherwise. 1
Group & multi-entity capability
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether one contract can serve a corporate group: separate channels per legal entity, central oversight, ombudsman access, white-labelling.
0 — Built for a single organisation only; a group needs one separate contract and instance per company.
3 — Several reporting channels or companies managed under one account.
5 — Separate channels per legal entity with their own case handlers, a group-level overview, and branding per channel; access for an external ombudsperson or counsel possible.
8 — A multi-tenant group structure: per-entity channels, languages and branding, delegated administration per subsidiary, external ombudsman roles, and group reporting that respects entity boundaries.
10 — Group compliance as architecture: hundreds of entities managed centrally, per-country legal rules assigned per entity, white-label reporting pages, and access separation strong enough to satisfy each subsidiary's works council — all documented.
The Compliance Officer
The vendor offers a Standard line for small and mid-sized organizations and an Enterprise line built for high-volume, multi-departmental reporting, with international data centers, SSO and HRIS integration. That reads as scale within one organization; the page says nothing about separate channels per legal entity, a group-level overview, external ombudsman access or per-entity branding. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
The Enterprise edition is built for high-volume, multi-departmental reporting across international data centers, with SSO, HRIS integration and board-level dashboards over case trends. I found no public information on separate channels per legal entity, branding per channel, delegated administration or external ombudsman access, so group capability beyond departments is unproven. 1
The SME Operator
Two tiers are offered: a Standard Hotline for small to mid-sized organizations and an Enterprise Hotline "built for high-volume, multi-departmental reporting" that is "global in nature" with international data centers. That reads as several channels under one solution; I found no public information on channels per legal entity, group-level oversight, or external ombudsperson access. 1
The Group Counsel
The Enterprise tier is described as "built for high-volume, multi-departmental reporting" with SSO and HRIS integration, board-level reporting and international data centers — scale language about departments, not legal entities. I found no public information on separate channels per subsidiary with real access separation, delegated administration, external ombudsman roles, or group reporting that respects entity boundaries, which is exactly what a twenty-five-entity rollout needs. 1
The Security Auditor
An Enterprise line 'built for high-volume, multi-departmental reporting' with board-level case-trend reporting, SSO and HRIS integration indicates central oversight across departments. We found no public information on separate channels per legal entity, per-channel branding, delegated administration per subsidiary, or external ombudsman access — the scale story is told in departments, and entity separation is undocumented. 1
The Skeptic
An Enterprise tier is 'built for high-volume, multi-departmental reporting' with phone and web channels routed into one case management solution — several channels under one roof. But departments inside one organization are not legal entities, and we found no public information on per-entity channels, delegated administration per subsidiary, channel branding, or external ombudsman access. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where reports about people actually live and under whose law: contracting entity and parent company, hosting location, subprocessors (hosting, phone or voice provider, translation, email), and the data processing agreement. In this category the data is by definition the most sensitive a company holds. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; describe what is proven, and treat what is not stated as unknown rather than non-EU.
0 — Proven non-EU end to end: non-EU entity and non-EU hosting with no EU option, and no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist; hosting location and subprocessors are not stated, or EU hosting is offered only on request or on top tiers.
5 — EU hosting stated as the default, a data processing agreement and a subprocessor list published; a parent company or a subprocessor may sit outside the EU.
8 — EU entity, EU hosting in named data centres, a subprocessor list with no non-EU processor touching report content, and the DPA and TOMs published.
10 — Jurisdictionally clean end to end: European ownership, EU-only hosting and subprocessors for report content and metadata, an on-premises or sovereign-cloud option, and the whole chain documented publicly.
The Compliance Officer not rated — no public information
I found no public information on where reports are hosted, the contracting entity behind the product, the subprocessors, or a data processing agreement — the captured page mentions only international data centers without naming a location, and no sovereignty attributes are on record. This criterion stands unevidenced for me, and I decline to guess a score. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
The only location statement in the captured page is that the Enterprise edition runs on "international data centers" with no country named, and the vendor entities carry no stated jurisdiction. I found no public information on hosting location, a data processing agreement, subprocessors or technical and organisational measures — for the most sensitive data a company holds, everything jurisdictional is unknown rather than answered. 1
The SME Operator not rated — no public information
I found no public information on hosting jurisdiction, the contracting entity's location, subprocessors, or a data processing agreement; the captured page says only "international data centers" without naming a country, so no sovereignty dimension is proven either way. 1
The Group Counsel not rated — no public information
We found no public information on where report data lives or under whose law it is processed: the only hosting statement is that the enterprise offering has "international data centers", with no jurisdiction named, and no information on a data processing agreement or subprocessors. For the most sensitive data a group holds, I have nothing here to diligence. 1
The Security Auditor not rated — no public information
We found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, subprocessors, or a data processing agreement. The only related statement is 'international data centers', which names no country — for the most sensitive data a company holds, the captured page documents no home. 1
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, hosting location, subprocessors, or a data processing agreement; the sovereignty attributes on record are empty. The nearest statement, 'international data centers,' names no jurisdiction and proves nothing about where reports about people actually live. 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether an obligated company can compute the real invoice — per entity, per employee band, per year — from public pages alone: tier prices, billing period, employee bands, add-ons (phone intake, languages, entities) and setup fees.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A public "from" price or one priced tier; the other tiers, employee bands or add-ons are not public.
5 — Public per-tier prices with the billing period (monthly or annual) stated and the main inclusions or employee band of each tier listed.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with employee-band boundaries, entity rules, add-ons (phone intake, languages, extra entities) and setup fees stated, and VAT treatment given; only genuine corporate-group contracts are custom.
10 — Complete price computability: every tier, band, add-on and renewal rule public, so the invoice for a 60-employee company and a 5-entity group is a two-minute exercise.
The Compliance Officer
The captured page distinguishes a Standard and an Enterprise offering, but I found no price for either — no figures, employee bands, billing periods, add-ons or setup fees of any kind. No obligated buyer can compute an invoice from what is public here; every tier is a sales conversation. 1
The Reporter's Advocate not rated — no public information
I found no public information on prices: the captured page presents Standard and Enterprise editions with no price, billing period, employee band, add-on or setup fee. I read the vendor's own site as captured on 3 November 2026 and found nothing that would let an obligated company begin to compute an invoice. 1
The SME Operator not rated — no public information
I found no public information on pricing — the captured page names the Standard and Enterprise Hotline tiers but states no price, billing period, employee band, add-on or setup fee for either. A buyer cannot compute an invoice from this page. 1
The Group Counsel not rated — no public information
We found no public information on pricing: the captured page presents Standard and Enterprise tiers but quotes no prices, billing periods, employee bands, entity rules or setup fees. Not even a single subsidiary's invoice can be computed from what is published. 1
The Security Auditor not rated — no public information
We found no public information on pricing — the captured page names two product lines, Standard and Enterprise, without figures, and no billing period, employee bands, add-ons or setup fees are stated. An obligated company cannot compute any part of the invoice from what was captured. 1
The Skeptic
The captured page names a Standard and an Enterprise tier and states no price, billing period, employee band, add-on or setup fee for either. Nothing captured lets an obligated company begin to compute an invoice — both tiers read as sales conversations. 1
Questions about Lighthouse Services Ethics Hotline
Is Lighthouse Services Ethics Hotline European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Lighthouse Services Ethics Hotline is based.
Where does Lighthouse Services Ethics Hotline store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does Lighthouse Services Ethics Hotline have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Lighthouse Services Ethics Hotline?
As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates preeco | hinweisgeberschutz (3.5/5), Ethicontrol (3/5) and LegalTegrity (3/5) highest among the other 39 Whistleblowing Portals products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is preeco | hinweisgeberschutz (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Lighthouse Services Ethics Hotline alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (lighthouse-services.com). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We could not confirm any compliance information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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
Sources (1)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.lighthouse-services.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →