Use when conducting a legal issue-spotting review for a product feature that uses AI or machine learning to produce a structured issues register and recommendations for attorney review.
When to use
A team is building, shipping, or updating a feature that uses an AI model, machine learning system, or algorithmic decision-making component.
A product manager, engineer, or counsel asks to "review the legal risks of this AI feature," "check if we can use this model," or "what do we need to disclose?"
A launch review (see launch-review) has flagged an AI or algorithmic component for deeper analysis.
An existing AI feature is being modified in a material way: new model, new data inputs, new output use case, or new user population.
The feature involves a vendor-supplied AI model and the team needs a legal issues overview before completing vendor contracting (route contract detail to ai-vendor-terms-review).
The feature involves automated decisions that affect users in consequential ways (credit, employment, health, housing, content moderation, pricing).
Required inputs
Feature description: what the feature does, how users interact with it, and what is new or changed.
Model(s) used: whether the model is in-house (trained or fine-tuned internally) or vendor-supplied (API, embedded, or licensed). Include model name or vendor name if known.
Training and input data: what data was used to train or fine-tune the model (if in-house), and what data the model receives at inference time (user inputs, uploaded files, third-party data, etc.).
Outputs and how they are used: what the model produces (text, images, scores, classifications, recommendations, decisions), and how those outputs are displayed to or acted upon by users or internal systems.
User-facing disclosures: what, if anything, the product currently discloses to users about AI use, automated decision-making, or the nature of the outputs.
Human-oversight design: whether and how a human reviews, approves, or can override AI outputs before they affect users.
Target markets and users: geographies, user demographics, and any vulnerable populations (minors, patients, financial consumers, job seekers).
If the feature description and model type are not provided, stop and request them. Do not fabricate technical details, data practices, or vendor terms.
Use when conducting a pre-launch legal issue-spotting review for a new product or feature to produce a structured issues register and a draft go/hold/conditions recommendation for attorney sign-off.
When to use
A team is preparing to launch a new product, feature, app, or major update and needs a legal issues review before go-live.
A product manager, engineer, or counsel asks to "do a legal review of this launch," "check if we're good to ship," or "flag legal risks before we release."
A release date is approaching and legal has not yet reviewed the new functionality.
A prior launch review exists but material scope has changed (new data types, new markets, new claims, new third-party integrations).
Post-launch monitoring identifies a gap that requires a retroactive review.
Required inputs
Product or feature description: what it does, how users interact with it, and what is new or changed.
Target markets and users: geographies, user demographics, whether it serves consumers (B2C) or businesses (B2B), and any vulnerable populations (minors, healthcare patients, financial consumers).
Data collected and processed: types of personal data, sensitive data categories (health, financial, biometric, location, children's data), how data flows, and any third-party data sharing.
Marketing claims and user-facing representations: copy, screenshots, landing pages, onboarding text, or links to assets.
Third-party dependencies: APIs, SDKs, open-source libraries, AI model providers, data vendors, or embedded services — with their names and, if known, their license or contract type.
Launch date: the target date or window.
If any of these inputs are missing, stop and request them before proceeding. Do not fabricate facts, assume data practices, or guess at claims.
Use when reviewing marketing or advertising copy for legal risk to produce a claim-by-claim analysis, substantiation requirements, and flagged disclosures for attorney review.
When to use
A user asks to "review this ad copy," "check our marketing for legal issues," or "tell me which claims might be a problem."
New marketing assets (website copy, email campaigns, app store listings, social media posts, press releases, product packaging, or video scripts) are being prepared for publication.
Existing copy is being updated and requires re-review after material changes to claims, products, or evidence.
A team is preparing claims in a regulated industry (health/wellness, financial services, environmental/green, AI-powered features) and needs a structured issues list before legal sign-off.
An attorney needs a first-pass triage of a large volume of copy before conducting a detailed substantive review.
Required inputs
The copy to be reviewed: full text of all marketing or advertising material (uploaded, pasted, or linked). Screenshots or image-based copy must be transcribed.
Product or service description: what is being advertised, what it does, and what it does not do.
Client's role: the advertiser (making the claims) or a platform/agency (publishing or distributing them).
Target audience: consumer (B2C) or business (B2B); any vulnerable populations (minors, patients, financially distressed consumers).
Jurisdiction(s): the primary markets where the copy will run. If unknown, flag as [CONFIRM: target jurisdictions].
Available substantiation *(if any)*: studies, test results, clinical trials, certifications, or other evidence the client holds for specific claims.
If the copy itself is not provided, stop and request it. Do not fabricate claims, invent evidence, or assume what the copy says.
Use when reviewing a terms of service or terms of use document to produce a structured risk summary, issues table, and prioritized recommendations for attorney review.
When to use
A user asks to "review our terms," "check our ToS," "are our terms okay?" or "what are the risks in this agreement?"
A company is launching a new product or service and needs its first ToS reviewed before publication.
An existing ToS is being updated and the changes require legal review.
A company is evaluating a third party's ToS before agreeing to it (e.g., as a developer accepting a platform's terms).
Legal counsel needs a structured first-pass triage of a lengthy ToS before conducting a detailed substantive review.
A launch review (see launch-review) has flagged the ToS as requiring deeper analysis.
Required inputs
The full ToS text: uploaded, pasted, or linked. If linked, the text must be retrieved and reviewed — do not rely on a URL alone.
Product or service context: what the platform or service does, who operates it, and who the users are.
B2C or B2B context: whether the terms govern consumer relationships, business relationships, or both.
Jurisdiction: the governing law and dispute resolution forum as stated in the document, and the primary markets where the service operates. Flag as [CONFIRM: jurisdiction] if not provided.
Linked policies *(if available)*: the linked or incorporated privacy policy, acceptable use policy, refund policy, or other referenced documents.
If the ToS text is not provided, stop and request it. Do not fabricate terms or assume what the document says.