Legal Tech / Compliance & privacy
CourtCorrect
CourtCorrect Ltd. · HQ GB · Last checked 2026-09-16
Last checked = the date we last re-opened the vendor's published pages. Facts are what the vendor documents, not what it claims in marketing.
AI complaints and dispute-resolution platform for regulated firms (FCA context); assistive decision support with mandatory human review and a published AI safety policy.
Provisional entry: fewer than four governance facts are sourced yet. It is excluded from search indexes until verified.
- Category
- Compliance & privacy · complaints management, dispute-resolution AI, agentic resolution with human-in-the-loop, FCA compliance
- Built for
- In-house legal
- Model providers (disclosed)
- Not disclosed
- Data residency options
- Not disclosed
- Pricing
- enterprise · Case Handler £69/month/user; Admin £99/month/user
- Markets
- UK
- Last checked
- 16 Sept 2026
What the vendor documents
Recorded from the vendor's own trust, privacy and terms pages. "Not disclosed" means we found no public statement, not that the control is absent.
What the public documentation states
CourtCorrect's homepage and pricing page describe an AI complaints and dispute-resolution platform for regulated organisations, with Case Handler and Admin user roles. The AI Safety Policy, dated 2 December 2025, classifies the system as limited-risk assistive AI and requires mandatory human review and sign-off. The DPA, dated 13 April 2026, says customer-elected AI features may use Customer Data for model optimisation, quality improvement and performance tuning, but not for third-party benefit or commingling with other customers' data. It also says CourtCorrect need not retrain, modify or delete models already optimised with Customer Data after withdrawal. The DPA states encryption of personal data, audit-log management and breach notice immediately and without undue delay. Pricing is published at £69 per month per Case Handler and £99 per month per Admin, with a trial prompt. The audit did not find named model providers, data-residency locations, security certifications, private deployment or a numerical accuracy metric.
In the vendor's words
“mandatory human review/sign-off”
“model optimisation, quality improvement, and performance tuning”
“shall not be required to retrain, modify, or delete models”
“immediately and in any event without undue delay”
Not disclosed on public pages
"Not disclosed" records that no public statement was found where we looked, on the date shown. It does not assert that the control, term or figure is absent.
Not published on the pages we read on 2026-09-06: model providers, a named sub-processor list, minimum term, seat minimum, data-residency location, SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 42001, private deployment and a numerical accuracy metric. Procurement and DPIA work normally needs these points to assess confidentiality in complaints files, Article 28 processor terms, cross-border transfers, retention effects from model optimisation and human supervision duties.
Questions to put to the vendor
- Which AI model providers process complaints, attachments and suggested resolutions?
- Where is Annex A or the current named sub-processor list published, and which providers receive Customer Data?
- What model artefacts may retain information after a customer withdraws AI-feature permission?
- Which data-residency options and cross-border transfer safeguards apply to UK complaint files?
- Can you provide any SOC 2, ISO 27001 or ISO 42001 reports, and the test results behind the AI Safety Policy?
Accuracy evidence
- vendorPublished AI Safety Policy: consensus testing, bias testing, human override (vendor) Policy document; no accuracy metrics.
Related incidents
No incidents are recorded for this tool as of 2026-09-16.
Sources
Report an issue with this record →
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Legal Tech Tools, "CourtCorrect", safelegalai.com/tools/courtcorrect (last checked 2026-09-16, accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.
Also in Compliance & privacy
- LegalAI SpaceAffiliated · Cognesio
- Norm Ai
- Regology (Reggi)
SafeLegalAI is a research publication, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by SafeLegalAI. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.
Vendor, product, court and regulator names and logos are the property of their respective owners and are used solely to identify the product, body or document referred to; SafeLegalAI claims no rights in them. SafeLegalAI is not affiliated with, endorsed by, sponsored by or approved by any listed vendor, except where a record is labelled an affiliated product. Facts are recorded from vendors' published pages on the date shown; "not disclosed" means not found on the pages read, not that the vendor lacks it. No ranking, rating, review, recommendation or warranty is implied. Mark owners who prefer a text-only reference, and vendors seeking a correction, may write to the report page. Trade mark and quotation policy.