Solutions · Legal

    An answer you can check before you rely on it.

    Ansvar gives your AI the law itself and the judgments that applied it. Every answer points to the passage it rests on, and a missing source is said out loud.

    The Grand Courtroom of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg.
    The Court of Justice of the European Union, Luxembourg · Photo: Cédric Puisney · CC BY 2.0

    Sound familiar?

    • An AI answer cites an article, and nobody can see what the article says.
    • A judgment is quoted from memory, with no court, date or link.
    • Nobody knows which version of the law the answer was based on.

    Every claim points to its passage.

    Three questions from a recorded run on 28 October 2026, shortened. Click a numbered square to read the passage behind it.

    Asked in Claude: “Using Ansvar, can we collect cookie consent with a pre-ticked checkbox under the GDPR?”

    No. Consent must be an unambiguous indication, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, source 1. A box that is already ticked is neither.

    Then: “Using Ansvar, has the EU Court of Justice ruled on this?”

    Yes. In Planet49 (C-673/17), 1 October 2019, source 2, the Grand Chamber ruled that consent is not valid when cookies are allowed by a pre-checked box the user must untick.

    Then: “Using Ansvar: and compensation under Article 82, is there a judgment on that?”

    No supporting source. The judgment you may mean (C-300/21) is not among the decisions Ansvar serves. Ansvar says so and points to the court's own site instead of guessing.
    GDPR and the Court of JusticeEUR-Lex
    ‘consent’ of the data subject means any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject's wishes by which he or she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement … GDPR, Article 4(11) · Regulation (EU) 2016/679
    …consent … is not validly constituted if … the storage of information … is permitted by way of a pre-checked checkbox which the user must deselect to refuse his or her consent. CJEU, C-673/17 Planet49, operative part · ECLI:EU:C:2019:801 · text redacted by Ansvar for personal data
    Publications Office of the EU · verified 28 Oct 2026GDPR Art. 4 on EUR-LexC-673/17 on EUR-Lex
    Showing passage 1

    How it works.

    Your AI asks Ansvar, Ansvar answers from the sources it holds, and the citation travels with the answer.

    Statutes, regulations and their recitals come from the official publisher, with the publisher, licence, version and the date we last verified them. Every answer links to the original.

    On Premium, court decisions arrive inside the same search: the case, the court, the date and the passage. Where a decision is redacted for personal data, Ansvar says so and links the original.

    If Ansvar does not hold a source, the answer says so and points to where to look, instead of filling the gap from the model's memory.

    What you get, on which plan.

    Available · every plan

    Law and regulation

    Statutes and regulations with their source, version and date. The free plan searches one jurisdiction or framework per question.

    Available · Premium and up

    Court decisions and guidance

    Case law, preparatory works and agency guidance inside the same answers. Court decisions are a Premium feature.

    What we hold, by country and source: Coverage.

    Ask your own question, with the source attached.