immut is the Evidence Trust Layer. It sits underneath your existing compliance tools and anchors every file to the XRP Ledger blockchain with a precise timestamp. This creates tamper-evident, independently verifiable proof that a document existed at a specific moment — court-admissible in 88 countries.

Is blockchain evidence accepted in court?

Yes. Blockchain-anchored evidence has been accepted as legal evidence in US Federal Court (US v. Sterlingov, 2024), the EUIPO across all 27 EU member states (AZ Factory v. Valeria Moda, 2025), China's Supreme People's Court (1,400+ IP cases since 2018), and under EU Regulation 2025/2531. immut certificates are accepted in 88 countries and 171 jurisdictions.

Does my file leave my device?

No. immut generates a SHA-256 hash of your file on your own device. Only the hash is recorded on the blockchain. Your original file never leaves your infrastructure. Public proof. Private work.

Does immut replace Vanta or Drata?

No. immut is the proof layer that sits underneath your existing compliance tools. Vanta and Drata collect your evidence. immut proves when that evidence existed. They complement each other — immut adds the independent timestamp your compliance platform cannot provide.

Which compliance standards does immut support?

immut produces records that satisfy evidence requirements in ISO 27001, ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 45001, SOC 2, GDPR, HMRC R&D, HSE health and safety, KYC/AML, EU AI Act, HIPAA, and more. Any standard that requires dated, tamper-evident records is supported.

What happens if immut shuts down?

Every certificate already issued remains independently verifiable on the public XRP Ledger. The proof does not depend on immut existing. A regulator, a judge, or opposing counsel can verify your certificate on the public blockchain at any time, with or without immut.

Evidence Record

US Federal, Middle District of Florida · 2009 · Evidence challenged

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co.

(M.D. Fla. 2009)

Document metadataSpoliation of records

What happened

In an insurance coverage dispute, the plaintiffs were required to produce electronically stored information. Counsel produced the documents in TIFF image format after stripping the native file metadata, removing creation dates, modification timestamps and author information that would have been available in the original format. Counsel then misrepresented the completeness of the production to the court. The metadata removal was treated as a deliberate attempt to conceal the documents' true provenance. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' business-interruption claims as a sanction and awarded $75,000 against the plaintiffs' attorneys personally. The attorneys were also referred for professional discipline. The case is a direct illustration of how converting files to TIFF or PDF before production, a common practice, can be used to strip metadata, and how the absence of that metadata may itself become evidence of concealment.

Outcome

Business-interruption claims dismissed. $75,000 sanctions against plaintiffs' attorneys. Referral for professional discipline.

Sources

Secondary source

AnalysisUFL eDiscovery Law: Florida casebook entry

Public proof. Private work.

immut records a cryptographic hash of your file on the public XRP Ledger at the moment of creation. The timestamp is independently verifiable by anyone.

Anchor your evidence

Evidence Record

See all 43 rulings on record.

Jurisdiction filters, evidence-type filters, and authority sources linked on every case.

Back to all cases|Get started free