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, District of Maryland · 2007 · Evidence challenged

Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co.

241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007)

Document metadataESI / file deletion

What happened

Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm issued a detailed 100-page opinion addressing the authentication requirements for electronic evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 901. The ruling established the foundational doctrine that digital records from centralised systems require proper foundation, including metadata integrity, chain of custody, and independent corroboration, before they can be admitted. The court identified five distinct methods of authenticating electronic evidence and noted that simply producing a file from a company's own systems is insufficient. The opinion is cited in virtually every subsequent US federal case where the authenticity of electronic evidence is challenged, and it remains the doctrinal anchor for the proposition that centralised digital records are not self-proving. For immut, this case establishes precisely why blockchain-anchored evidence solves a problem that courts have recognised for nearly two decades: it provides exactly the independent, verifiable authentication that centralised systems cannot.

“Electronic records are not self-authenticating simply because they appear genuine. Metadata from internal systems can be examined, and courts may require corroboration of creation dates and integrity.”

From the judgment

Outcome

Foundational doctrine established: centralised digital records require independent authentication. Cited in virtually every subsequent US challenge to electronic evidence.

Sources

Secondary source

AuthCourtListener: docket

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