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, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2018 · Fabrication

Malone v. Weiss

(E.D. Pa. 2018)

EmailDocument metadata

What happened

The plaintiff in this civil action produced a set of emails as key evidence in support of their claims. Forensic metadata analysis, conducted on the plaintiff's own devices and email client, showed that the emails had been created or modified on those devices in ways that were inconsistent with the claimed dates and the claimed sequence of events. The emails existed in multiple altered versions on the plaintiff's computers, consistent with documents having been fabricated or doctored after the fact. Critically, the emails did not come from a third-party server or an intercepted communication: they came from the plaintiff's own machines, and the plaintiff's own device metadata proved the creation timeline was incompatible with the claimed history. The court dismissed the entire complaint as a sanction for the fabrication. The case illustrates that email metadata is generated by the sender's own system and can be altered by anyone with access to the device or mail client.

Outcome

Entire complaint dismissed as a sanction for fabrication.

Sources

Authority source confirmed

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