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 State, Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County · 2022 · Evidence challenged

Prieto v. Rush University Medical Center

(Cook County, Ill. 2022)

EMR audit trail

What happened

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice claim arising from newborn hypoxic injury at Rush University Medical Center. Central to the case was the EMR audit trail for the delivery records. The hospital repeatedly failed to produce a complete, unaltered audit trail over a period of approximately three years of litigation, from January 2019 to January 2022. Judge James N. O'Hara conducted an on-site inspection and personally reviewed the hospital's electronic health record system. The inspection revealed that audit trail data had been withheld and misrepresented. The court entered a default finding of liability against the hospital, before depositions had been completed, citing the failure to comply with discovery obligations under HIPAA, HITECH Act information-blocking provisions and the Cures Act. The consequence was an eight-figure damages exposure resolved without the hospital ever presenting its substantive defence at trial.

Outcome

Default liability entered. Eight-figure damages exposure without trial.

Sources

Secondary source

AnalysisEnigma Forensics: EMR sanctions analysis

AnalysisJournal of Healthcare Risk Management (Oct 2022)

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