A safe, secure, and reliable agent can still be illegal.

SOC 2 proves the agent behaves. It doesn't prove the action is allowed. Carver checks each action against the law that governs it  : jurisdiction, statute, case law, right now.

checkout-agent-v3
Regulatory OS
Dashboard
Actions
Regulators
Settings
Active agent
Overview
Monitoring
Evals
Audit log

Legality dashboard

Monitoring

US-CA · Default
Primary Active
Refresh
Action check 1 flagged
Safety evals Pass
SOC 2 / ISO 27001 Pass
Lawful here Unclear
Coverage
Regulators monitored 1,000+
Countries 50+
Acts mapped 1,000+
1,000+

Global regulators monitored

1,000+

AI-related acts mapped

50+

Countries covered

Per-agent

Legal checks, guardrails, and audits

See it work

Watch an agent get checked.

Rule changes, policy updates, and legal checks — running against live regulation.
running against live regulation
rule change
Error-resolution window shortened
12 CFR §1005.11
policy update
Sanctions list refreshed
Federal · OFAC
legal check
Filing threshold enforcement
31 CFR §1010.311
Agent action: transfer request
Checked against all three, live
cleared moments ago
Coverage

The questions that create liability
aren't on any checklist.

Same six questions, run across the frameworks your buyers already trust.
Question SOC 2 ISO 27001 NIST AI RMF AIUC-1 CARVER
Is this action permitted in the user's jurisdiction?
Does it cross a licensed-profession line?
Does this pricing trip antitrust law?
Does an automated denial meet individualized-review rules?
Is disclosure or consent required here?
Has the rule changed since you shipped?
Checked per action
Governance-adjacent
Not covered
Compliance asks if your controls are sound. Legality asks if this action is allowed. Your SOC 2 report answers the first one.
Cases

Nobody was breached.
The systems worked as designed.

That was the problem. The exposure came from the law, not the system.
RealPage

Software priced rents using competitor data. The model ran as built.

DOJ + 8 states
2024
SYSTEM
Reliable and consistent
LAW
Sherman Act §1
GAP
Automation doesn’t exempt price coordination
Correct prices. Coordinated ones.
UnitedHealth

An algorithm predicted care length, allegedly used to cut coverage.

nH Predict
class action
SYSTEM
Consistent, high throughput
LAW
CMS individualized-review rules
GAP
Overriding clinicians is a statutory issue
Reliable at the restricted thing.
Cigna · PXDX

Automated review allegedly denied batched claims in seconds.

CA bad faith
class action
SYSTEM
Fast, deterministic, auditable
LAW
CA unfair-claims statutes
GAP
Speed became the allegation
Fast, consistent, allegedly unlawful.
Unlicensed Practice

An AI agent provides advice tailored to a person's specific legal situation.

AI + legal services
UPL risk
SYSTEM
Accurate, responsive, personalized
LAW
Unauthorized practice of law
GAP
Capability can cross the licensed-profession line
Helpful advice. Potentially unauthorized practice.
Product

Legal data infrastructure for agents.

One layer between your agent and its next action.
Regulator feeds aren't enough. Carver maps acts, case law, and enforcement actions — how a rule is actually applied, not just that it exists.

Your agent asks one thing: is this allowed, here, now? Carver answers with the governing rule and its source. Anything ambiguous goes to your legal team, not through the gate.

MCP server

Drop into any stack
Checks available where the agent acts.

SDK

Check at runtime
In-request call, answer plus citation.

Evals

Regulatory evals
Adversarial testing against the statutes that apply to you. Catch it before you ship.

Frameworks

Where agents get built
LangChain, CrewAI, and the rest.

Impact models

Run your own liability model
Weight exposure by jurisdiction, product, or contract. Score against your risk appetite.

SOC 2 proves you were careful.
Not that you were legal.

See a legality check run against your own agent.