Articles for real-world situations: proving what was online, handling disputes, documenting policy changes, and keeping evidence credible when content can be edited or deleted.
Six places worth reporting to, doing entirely different things. One gets the site flagged in browsers within days; one can take the domain down; one cuts off the money. Most people report to the slowest and hear nothing. The order that works — and why capture comes first.
The padlock proves nothing and the spelling is usually flawless. What still gives a fake shop away is the paper trail: who registered the domain and when, whether the company can be identified at all, and how they want to be paid. Twelve checks that take five minutes.
A successful impersonation report deletes the account — and with it the only proof it ever existed. What to capture before you touch the report button, how to report on Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn, when identity theft needs a police report, and what to do if the profile is already gone.
Your chances depend far more on how you paid than on how convincing your story is. Chargeback grounds and deadlines, why SEPA recalls usually fail, the one document banks ask for that almost nobody still has, and where to escalate when a claim is refused.
Fraudulent listings and shops are edited or removed within hours. This guide covers the order that works: what to capture before you contact anyone, the deadlines that are already running at your bank, what a criminal complaint actually needs, and why each of the three audiences asks for something different.
Automatic daily or weekly captures of any public page, each sealed with an eIDAS qualified timestamp. Why an evidence series beats a single screenshot.
On 9 July 2026, more MEPs voted against Chat Control 1.0 than for it, yet it was reinstated on a procedural threshold. A precise, non-alarmist breakdown: what passed, the end-to-end encryption carve-out, the Council's three-month window, the difference between 1.0 and 2.0, and what it means for court-ready digital evidence.
Two years into full Digital Services Act application: Article 16 notice and action requirements, the Article 22 trusted flagger framework, Member State Digital Services Coordinator designations including the Czech CJEU referral, Bundesnetzagentur and AGCOM examples, and the forensic evidence standards that distinguish high-priority DSA notices.
Digital Services ActArticle 16Trusted FlaggersNotice and Action
A fake Google review damages your reputation and rankings. A step-by-step guide: flagging, the DSA, legal defense — and why you start by preserving the evidence.
Someone spreading lies about you online? A practical step-by-step guide — from preserving the evidence before it disappears to demands, lawsuits, and complaints.
Article 19 timelines (4h / 72h / 1 month), major incident classification under Commission Delegated Regulation 2024/1772, the November 2025 designation of 19 Critical ICT Third-Party Providers, and forensic evidence preservation across DORA, NIS2 and GDPR. Updated May 2026 with one year of enforcement.
Article 23 reporting timelines (24-hour early warning, 72-hour notification, one-month final report), significant incident thresholds under Commission Implementing Regulation 2024/2690, forensic evidence preservation for phishing pages and ransomware leak sites, ISO 27037 chain of custody, sanctions up to €10M or 2% turnover, and personal liability of management. Updated May 2026 with transposition status across all 27 EU Member States.
From 2 August 2026, providers and deployers of generative AI must label synthetic content. This complete guide walks through every paragraph of Article 50, the multilayered marking approach, the Authentication Inversion that shifts burden of proof to publishers, the Provenance Gap that Article 50 leaves open, the role of C2PA and eIDAS qualified seals, and a practical 90-day implementation roadmap.
Complete 2026 guide to ISO/IEC 27037 compliant web evidence acquisition. DEFR/DES roles, the four core principles, rendered DOM, MHTML/WARC, SSL/TLS chain of trust, dual anchoring with eIDAS qualified timestamps and Bitcoin OpenTimestamps.
When archive.org snapshots are admissible in court, when they get excluded, and how to combine Wayback with forensic capture. US, EU, UK, and Australian case law (Weinhoffer, Valve, Gasperini, Pinnacle) plus FRE 902(13) self-authentication and the eIDAS framework.
Architecture, eIDAS compliance, ISO/IEC 27037 alignment, comparison with traditional DEM platforms, 25-point buyer's checklist, and use cases for legal services, compliance, IP enforcement, journalism, and insurance fraud investigation.
A practical, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction guide covering all 27 EU member states. eIDAS Article 41, national procedural law, common defects, and the defensible workflow.
Article 41, qualified TSPs, EU Trusted List, court admissibility across 27 EU states. The definitive guide for lawyers, compliance officers, and forensic experts.
We use necessary cookies and optional analytics cookies (Google Analytics) to run the site. You can accept or reject each category individually.
Privacy Policy
Cookie settings
Choose which cookie categories you want to allow. Necessary cookies are always active — they are required for the site to function.
Necessary cookies
Required for site operation — login, language, consent storage. No tracking.
Always active
Analytics cookies
Visit tracking via Google Analytics 4 with IP anonymization. Helps us improve the product.
Google Analytics 4 · 26 months · US transfer (SCCs)
Marketing cookies
No marketing cookies are used at this time. This option is reserved for future use.
Yes — that is exactly what the Evidence ZIP is designed for. A qualified eIDAS timestamp carries a statutory presumption of time accuracy and data integrity, and electronic evidence may not be denied legal effect merely because it is electronic. The assessment of any specific piece of evidence always rests with the court — which is why the package can be independently verified by the court and the opposing party alike.
Does “tamper-evident” mean it can’t be altered?
It means changes are detectable. A court-appointed expert or IT specialist will immediately recognise that the evidence has been tampered with — and anyone can verify it themselves with a free open-source tool.
What is GetProofAnchor?
GetProofAnchor captures web pages as tamper-evident evidence. It creates a verifiable record of what was visible online at a specific time and lets you later verify that the evidence still matches the originally captured state.
Or write your own question
On a computer? Scan with your phone and chat directly from your mobile.
