General Counsel Dashboard
Legal Risk, Compliance, and Regulatory Readiness
Illustrative scenario — fictional organization, not customer or benchmark data.
All five executive dashboards use the same made-up company so the figures can be compared with each other. None of them is measured from your organization, from PromptFluent customers or from an industry dataset. To work from your own numbers, use the assessment tools.
12 of 17 sanctioned AI tools reviewed
Self-assessed share of each framework's controls in place. Green: established; amber: in progress. Coverage is not compliance or certification.
| Vendor | Service | Risk Level | Primary Issue | Last Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLM API provider A | General-purpose model API | MEDIUM | Data retention clause needs clarification | 2 months ago |
| LLM API provider B | General-purpose model API | LOW | Terms acceptable; monitoring usage limits | 1 month ago |
| Code assistant vendor | Code completion | MEDIUM | IP ownership of generated code needs review | 3 months ago |
| Writing assistant vendor | Content generation | HIGH | Liability for generated content unclear | 5 months ago |
| Image generation vendor | Image generation | HIGH | Copyright ownership and licensing unclear | 4 months ago |
| ML platform vendor | Model training platform | LOW | Contract current; renewal due next quarter | 1 month ago |
| Data labeling vendor | Data labeling | MEDIUM | Data privacy addendum needs update | 2 months ago |
Regulatory Exposure of the 17 Sanctioned Tools
Policy & Governance Status
AI-Generated Content Ownership & Liability
Unclear contractual terms on who owns AI-generated content (code, images, text) and who carries liability for errors or copyright infringement.
Affected Tools: Code assistant, Writing assistant, Image generation tools
Recommendation: Negotiate IP ownership clauses, add a human review step for published content, and review insurance cover for AI-related claims.
Timeline: Next quarter
EU AI Act Obligations Not Yet Mapped
Customer-facing AI uses have not been classified against the EU AI Act's risk categories, so the applicable transparency, documentation and oversight obligations are unknown.
Affected Tools: All customer-facing AI tools
Recommendation: Classify each use against the Act, then document the obligations that apply. For any high-risk use, that includes conformity assessment and human oversight. Confirm application dates with counsel.
Timeline: Within two quarters
Data Privacy - Training Data Provenance
Some AI vendors in the inventory have not documented the provenance of their training data, which leaves open GDPR/CCPA questions.
Affected Tools: Image generation tools, General-purpose model APIs
Recommendation: Run vendor due diligence, add data provenance warranties to contracts, and prefer vendors that document their datasets.
Timeline: Next quarter
Employee Data Usage in AI Tools
No clear policy on using employee performance or communication data for AI training or analysis.
Affected Tools: Internal analytics tools
Recommendation: Draft an employee data usage policy, obtain the consents it requires, and update privacy notices.
Timeline: Next quarter
AI Legal Playbook Development
Legal guidance for AI procurement, deployment, and usage
Target: Complete within two quarters
Vendor Contract Standardization
Standard AI vendor contract templates with pre-negotiated terms
Target: Complete within three quarters
EU AI Act Readiness Program
Classify AI uses and build the documentation and oversight the Act requires for them
Target: Classification done within two quarters; obligations tracked against their application dates
AI Litigation Insurance Review
Evaluate and procure insurance for AI-related legal risks
Target: Decision within three quarters