A lawyer reading a printed brief at his desk at night, the city lit up behind him — Every cite read against its source, before the brief goes out.

Legal research & citation verification

Research the law.Check the cites.

Research memos and citation checks, with the source passage beside every cited claim — so you rely on the evidence, not the AI.

or book a private demo

First 2 documents free, then $20/month per userEnd-of-year special

Trusted by

ClassCounselPC

Isaac Manoff, founder of GroundTruth — Isaac Manoff·Founder, Santa Monica

IWhy I built GroundTruth

“I built GroundTruth so the source sits next to every claim, and the lawyer makes the call.”

I’m a California-licensed attorney. I’ve practiced in civil rights, mass torts and class actions.

Lawyers now use AI to draft, and AI can cite cases that don’t exist, or real ones that don’t say what the brief claims. Its read is a pointer, not proof. So GroundTruth pulls the actual opinion or statute and puts the passage beside the sentence that cites it.

Before this I founded SmartDepo, where I’m the sole named inventor on the pending patent, and led its acquisition by Rev. Today I build legal software through Manoff Technologies and ClassCounsel.

— Isaac

IIFrom the field

“Shocked at how many citations GroundTruth found that Claude missed.”

Alex Conant·Partner, Amini & Conant

In their own words

What practitioners are saying

From lawyers who can't afford to get a citation wrong.

“What GroundTruth is building is absolutely necessary.”
Alex Taubes
Taubes Law · New Haven, CT
“GroundTruth stands alone — it is not optional, it is professional due diligence.”
Samuel Q. Long
Partner · Falcon Law Group, PLLC

A lawyer at her desk at night, pen in hand, comparing a highlighted passage with her draft

IIIYou decide

The lawyer makes the call.

You rely on the passage, not the AI. The AI’s read is a pointer; the source text is the proof.

Read the claim
The sentence from your draft, with the citation it relies on.
Read the passage
The cited text, pulled from the actual opinion or statute and set beside the claim.
Make the call
Supported, partial or unsupported. You choose the verdict, and that's what the verification log records.

See how it works

IVWho it's for

For lawyers — and any professional who cites sources.

Check the sources before anything goes out the door.

Fig. 1LawBriefs, motions and memos, checked before they're filed.
Fig. 2MedicineClinical and research citations, read against the papers.
Fig. 3AcademiaPapers and theses, every reference checked at its source.
Fig. 4JournalismReporting, with the source behind each claim.

And in research, science, policy, government, consulting — and beyond.

Product tour

See it work in 90 seconds.

A brief checked cite by cite, a research memo drafted from a question, and the tools around them.

What you get back

Every citation, read against its source.

GroundTruth marks each citation in your draft by what the cited source actually says, and sets the passage beside your sentence so you can see why.

Supported: The source says what your sentence says.
Partial: The source is real, but it backs only part of the sentence.
Unsupported: The source doesn't say what the sentence claims it says.

The marks are a starting point. You read the passage and make the call on each one.

See a full report on a real filing

Checked by GroundTruth

United States District Court

Southern District of New York

SMITH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ACME SCHOOL DIST.,

Defendant.

Case No. 23-cv-04812

Memorandum in Support
of Motion to Dismiss

The principle that segregated public schools deny equal protection has been the law of the land for more than seventy years. The Supreme Court first held as much in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), reasoning that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," and the Court has reaffirmed that holding in every decade since. The doctrine reaches both de jure and de facto segregation where the latter is fairly traceable to identifiable state action.

Plaintiffs further contend that disparate impact, standing alone, establishes a violation of equal protection under Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)— but that decision treats impact as relevant, not dispositive, absent proof of discriminatory purpose.

Read against the sources they cite, plaintiffs' theories converge on a single proposition this Court has already declined to adopt.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 — on which their remaining theory depends — does not bear the reading they urge, and the motion to dismiss should accordingly be granted in full.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Dana R. Whitfield

Counsel for Defendant

Smith v. Acme Sch. Dist., No. 23-cv-048124

GroundTruthAI: Supported

Claim

Segregated public schools deny equal protection.

Source says

“Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

Your call

Why now

A fake citation costs you.

AI cites sources that don't exist. Courts now make lawyers pay for it.

Sanctions for fake citations

New law · CaliforniaSB 574

Nothing may be filed with a citation the responsible lawyer hasn't personally verified, including any citation supplied by AI.

Signed Sep 30, 2026in force Jan 1, 2027

Legal research

From a legal question to a first-draft memo.

Ask it the way you'd ask a colleague. Get a structured first draft with every authority laid out to check. The judgment stays yours.

Pick a question

“Will a federal court enforce a forum-selection clause in a non-negotiated consumer contract?”

Research memorandum

Draft · October 20, 2026

Re: Forum-selection clauses in consumer contracts

Brief answer

Generally, yes, unless enforcement would be unreasonable or fundamentally unfair.

Authorities

1M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972) (opens the source in a new tab)Forum-selection clauses are presumptively valid.
2Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991) (opens the source in a new tab)That holds for form contracts no one negotiated.
3Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (opens the source in a new tab)A valid clause gets controlling weight on transfer.

Re: Class-action waivers in employment arbitration

Brief answer

Generally, yes. The Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce individual-arbitration agreements, class waivers included.

Authorities

1Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497 (2018) (opens the source in a new tab)Employment class waivers are enforceable; the NLRA doesn't override them.
2AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (opens the source in a new tab)The FAA preempts state rules that ban class-arbitration waivers.
3Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639 (2022) (opens the source in a new tab)Individual PAGA claims can be compelled to arbitration.

Re: Fair use and commercial reuse of a photograph

Brief answer

Often not. A new look isn't enough when the use serves substantially the same commercial purpose as the original.

Authorities

1Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (2023) (opens the source in a new tab)New meaning isn't enough if the use shares the original's purpose.
2Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (opens the source in a new tab)Commercial use isn't presumptively unfair; transformative use weighs in favor.
3Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) (opens the source in a new tab)Effect on the market is the single most important factor.

Re: Pleading standard on a motion to dismiss

Brief answer

Plausibility: enough factual matter, taken as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face.

Authorities

1Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (opens the source in a new tab)Facts must make the claim plausible, not merely conceivable.
2Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (opens the source in a new tab)The standard applies in all civil actions; bare legal conclusions don't count.
3Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (opens the source in a new tab)A short and plain statement showing the pleader is entitled to relief.

Re: Forum-selection clauses in consumer contracts

Brief answer

Generally, yes, unless enforcement would be unreasonable or fundamentally unfair.

Authorities

1M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972) (opens the source in a new tab)Forum-selection clauses are presumptively valid.
2Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991) (opens the source in a new tab)That holds for form contracts no one negotiated.
3Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (opens the source in a new tab)A valid clause gets controlling weight on transfer.

Then check its citations before it goes out.

Our sources

Where the law comes from.

Your citation
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483
CourtListener & RECAP
court opinions (opens in a new tab) & federal filings (opens in a new tab)
Trusted sources
GovInfo (opens in a new tab), U.S. Code (opens in a new tab), eCFR (opens in a new tab), Justia (opens in a new tab), Cornell LII (opens in a new tab)
The internet at large
Last resort only

Try it now

See it on a real motion.

A live report on a real filing. No login, no upload.

Built from Google LLC's Motion to Dismiss in Thele & Porter v. Google LLC (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-09704-NW)

groundtruth.law/demo

Open full screen

Loading the live demo…

FAQ

Questions, answered

What people ask before their first upload.

You rely on the passage, not the AI. GroundTruth pulls the actual opinion or statute and puts the cited passage next to the claim. The AI's read is a pointer; the source text is the proof. You choose the verdict, and that's what the verification log records.

01How can I rely on AI to check AI?

You rely on the passage, not the AI. GroundTruth pulls the actual opinion or statute and puts the cited passage next to the claim. The AI's read is a pointer; the source text is the proof. You choose the verdict, and that's what the verification log records.

02Where do you get your case law, statutes, and articles?

From public databases and the wider internet. Safeguards help ensure each fetched document is the right one and complete and clean, so the passage you review is faithful to the original.

03How accurate is the verification?

The AI's assessment is a starting point, not a conclusion. With the passage beside the claim, most cites confirm in seconds, and you slow down only on the ones that need a closer look.

04What about wrong sources or claims the source doesn't support?

That's the harder half of the problem, and what we're built to catch. You read the passage beside the claim and confirm whether the source really supports it.

05Can I use GroundTruth for legal research for memos?

Yes, alongside citation verification. Review the sources and analysis before relying on a memo; it supports your judgment, it doesn't replace it.

06What file types do you support?

PDF or DOCX: briefs, motions, memos, opinions, demand letters. We read body text, footnotes and hyperlinks, including short forms, Id., supra and pin cites.

07Is my data secure?

Your document text is never used to train AI. Our AI provider, Fireworks AI, runs with zero data retention, so it doesn't keep your prompts or outputs, and the services that fetch sources only see public URLs, never your document. More in our privacy policy and terms of service.

08How many citations can it handle — and how long does it take?

Every citation, even hundreds. Most runs finish within about 15 minutes, and results stream in as sources are fetched in parallel, so you can start reviewing right away.

09Does it cost anything?

It's free to try, no credit card required. For higher volume, ask us about plans for firms and teams.

10Can I share a report with my team?

Yes. Matters are sharable, with reviewer notes beside each finding so co-counsel has the full context.

Security & privacy

Your briefs stay yours.

Never used to train AI
Not by us or our AI provider.
Zero retention
Our AI provider doesn't keep your brief.
Encrypted
In transit and at rest.
Yours to delete
Anytime. Purged within 30 days.

Pricing

Simple, transparent pricing

End-of-year special: $20 per user, per month through Dec 31, 2026.

Per user · billed monthlyEnd-of-year special · through Dec 31, 2026

$20$100/user · mo

First 2 documents free

Cancel anytime. No long-term contract.

No credit card required

Or try it now — no login

Every plan includes

Every citation in the filing verified
Source passage placed next to each claim
Sharable matters with reviewer notes
PDF & DOCX briefs, motions, and memos

Team & enterprise discounts

Talk to us about volume pricing →

Research the law.Check the cites.

What practitioners are saying

The lawyer makes the call.

Read the claim

Read the passage

Make the call

For lawyers — and any professional who cites sources.

See it work in 90 seconds.

Every citation, read against its source.

A fake citation costs you.

Sanctions for fake citations

Couvrette v. Wisnovsky

ByoPlanet Int'l v. Johansson

Whiting v. City of Athens

Noland v. Land of the Free

From a legal question to a first-draft memo.

Where the law comes from.

Your citation

CourtListener & RECAP

Trusted sources

The internet at large

See it on a real motion.

Questions, answered

Your briefs stay yours.

Never used to train AI

Zero retention

Encrypted

Yours to delete

Simple, transparent pricing

Verify now.