The hallucination rate Stanford RegLab measured in leading legal AI tools: invented citations, fictional provisions, blended jurisdictions. In legal work, one fabricated citation can sink a filing.
A legal AI grounded in retrieved law. Every answer is cited to a source you can open. We never invent citations; every reference traces back to a source in your results.
A regulatory analysis that used to take half a day now takes five minutes. That's not just efficiency, it's capacity. Our users consistently report taking on clients and matters they previously had to turn away.
Whether you're a solo practitioner or a 50-person compliance team, eulaw.ai removes the bottleneck of manual research so you can focus on advising, drafting, and closing.
Ask a question in natural language, get a structured legal answer in seconds, with citations to the exact paragraphs, articles, and court rulings that support it. No more digging through EUR-Lex, Retsinformation, or Curia manually.
Cross-reference regulations, directives, and case law from 530+ verified European sources, across jurisdictions, instantly. What used to require a junior associate and three databases now takes one query.
Our proprietary Nova Lexical Distillation Inference engine doesn't just find documents, it pinpoints the exact clause, paragraph, article, or section that answers your question. Every response links directly to the source so you can verify it yourself.
Click through to the legislation. Check the paragraph number. Share the citation with your client. No fabricated case numbers, no blended jurisdictions, no fictional provisions. If it's not in the database, we don't cite it.
Rather than assert it, we measured it. 345 legal questions across Danish and EU law, each with a verifiable correct answer from official sources. These four are the measures a model without a legal database could still win, so they are the fair comparison. Higher is better in every row.
| Measure | eulaw.ai | GPT-5.6 | Claude Sonnet 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acts it named that actually exist | 82% | 15% | declined |
| Multi-turn conversations handled correctly | 96% | 71% | 73% |
| Still correct 100 turns into a conversation | 75% | 34% | 0% |
| Legal substance, judged on the facts stated | 69% | 66% | 59% |
The first row is the one that matters most. Asked which acts had amended a given law, GPT-5.6 named 59 acts that do not exist. Claude declined the question rather than answer it, which is safer but no more useful. Across the whole set, 9 out of 10 eulaw.ai answers cite the exact act asked about, and none answer without a source.
Read the full benchmark, with every chart and all 345 questions
Measured August 2026 over 345 questions. GPT-5.6 and Claude Sonnet 5 were tested through their APIs without a legal database, web search or retrieval. That is not how a lawyer uses either product, and we will publish a second comparison against the consumer apps with search enabled. We have left out the measures a bare model cannot win by definition, such as naming acts passed after its training cutoff, where the gap is far wider and far less meaningful.
eulaw.ai is built for organisations that answer to regulators. Fully GDPR compliant, hosted entirely within the EU, and no calls to public AI APIs. Your queries never leave European infrastructure.
We run large language models on EU-managed cloud infrastructure. Your data is never used for model training, never shared with third parties, and permanently deleted when you say so.
Free to start. No credit card required. See why legal professionals across Europe are switching.