When law enforcement requests evidence of a content moderation decision, the platform needs a chain of custody — not a content policy.
Social and UGC platforms deploy AI for moderator assistance, community guideline drafting, high-risk content decision explanations, and policy rollout communications. CSAM reporting obligations (18 USC 2258A) are absolute. EU Digital Services Act requires transparency for AI content moderation. State age-verification laws are proliferating. FOSTA-SESTA creates platform liability for AI-facilitated exploitation. International frameworks (UK Online Safety Act, Australia Online Safety Act) add cross- border requirements. When law enforcement requests evidence of a content moderation decision involving child safety or exploitation, the platform must produce a forensic evidentiary chain — not a policy description.
What Ontic Does Here
Ontic's Refinery enforces high-risk content decision explanations with auditable, forensic-grade governance. The Clean Room produces evidentiary chains for law enforcement and regulators and cross-platform incident dossiers with full chain of custody. Every AI-assisted moderation decision on high-risk content generates evidence that meets law enforcement evidentiary standards — not internal reporting standards.
Recommended Deployment
Studio
Assists judgment
- •Moderator assist tools
- •Community guideline drafting
Refinery
Enforces authority
- •High-risk content decision explanations
- •Policy rollout and notification copy
Clean Room
Enforces defensibility
★ Start here
- •Evidentiary chains for law enforcement and regulators
- •Cross-platform incident dossiers
Expansion path: clean_room (primary) | refinery for community guidelines governance
Regulatory Context
CSAM reporting (18 USC 2258A) imposes absolute reporting obligations for AI-detected child exploitation content. Section 230 protections are under reconsideration for AI content moderation decisions. EU Digital Services Act requires transparency and risk assessment for AI content systems. State age-verification laws create jurisdiction-specific obligations. FOSTA-SESTA creates platform liability. UK Online Safety Act and Australia Online Safety Act add international requirements.
Applicable Frameworks
Common Objections
"Our trust and safety team handles content moderation. AI assists — it doesn't decide."
Law enforcement does not distinguish between the AI's recommendation and the human's acceptance of it. If the AI flagged or failed to flag content, and the moderator acted on the AI's recommendation, the evidentiary chain includes both. Ontic documents the AI's contribution so the moderator's decision is forensically defensible.
Evidence
- →CSAM reporting obligations are absolute and non-negotiable
- →EU Digital Services Act enforcement active with significant penalties
- →State age-verification laws proliferating
- →Cross-border content moderation governance is fragmenting by jurisdiction
Questions to Consider
- ?Can the platform produce forensic-grade evidence for any AI-assisted content moderation decision?
- ?If law enforcement requested the evidentiary chain for a CSAM-related moderation decision, what evidence exists?
- ?Is the platform prepared for EU DSA systemic risk assessment requirements for AI content moderation?
Primary Buyer
VP Trust & Safety / General Counsel / Chief Product Officer
Deal Size
Enterprise ($150K+ ACV)
Implementation
High — Months with dedicated team
Start With
Clean Room
Ready to see how Ontic works for social & ugc?