every ftc case against an ai vendor comes down to one question: did you test the capability you sold. most of them could not answer it.

operation ai comply runs on a standard that is lower than it sounds: a company claiming an ai capability has to have tested that capability and kept the results. in the donotpay matter the ftc alleged the product was never tested against the work of a real lawyer, which is the entire case in one sentence. the condition on your side of the table is that ai purchases get decided on a demo and a reference call, both supplied by the seller, so the only evidence in the room is the evidence they chose to bring. the cost is not the licence fee, it is eight months of a live process running on output nobody measured, plus the rework when someone finally checks.

the fake fix is a longer diligence questionnaire, which mostly produces marketing copy arranged in a spreadsheet. run the regulator's question instead: before you sign, ask for the test they ran, the sample it ran on, the failure rate it produced, and the name of the person who signed off. a vendor holding that answer sends it the same day, and a vendor who stalls has told you what you needed to know for free.