Product and intended use
Define the configuration, people, information and tasks being assessed.
AU SaaS plans
Public claim only
This profile covers the Australian Mary SaaS (au.marytechnology.com) used to build a matter factual record, chronologies and related work product. Enterprise terms, MCP to third-party assistants, and any non-AU site should be reviewed separately. Some accounts may have a separate Software Licensing Agreement that amends the website Terms.
Ask: Confirm we are on the AU tenancy, which plan (Start/Growth/Business/Enterprise), whether MCP is enabled, and whether a signed SLA replaces the website Terms.
Australian SaaS
Public claim only
The product is offered as a web SaaS with an Australian login host. Privacy policy names Microsoft Azure as the LLM provider and 'tenanted AI services'. The Azure region is not named on the security page. On-premises is not offered on the pages reviewed.
Ask: Which Azure region stores documents, prompts, outputs and backups for the AU tenancy?
Factual record, chronology, MCP
Public claim only
Mary reads matter documents and builds a factual record showing what was processed, unused, unprocessed, contradicted or missing. Timelines, issue analysis and financial analysis are described as built from that record. MCP exposes the record to Claude and ChatGPT (Copilot and Harvey coming soon).
Ask: Which workflows (chronology, gap analysis, drafting, financial analysis, MCP) will be enabled, and which remain beta?
Australian operator and APP wording
Public claim only
DEA Technology Pty Ltd operates from Sydney. Terms: service intended for residents of Australia; NSW law and courts. Privacy policy cites APPs 12 and 13 and OAIC complaints, and states personal information will not be disclosed outside Australia unless the individual expressly requests. Azure LLM processing location is not reconciled with that sentence.
Ask: Does Azure inference for our AU tenancy occur in Australia, and if not, how does that sit with the privacy policy's overseas-disclosure wording?
Data, controls and requirements
Compare the actual configuration with firm, client and jurisdiction requirements, supported by evidence.
Australian firms and client consent
Not confirmed
Mary holds confidential matter documents. Several Australian firms are shown as logos. MCP can send the factual record into Claude or ChatGPT, which is a further disclosure. No per-client AI exclusion control was documented.
Ask: Can we disable MCP and exports per matter, and what Azure-region description can we give clients?
Microsoft Azure LLMs
Public claim only
The privacy policy states Mary uses LLMs provided by Microsoft Azure and 'tenanted AI services' so client information is isolated and not used for model training without explicit consent. The Azure model family and region are not named. MCP adds Claude and ChatGPT as separate processors if enabled.
Ask: Which Azure OpenAI (or other) models and regions process our tenancy, and are MCP providers in the signed chain?
No published subprocessor list
Not confirmed
Azure is named as the LLM provider. Actionstep and MCP tools are optional. No dated subprocessor schedule, notice period or objection right was found. Vanta trust centre is linked but was not inspected in this review.
Ask: Provide the current subprocessor list (Azure, Actionstep, MCP hosts, hosting, support) with countries and 30-day notice/objection rights.
No training on customer content
Public claim only
Security page: customer data including uploaded documents, matter content, prompts and outputs is never used to train AI models. Terms clause 19 and the privacy policy repeat tenanted Azure services and no external use for model training without explicit consent.
Ask: Confirm the signed clause covers embeddings, logs and MCP-shared record content, and that Azure's terms match (no training, defined retention).
Consent carve-out for training
Public claim only
Privacy policy says client data is not used for model training or development without explicit consent. That implies a consent path could enable training. No description of in-product feedback buttons was found.
Ask: Is there any feedback, evaluation or 'improve Mary' use of our content, and is it off unless we consent in writing?
Retention 'as long as necessary'
Public claim only
Security page: data is retained only as long as necessary and securely purged in accordance with best practices and legal requirements. No day count for prompts, outputs, Azure abuse-monitoring or backups is published.
Ask: Provide a numbered retention schedule for documents, the factual record, prompts, outputs, logs and Azure copies, including administrator deletion.
Purge claimed; no certificate
Not confirmed
Security page refers to secure purge. Privacy policy points to encryption and removal requests. Terms do not state a post-termination deletion period or certificate. Termination is by 7 days' notice and account closure.
Ask: On termination or matter close, what is deleted from Mary and Azure, within how many days, with what certificate?
Authorised personnel access
Public claim only
Privacy policy: access to client data is limited to authorised personnel directly involved in the document-generation process. Security page: background checks, access reviews, MDM. Terms: tenanted services so confidential information is not accessible for model training or by unauthorised personnel. No customer-visible access log was described.
Ask: Is support access per-ticket with our approval, logged to us, and will you notify us of legal process seeking matter content?
SSO not documented
Not confirmed
AU login exists. Access-control language is general. SAML/SCIM, matter ethical walls and MFA enforcement were not specified on the security page. MCP expands who can read the record.
Ask: Do you support SAML/OIDC SSO, MFA enforcement and matter-level permissions, including for MCP users?
Encryption claimed without algorithms
Public claim only
Security page: client data is encrypted throughout its lifecycle; annual penetration tests and continuous vulnerability assessments. Algorithms, TLS version and CMK were not stated.
Ask: Confirm TLS 1.2+ and AES-256 (or equivalent) in transit and at rest, including Azure and backups, and whether CMK is available.
Vanta trust centre; badges not transcribed
Public claim only
Security page links an Australian Vanta trust centre and refers to internationally recognised controls and independently tested safeguards. The badge image was not transcribed into named SOC 2 or ISO certificates in the scrape. Reports were not downloaded.
Ask: Which current SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 reports cover Mary AU, and do they include Azure generative features?
Website Terms; NSW law; narrow liability
Public claim only
Public Terms bind use of the website and Mary unless a Software Licensing Agreement amends them. NSW law and exclusive NSW courts; mediation in Sydney. Total liability 'will not exceed the resupply of the Services'. Outputs must be reviewed by a qualified legal professional. No separate public DPA. IP in the platform is reserved to DEA Technology; customer ownership of outputs is not clearly assigned.
Ask: Will Enterprise sign a DPA with APP flow-down, output ownership, a meaningful liability cap for confidentiality/data breach, and confirm the website Terms do not control?
APP overseas-disclosure wording versus Azure
Not confirmed
Privacy policy section 8: personal information will not be disclosed to recipients outside Australia unless you expressly request. The same policy names Microsoft Azure LLMs. Azure processing may be outside Australia depending on region. MCP to Claude/ChatGPT would be a further overseas disclosure if those tools are US-hosted.
Ask: Name every country of storage and inference for our AU tenancy, including Azure and any MCP provider, in writing.
Breach process pointed to privacy policy
Not confirmed
Terms say the privacy policy addresses processes for Mary security breaches. The scraped privacy policy does not state a numbered notification period or NDB cooperation clause.
Ask: Within how many hours of discovering a suspected incident affecting our matter data will you notify us, and will you support an NDB assessment?
Terms change on publication
Public claim only
Terms may be updated by publishing on the website, with reasonable endeavours to notify; changes take immediate effect. Subscription fees may change from the next period. MCP providers (Copilot, Harvey) are listed as coming soon.
Ask: Will Enterprise freeze terms during the term, and notify us before adding MCP providers or changing Azure models/regions?
7-day termination; export not specified
Not confirmed
A member may terminate with 7 days' notice, by not renewing, and by closing accounts. No bulk-export format, post-termination window or deletion certificate is in the public Terms.
Ask: How do we export the factual record, chronologies, source links and audit logs on exit, and when is remaining data deleted from Mary and Azure?
Actionstep and MCP
Not confirmed
Actionstep import requires an administrator to grant Mary access to firm files. MCP lets Claude and ChatGPT work from the Mary record. Each is a disclosure of matter facts to another system.
Ask: What Actionstep scopes are requested, what does MCP send to Claude/ChatGPT, and how do we disable both without a ticket?
Record built from uploaded matter files
Public claim only
Mary is described as reading the matter's documents and accounting for what was processed versus missing. Open-web search as a Mary feature was not found. MCP-connected ChatGPT or Claude may have their own web tools.
Ask: Confirm Mary does not call the open web on our matters, and how MCP assistants are blocked from web search using our record.
MCP actions in third-party tools
Not confirmed
MCP lets lawyers invoke Mary from Claude or ChatGPT. What those tools may do with the record (copy out, email, browse) depends on the assistant, not only on Mary. In-app, Mary writes the factual record as it processes documents.
Ask: Which MCP tools are read-only versus able to export or modify the record, and how do we freeze MCP immediately?
Checkable record; contractual review duty
Public claim only
The product is designed so every entry shows whether it is supported, contradicted or unconfirmed and can be opened to the source. Terms clause 11(d): all outputs must be reviewed and approved by a qualified legal professional before any action; Mary is not a substitute for legal advice and accuracy is not guaranteed.
Ask: Can we require named sign-off before a chronology or analysis leaves Mary, with an export of who verified which entries?
