Legal position

Not a law firm. Not your agent.

This page is not fine print. It is the shape of the product: every one of these constraints is the reason something else about Duesday works the way it does.

Legal advice: No
Agency relationship: None
Outcome promised: None
Fee taken from a recovery: 0%

01/The disclaimer

In full, and unconditionally.

Rendered here from the same constant that every generated document reads, so this page and your letter say literally the same words.

Duesday is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. This document is an editable template assembled from publicly available law. You are responsible for checking that the facts and the law stated are correct for your situation, and you send it yourself in your own name. Nothing here creates a solicitor–client or attorney–client relationship, and no outcome is promised.

Duesday · legal disclaimer

On every generated document: The letter builder appends it when the document is finished. There is deliberately no flag to suppress it.; always
On every screen that generates one: Before you produce a document, not after.; always
On every API response that renders one: Integrations must not strip it. It is a condition of the licence and of the framing that keeps the tool lawful.; always
Short form, where a screen has no room: Not a law firm. Not legal advice. You send it yourself.; links to the full text

02/Unpacked

What each sentence actually means.

Stated with what it costs you as well as what it protects, because a disclaimer that only lists its own advantages is not a disclaimer.

It is not a law firm.

In practice

Nobody here is admitted to practise in your jurisdiction, no bar or law society regulates this, there is no client account and there is no retainer. It is software that reads published law and shows you what it says.

What it costs you

No legal professional privilege attaches to anything you type here, and there is no professional indemnity insurance standing behind the figure. If your claim is large, contested or bound up with something else, that is a reason to take this output to a lawyer rather than instead of one.

It does not give legal advice.

In practice

There is a real distinction between information about the law — this regulation says this, this section provides that, this case decided the other — and advice about your situation, which is a judgement about what you specifically should do. Everything here is the first kind, and every statement of it is pinned to the instrument it was read from so you can check it against the source.

What it costs you

The engine will not tell you whether to claim, whether to accept an offer, or whether the counterparty’s excuse is true. It tells you what the rule provides for on the facts you entered, and which facts it could not verify.

It is not your agent.

In practice

No document is ever sent for you. There is no outbound email, no fax gateway, no integration that submits an airline’s web form, and no address book of counterparties we write to. This is enforced by omission rather than by policy: there is no send endpoint in the API to misuse.

What it costs you

You have to do the last step — print it, sign it, post or email it, and keep proof of sending. That is the step that keeps this lawful, and it is also the step that keeps the claim yours.

No outcome is promised.

In practice

A figure is what a regime provides for on the facts as entered. Whether you actually recover it turns on things no software can verify — whether the delay really was four hours, whether the carrier can make out a defence, whether the landlord is solvent.

What it costs you

You will not find the words “we will recover” or “guaranteed” anywhere in this product, in any language. The conformance suite greps every rule module’s user-facing prose for outcome-promising language and fails the build on a match, because copy discipline that lives only in a style guide erodes.

03/The line

Why you send it yourself.

The single most common question about this product, answered without hedging.

Selling static legal forms is generally lawful. Personalised legal advice is not, unless you are admitted to practise. Interactive document assembly sits between the two, and that middle ground is where this product lives.

LegalZoom faced unauthorised-practice suits over “custom-tailored” document assembly before several US states — Texas and North Carolina among them — legislated a carve-out for interactive legal-document software, provided there is a clear and conspicuous disclaimer that it is not a substitute for a lawyer. That condition is why the disclaimer above is unconditional and why there is no flag anywhere in the codebase to turn it off.

The other half of the line is agency. In several jurisdictions, preparing and sending a demand on somebody else’s behalf has been held to be the practice of law — the sending is what turns a form into representation. So the product has no outbound channel at all. Not a disabled one, not a paid upgrade: there is no send endpoint in the API, and adding one is recorded in the architecture notes as a thing that must never be added.

Why this is not timidity

A product that acts as your agent has to be authorised, and authorisation is jurisdictional. One that hands you a document you send yourself does not — so it can work in Nigeria and Indonesia and every US state on the same day, rather than in the four markets where the licensing was worth buying.

That is the trade, stated plainly: you do the last step, and in exchange the tool covers regimes that no commercial claims agency will ever bother with, because a passenger delayed out of Lagos is not a market. It also means the claim never leaves your hands, which is the reason nobody can take a percentage of it.

04/The other two risks

Deception, and taking a cut.

Every consumer-claims business that has got into trouble has done so in one of three ways. The third is above.

In September 2024 the US Federal Trade Commission charged DoNotPay over its “world’s first robot lawyer” claims. The final order, approved 5–0 on 16 January 2025, required $193,000 in monetary relief, notification of 2021–2023 subscribers, and a bar on claiming lawyer-equivalence without evidence.

No claim of lawyer-equivalence appears here, including the softer forms of it — “like having a lawyer in your pocket”, “legal-grade”, “attorney-reviewed” where nothing has been. Confidence ratings are published, low-confidence figures are hidden by default and always carry a verify-before-relying warning, and there is no subscription and nothing to cancel.

Taking a percentage of a recovery is what makes a business a claims-management company: a regulated category in the UK and increasingly elsewhere, with authorisation, conduct and complaints obligations attached. This never takes a cut — not a contingency fee, not a success fee, not a finder’s fee. Why that is structural rather than generous is its own page.

05/Accuracy

Being confidently wrong is the worst thing it could do.

Worse than being incomplete, and the whole sourcing regime follows from that ranking.

Missing a regime costs somebody money they never knew about. Stating a wrong figure confidently sends them into a fight they lose, having relied on us. The second is much worse, so the design prefers an honest gap to a plausible guess everywhere it can.

Where a regime cannot be verified from a primary source, the product ships the regulator, the route and a plain statement that the amount could not be confirmed — rather than a number that looks right. Advocacy and modelled figures are flagged as estimates and never stated as fact; the €3.2bn unclaimed-compensation figure and the $70bn US unclaimed-property figure are association estimates, not audited totals, and are labelled as such wherever they appear.

Every rule carries the date it was last reviewed and the validator warns once that date passes a year. How the confidence tiers work is set out with the rest of the engine.

06/Still open

What has not been done yet.

Published because a legal position with no open items is a legal position nobody has actually looked at.

A UPL review in the launch jurisdictions: Unauthorised-practice rules vary state by state in the United States. A qualified review before offering letter generation at scale is recommended and has not yet happened.; outstanding
Re-verification of the competitor fee data: Published rates move. Every figure on the economics page carries the date it was last checked, and those dates are visible precisely so a stale one is obvious.; rolling
The current Montreal Convention SDR limit: Revised periodically; it stood at 1,519 SDR from 28 December 2024 and needs confirming against the depositary before being relied on.; 1 519 SDR
The US DOT automatic-refund rule: Several 2024–2025 consumer regulations are being challenged or rolled back — the FTC’s click-to-cancel rule was vacated days before it took effect. Anything in flux is monitored rather than assumed.; monitored

None of these change what the product does today. They are the things that would have to be settled before it was offered at scale in a given market, and they are listed here rather than in a private document because the same honesty rule that governs a low-confidence rule ought to govern this page.

Read it, then use it.

Questions about any of this go to hello@duesday.sohamaggarwal.com.

Start a claim How your data is handled