Why it is free
01/The market
The claims industry lives in the gap between what a statute says you are owed and how hard it is to find out. Closing that gap is the whole service, and it is priced as a share of your money — up to 50% of the award on published terms once a claim goes legal.
Figures on the right are what each service keeps from a 1,000-unit recovery, in whatever currency the claim is denominated in — arithmetic on their published rate, so rates that apply to different kinds of claim are still comparable at a glance.
Flight delay, cancellation and denied boarding
35%
Telecom, banking and consumer arbitration
20%
Property tax assessment appeals
25%
A general-purpose consumer complaint assistant
subscription
Every claim type in the catalogue, worldwide
0%
There is nothing to take a percentage of, because nothing is recovered on your behalf. You get the rule, the figure, the reasoning, the deadline and the letter, and you send the letter yourself. Whatever arrives, arrives to you.
02/The argument
Door one
Becomes a claims-management company
Taking a share of a recovery is the definition of claims management — a regulated category in the United Kingdom and increasingly elsewhere, carrying authorisation, conduct and complaints obligations. It is also the moment the product acquires an interest in the size of your award that is not identical to yours.
Door two
Walks toward the unauthorised practice of law
Selling static legal forms is generally fine. Preparing and sending a demand letter on somebody else’s behalf has been held in several jurisdictions to be the practice of law, and the rules vary state by state in the United States. There is no send endpoint here, and that omission is the reason the tool can be offered in every jurisdiction at once.
Door three
Is the conduct the FTC penalised in January 2025
The Federal Trade Commission charged DoNotPay over its “world’s first robot lawyer” marketing. The final order, approved 5–0 on 16 January 2025, required $193,000 in monetary relief, notice to 2021–2023 subscribers, and barred claims of lawyer-equivalence unsupported by evidence. No claim of lawyer-equivalence appears anywhere in this product, in any language, and the build fails on outcome-promising copy.
None of this says the agencies are doing something wrong. A 35% fee on a claim somebody would otherwise never have made is 65% more than they had. The point is narrower: the fee exists because finding the rule is hard, and finding the rule only has to be done once. Once it is done and given away, the fee is charging for a difficulty that no longer exists.
So the whole catalogue — the rules, the citations, the letter templates, the API and this page — is AGPL-3.0-or-later and published at source. If this project stops, the work does not have to be redone.
03/Sustainability
Today, nothing. It is a rules engine and a static site; the expensive part was reading the law, and that is already paid for and already given away.
If it ever needs to earn, the constraint is the same one that shapes everything else: anything charged for must be priced independently of your outcome. Certified postage where your own letter is printed and mailed unaltered. A reminder service for follow-up dates. A supported API tier for an organisation that wants one. Never a share of an award, never a fee that is larger because you recovered more, and never a subscription you have to remember to cancel.
A user who recovers €600 keeps €600. That sentence is load-bearing: the moment it stops being true, the regulatory position on this page stops being true with it.
04/Commitments
A contingency or success fee.
Sending on your behalf.
Suppressing the disclaimer.
Claiming lawyer-equivalence.
Storing your claim server-side without asking.
Stating an unverified figure with confidence.