Are screenshots admissible in court as evidence?

Sometimes, with the right authentication. The proponent has to produce enough evidence to support a finding that the screenshot is what the proponent claims it is. A native phone screenshot has no integrity mechanism (no SHA-256 hash, no qualified timestamp, no chain of custody), which makes it vulnerable to authentication challenges. A capture sealed with a cryptographic hash, a signature and a timestamp, accompanied by a signed declaration from the person who made it, is what lets a court find that the record is what the proponent claims it is. In US federal court that is the FRE 902(13)/(14) route. Admissibility is ultimately decided by the court on a case-by-case basis.

How do I authenticate social media evidence (Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok) for court?

Authenticating social media evidence takes two things: circumstantial support for who authored the item, and proof that the item itself has not changed. Best practice in 2026: (1) capture the post, the surrounding profile and any reposts as a single forensic bundle, so the bundle itself carries the circumstantial support for authorship; (2) seal the capture with a SHA-256 hash + RSA-4096 signature + Bitcoin OpenTimestamps anchor at the moment of capture, eliminating Rossbach-style fabrication challenges; (3) capture HTTP/TLS metadata to rebut spoofing defenses; (4) have the person who made the capture sign a declaration that references the manifest, signature and OpenTimestamps proof (in a US matter, the FRE 902(13)/(14) route). ProofSnap's Chrome/Edge extension automates steps 1-3 in under a minute per capture.

What is FRE 902(13) and FRE 902(14)?

Two categories of self-authenticating evidence added to Federal Rule of Evidence 902 on December 1, 2017: 902(13) for certified records generated by an electronic process or system, 902(14) for certified data copied from a device, storage medium or file and authenticated by digital identification, in practice a hash.

What is the best evidence preservation software for lawyers in 2026?

The dominant evidence-preservation tools for civil-litigation attorneys in 2026 are Page Vault, Hanzo, X1 Social Discovery, and ProofSnap. The right choice depends on volume, deployment model, and EU exposure. • Page Vault: mature browser-based capture, subscription pricing, SHA-256 hashing, no Bitcoin or eIDAS anchoring. • Hanzo: enterprise-scale dynamic-content archiving with AI-assisted review; long deployment runway. • X1 Social Discovery: Windows desktop tool for mass enterprise collection; thousands per seat per year; has weathered past changes to social platform interfaces. • ProofSnap: Chrome/Edge extension at $18.99 per seat per month (Company Plan, minimum 2 seats), adds Bitcoin OpenTimestamps and (Enterprise tier) eIDAS qualified timestamps, plus a $4.99 client-side SnapPack for pre-retainer captures by the client. Best fit for a 2- to 25-attorney plaintiffs' firm: ProofSnap. Best fit for a corporate-investigations team collecting at enterprise scale: X1 or Hanzo. See the comparison table.

Is ProofSnap a substitute for a notary, expert witness, or legal advice?

No. ProofSnap is a digital evidence preservation tool, not a legal service. It does not provide legal advice, replace a notary act, or guarantee admissibility; admissibility is decided by the court on a case-by-case basis. ProofSnap strengthens the technical foundation for authentication; the attorney still authors the certification that Rule 902(13)/(14) requires, and any motions in limine. For high-stakes matters, you may still retain a forensic expert, and their starting foundation is the ProofSnap ZIP, which shortens the engagement. Before you retain anyone, it is worth reading where the Daubert line falls for digital evidence, because most web exhibits are authenticated without an expert at all.

How is ProofSnap different from Everlaw, Relativity, or Logikcull?

Complementary, not competing. Relativity, Everlaw, Logikcull, Filevine, and CaseMap handle e-discovery at scale, review, privilege, and production for documents already in your possession. ProofSnap handles the capture moment: the instant a live web page, social media post, marketplace listing, or behind-login dashboard needs to be preserved before it changes or disappears. ZIP outputs ingest cleanly into Relativity / Everlaw / Logikcull for Bates stamping and production. Think of it as the front-end capture tool that feeds your existing e-discovery stack.

Can you capture content that is behind login (private groups, DMs, dashboards)?

Yes. ProofSnap is a Chrome/Edge desktop browser extension that captures exactly what the authenticated browser session is showing: public posts, private profiles, group content, direct messages, marketplace dashboards, account-state pages, internal admin views. Authentication is the user's own session; ProofSnap does not bypass logins, scrape, or store credentials. This is one of the most common reasons firms move from native screenshots to ProofSnap: private-group and DM content that screenshot tools cannot authenticate.

Can my client capture evidence before retaining me?

Yes, and this is the most common pattern in fast-moving matters. The client purchases SnapPack ($4.99 one-time, 10 forensic captures) directly on getproofsnap.com, captures the postings during the first hour after the incident, and emails you the ZIPs before the retainer is signed. Same forensic ZIP structure your firm would produce; no firm subscription required. Particularly useful for NCII, defamation, fraud, and breach-of-contract matters where the content may be deleted before counsel is engaged.

E-discovery production: native format, Bates stamping and DMS integration?

Dual-track. Native: produce the ZIP itself as an atomic exhibit; manifest.json + evidence.pdf provide a human-readable index. Bates-stamped TIFF/PDF: evidence.pdf is the standard-format exhibit your litigation-support team Bates-stamps (Relativity / Everlaw / Logikcull auto-Bates on ingestion); companion files (metadata.json, forensic_log.json, manifest.json.ots) are produced with sub-Bates numbers (e.g., PS000123.001). Concordance / Summation / LEF load files can be generated from the ZIP. ZIPs aggregate in your own DMS (Clio, iManage, NetDocuments).

Do I need eIDAS qualified timestamps for a US case?

Almost never for US-only matters. Under FRE 902(13) the operative requirement is a certification by a qualified person; an OpenTimestamps anchor supports it but does not replace it. eIDAS qualified timestamps (EU Regulation 910/2014 Article 41) carry the presumption of accuracy of date, time and data integrity under Article 41(2), valuable for cross-border matters (EU-domiciled defendant, foreign platform, DSA takedown proceeding, GDPR action). Company Plan includes 5 eIDAS qualified timestamps per user per month; Enterprise ($28.99 per month) includes 10 eIDAS qualified timestamps per month.

What if the content has already been deleted before I capture?

ProofSnap captures live content; it cannot retrieve content that is already gone. For deleted content: (1) the client's existing screenshots can be wrapped in a SHA-256 + OpenTimestamps envelope via ProofSnap's File Certification feature. This establishes that the file has not been modified since certification, but it does not retroactively prove the original content was authentic; (2) issue platform preservation letters and subpoenas; (3) check the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine; (4) for NCII, check StopNCII; for DMCA, check the Lumen database. Best practice in any matter: capture with ProofSnap the moment the matter is opened, before any takedown demand alerts the poster.

How long does the evidence stay verifiable?

Designed to remain verifiable indefinitely. The TSA certificate chain and a frozen snapshot of the EU Trusted List are bundled inside the ZIP, so eIDAS verification works offline even years later. The Bitcoin OpenTimestamps anchor is preserved by the entire Bitcoin network, independent of ProofSnap's continued existence. NIST Special Publication 800-131A Rev. 2 treats RSA at 3072 or 4096 bits with SHA-256 as acceptable through 2030 and recommends it beyond 2031. The algorithms sealing the package are the ones NIST expects to hold up long after the matter closes. Verification requires only three standard open-source tools: python3, openssl and the ots client.

For civil-litigation attorneys · US · UK · CA · AU · EU

Your client's screenshots won't survive court. Yours will.

A browser extension for your firm and your clients. Every ZIP carries SHA-256, RSA-4096 and Bitcoin OpenTimestamps: the authentication foundation a fabrication challenge cannot dismantle. Screenshot authenticity challenges are routine now; a hash, a signature and an independent timestamp are what answer them.

Start the 7-day free trial See what is in the package

Download a sample ZIP · Firm pricing from $18.99 per seat

Chrome Web Store verified Microsoft Edge Runs locally, nothing leaves your machine Hash, signature and timestamp at capture

ProofSnap Chrome extension for attorneys, capture web evidence as sealed ZIP packages with SHA-256, RSA-4096, and Bitcoin OpenTimestamps

ProofSnap is a Chrome and Edge extension that captures web pages, social posts and behind-login dashboards as sealed evidence packages. Every file is SHA-256 hashed, the manifest RSA-4096 signed and anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain, and each package ships with a declaration for the certifying person to sign. As of 2026, firms start at $18.99 per seat per month.

What changes for the firm is who carries the burden. An uncorroborated screenshot leaves the attorney establishing the exhibit's authenticity from scratch, and the other side only has to raise doubt. A capture sealed at capture with a hash, a signature and an independent timestamp leaves the other side arguing against arithmetic anyone can rerun.

Used by plaintiffs' attorneys and defense counsel in defamation, IP, employment, family law, NCII, breach of contract, and regulatory matters. Minimum 2 seats. The 7-day free trial requires a credit card.

Radim Motycka, founder and lead engineer of ProofSnap · Last updated: September 1, 2026 · Verify any package yourself in the Trust Verifier

For your firm

Partners, associates and paralegals capture during intake and discovery.
Sealed at capture, with a declaration your certifying person completes and signs.
Firm-wide Company Plan at $18.99 per seat per month, minimum 2 seats.

For your clients

The client buys SnapPack for $4.99, captures 10 items and emails you the ZIPs.
Evidence arrives before the retainer is signed or the content is taken down.
The same forensic ZIP structure as firm-captured evidence.

Or we do it for you

You send a link or the files. We send back the sealed package.

This is for the matter where nobody at the firm should end up as the authenticating witness, or where the page has to be preserved today and there is no time to roll out an extension. You send a public URL or the files you already hold, we run the same forensic pipeline and return the sealed, timestamped ZIP plus a separate declaration completed with every technical fact of the capture. Because we run the capture, your paralegal never becomes the authenticating witness.

We capture a web page Any public URL, from $44.99 WhatsApp chat export Line-numbered court transcript, $59.99 Telegram chat export Line-numbered court transcript, $59.99 Signal chat export Line-numbered court transcript, $59.99 Email thread Headers and attachments certified, $59.99 YouTube video with comments Video, watch page and 902 declaration, from $44.99 Documents, photos, video, audio Files you already have, $59.99

A chat export is the file the app gives you when you tap Export chat. We render it as a line-numbered transcript, hash every file and timestamp the result, so the other side cannot argue the messages were edited.

Several URLs in one matter: Evidence Pack, up to 5 URLs for $149. Full comparison and FAQ.

Delivered within 24 hours (YouTube captures within 2 days). Same forensic engine as the extension, run by us. eIDAS qualified timestamps issued by Disig a.s., a qualified trust service provider on the EU Trusted List under Regulation (EU) No 910/2014.

Not sure which one fits? Tell us the situation and we will scope it →

What unauthenticated evidence costs you

Four ways phone screenshots end careers and cases.

Authentication challenges used to be a niche concern. Opposing counsel now knows the playbook. Here is what is on the table when your evidence cannot stand on its own.

Case-dispositive sanction

Rossbach v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 81 F.4th 124 (2d Cir. 2023): the district court dismissed the plaintiff's remaining claims with prejudice as a sanction, after a defense expert showed that the text-message screenshot could not have come from the iPhone the plaintiff said she used, and it imposed $157,026.27 in fees and costs.

ProofSnap effect: any post-hoc edit breaks the SHA-256 manifest, invalidates the RSA-4096 signature, and orphans the OpenTimestamps anchor. Rossbach-style metadata-inconsistency analysis has nothing to find.

Malpractice exposure

A failed authentication that costs a case becomes the predicate for a malpractice claim by the client, and the matter file will show whether the evidence was preserved in a form anyone could check.

ProofSnap effect: sealing evidence at the moment of capture is a defensible standard of care: documented, repeatable, verifiable by any expert.

Expert-witness fees you did not budget

When a screenshot's authenticity is challenged, the cure is a forensic examiner: a five-figure line item most firms have not budgeted for, and it runs longer and costs more if device imaging is required. Many contingency-fee cases cannot absorb it mid-litigation.

ProofSnap effect: the ZIP carries the expert's starting foundation. Either the ZIP shortens the examiner's engagement, or the challenge never makes it past the meet-and-confer.

Lost settlement leverage

Evidence that verifies on its own accelerates settlement. Opposing counsel who cannot credibly challenge your captures stops trying. Discovery shortens. Motion practice shortens. Cases settle on the strength of the record, not the cost of litigating around it.

ProofSnap effect: the economics of a defense motion in limine flip when every capture carries SHA-256 plus Bitcoin OpenTimestamps plus optional eIDAS. The strongest record settles fastest.

Stop the cost. Start the 7-day free trial

The ZIP your firm produces

The evidence package: 11 to 15 files.

Every capture produces the content, the technical record that shows the content has not changed since capture, and a declaration for the certifying person to sign. The hash, signature and blockchain anchor can be checked independently by you or by opposing counsel at opentimestamps.org.

screenshot.jpeg Visual capture of the page

capture_video.webm Screen recording of capture

page.html Full HTML content

domtextcontent.txt Extracted DOM text

metadata.json Timestamp, URL, browser, TLS

evidence.pdf Compiled evidence report

provenance_certificate.pdf Content credentials / capture integrity

manifest.json File listing + SHA-256 hashes

manifest.sig RSA-4096 digital signature

manifest.json.ots OpenTimestamps Bitcoin anchor

publickey.pem Public key (verify signature)

forensic_log.json ISO/IEC 27037 capture log

chain_of_custody.json Device + NTP verification

manifest.json.tsr eIDAS qualified RFC 3161 timestamp

rule_902_certification.pdf The declaration, pre-filled, ready to sign

verification/verify.sh Offline check script, plus .ps1 and a guide

Verifiable offline by opposing counsel with only python3 + openssl + ots, no ProofSnap service or account required. The file count follows the plan: Essential produces 11 files, Professional 12, Enterprise and Company 15, because the qualified timestamp, its validation data and the remaining options are added on top. The structure is identical in every case, so a ZIP a client captured with a SnapPack is structurally identical to one the firm captured on its own subscription. Rules on authenticating electronic records differ from country to country; the package supplies the underlying technical record whatever the forum, plus a declaration the certifying person completes and signs.

Start 7-day free trial → Download sample ZIP

What lawyers capture

From a social media post to a behind-login dashboard.

Any content that lives on the open web or behind your client's login, preserved as one self-contained, offline-verifiable ZIP.

Defamation & libel

Posts, comments, reviews, and republications, before the poster edits or deletes.

Social media evidence →

IP & copyright

Copied content, infringing listings, counterfeit catalogs, trademark misuse, with HTTP/TLS metadata.

DMCA & copyright →

Employment & harassment

Workplace harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, Title VII / Title IX matters.

Workplace harassment →

Family law & custody

Custody-relevant social media, contradicting statements, evidence of cohabitation or income.

Divorce & custody →

NCII & deepfake

Nonconsensual intimate imagery, deepfakes and state revenge-porn civil claims, including the Take It Down Act 48-hour removal window.

NCII attorney guide →

Breach of contract

Changed terms, pricing pages, SLA disclosures, deleted refund policies, vendor representations.

Chargeback evidence →

Brand protection

Counterfeit listings, impersonation accounts, marketplace fraud, seller identity at the moment of capture.

Brand protection →

Compliance & regulatory

GDPR / DSA evidence packs, FTC complaints, consumer-protection filings, regulatory disclosures.

GDPR evidence →

Behind-login content

Private groups, DMs, marketplace dashboards, admin views, account-state pages, captured from the authenticated session.

How it works →

United States

FRE 902(13)/(14) and the case that changed how screenshots get attacked.

Everything above holds in any court. This section is the US-specific part.

FRE 902(13) covers certified records generated by an electronic process or system. FRE 902(14) covers certified data copied from an electronic device, storage medium or file, authenticated by a process of digital identification, in practice a cryptographic hash. Both took effect on December 1, 2017.

The hash is not our interpretation of the rule; it is the drafters'. The Advisory Committee Note to the 2017 amendment adding Rule 902(14) says so directly:

“If the hash values for the original and copy are the same, it is highly improbable that the original and copy are not identical. Thus, identical hash values for the original and copy reliably attest to the fact that they are exact duplicates.”
Advisory Committee Note to Federal Rule of Evidence 902(14), 2017 amendment

Both rules require a written certification from a qualified person, made under penalty of perjury (28 U.S.C. § 1746). ProofSnap supplies the record that certification points to: the SHA-256 manifest, the RSA-4096 signature, the OpenTimestamps anchor, the ISO/IEC 27037 forensic log and the chain of custody. The package ships that declaration with every technical fact of the capture already filled in, and the declarant's identity, qualifications and signature left blank, because a human declarant has to sign them under penalty of perjury. Our full guide to FRE 902(13) and 902(14) covers what the certification must say, the notice requirement both rules inherit, and where self-authentication stops.

Rossbach v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 81 F.4th 124 (2d Cir. 2023)

What happened. The plaintiff in an employment-discrimination matter produced a screenshot of a text message as core evidence. The defense expert concluded that the image was not a photograph of a phone screen at all, and that its icons, contact information, font size and style, and emoji design were inconsistent with the iPhone the plaintiff said she had used. She had also traded in one of the phones and did not provide the passcode to the other.

Result. The district court dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice as a sanction, relying on its inherent power and on spoliation principles, and imposed $157,026.27 in attorneys' fees, costs and expenses jointly and severally on the plaintiff, her counsel and his firm. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. It vacated the sanctions against the plaintiff's counsel and his firm, holding that sanctioning an attorney requires explicit findings of bad faith that the district court had not made. The case ended on the evidence, not on the merits.

Why it matters to you. The defense playbook from Rossbach (demand forensic examination, then find the gap the screenshot cannot explain) now travels well beyond employment cases. Family law, defamation, IP, and breach-of-contract counsel are all seeing Rossbach-style attacks on phone screenshots filed without forensic provenance.

How ProofSnap closes the attack. Each capture is sealed at the moment of capture with a SHA-256 manifest, RSA-4096 signature, and Bitcoin OpenTimestamps anchor. Any post-hoc edit (one byte, one pixel) breaks the hash, invalidates the signature, and orphans the timestamp. The Rossbach-style examination has no internal contradiction to find. The file is either deterministically intact, or visibly broken.

ProofSnap strengthens your authentication foundation. Start the 7-day free trial

EU / cross-border matters

eIDAS qualified timestamps for EU courts.

For matters involving EU-domiciled parties or foreign platforms, and for DSA takedown notices and GDPR actions, ProofSnap optionally seals each ZIP with an eIDAS qualified timestamp from an EU qualified trust service provider.

Legal recognition

eIDAS Regulation (EU) 910/2014, Article 41 gives a qualified timestamp a presumption of the accuracy of the date and time it indicates and of the integrity of the data to which they are bound. Paragraph 1 separately bars a court from denying legal effect to an electronic timestamp solely because it is in electronic form.

Qualified provider

RFC 3161 timestamps issued by a qualified trust service provider on the EU Trusted List. The full certificate chain and a frozen snapshot of the EU Trusted List are bundled in the ZIP, so verification works offline, indefinitely.

Company Plan includes 5 eIDAS qualified timestamps per user per month. Enterprise ($28.99 per month) includes 10 eIDAS qualified timestamps per month, recommended for EU-based firms and US firms with regular cross-border work.

Read more about eIDAS for legal evidence →

Already evaluating Page Vault, Hanzo, or X1 Social Discovery?

How ProofSnap compares.

All four tools capture web pages with cryptographic integrity. The differences are in the pricing model, deployment friction, behind-login support, blockchain anchoring, and EU eIDAS coverage.

Feature	ProofSnap	Page Vault	Hanzo	X1 Social Discovery
Pricing model	$18.99/seat/mo (Company); $4.99 SnapPack (client)	Subscription, contact for quote	Enterprise contract	$2,000 to $5,000+ per seat per year (vendor and reseller listings, 2026)
Deployment	Chrome / Edge extension, 30-second install	Browser-based, account required	Cloud platform, IT setup	Windows desktop install
SHA-256 hash + RSA-4096 signature	✓ Both, every capture	SHA-256 only	SHA-256 only	SHA-256 only
Bitcoin OpenTimestamps anchor	✓ Every capture	No	No	No
eIDAS qualified timestamp (EU courts)	✓ Company and Enterprise tiers	No	No	No
Behind-login capture (DMs, dashboards)	✓ Native, user's session	✓	✓	✓
Client-side capture (pre-retainer)	✓ SnapPack $4.99	No	No	No
Offline verification (no vendor required)	✓ python3 + openssl + ots	Vendor-hosted	Vendor-hosted	Vendor-hosted
Ready-to-sign declaration	✓	✓ (you draft the declaration)	✓ (you draft the declaration)	✓ (you draft the declaration)
Free trial	7 days, all plans, credit card required	Demo only	Demo only	Demo only

vs. Page Vault

Same browser-extension UX, plus Bitcoin OpenTimestamps, eIDAS and an RSA signature, and a client-side SnapPack for pre-retainer capture.

vs. Hanzo

Lower deployment friction (extension, not enterprise contract). Both handle dynamic content; ProofSnap adds blockchain anchoring and transparent per-seat pricing.

vs. X1 Social Discovery

At $18.99 per seat per month, a Company Plan seat costs a fraction of an X1 seat priced in the thousands per year (vendor and reseller listings, 2026). X1 wins on enterprise mass-collection; ProofSnap wins on per-matter capture and cross-platform coverage (Mac/Linux via Chrome/Edge).

Comparison based on each vendor's publicly available marketing materials and reviews on G2 / Capterra / SoftwareWorld as of May 2026. Verify current pricing and feature parity directly with each vendor.

Firm pricing

Start free. Upgrade when you bill for the matter.

A 7-day free trial on every plan. A credit card is required to start, billing begins on day 8, and canceling inside the 7 days costs nothing. Firm overhead, not per-capture billing.

Recommended for firms

Company Plan, firm-wide

$18.99 / seat / month

Minimum 2 seats · $190 per seat per year on annual billing (save 17%).

✓ 7-day free trial · credit card required · cancel by day 7 at no cost

Unlimited captures per seat
Team dashboard + shared audit log
5 eIDAS qualified timestamps per user per month (Art. 41 EU presumption)
Sealed ZIPs with a ready-to-sign declaration
Bitcoin OpenTimestamps anchoring on every capture
Email support, response within 1 business day

Start 7-day free trial →

Questions about the firm-wide plan?

Solo attorney: Enterprise single-seat

$28.99 / month

$280 per year on annual billing (save 20%).

✓ 7-day free trial · credit card required · cancel by day 7 at no cost

Unlimited captures
10 eIDAS qualified timestamps per month (EU court-ready)
Bitcoin OpenTimestamps + RSA-4096
Email support, response within 1 business day

Start 7-day free trial →

See full pricing table for Essential ($8.99/mo) and Professional ($16.99/mo) mid-tiers, or SnapPack $4.99 for client pre-retainer capture.

Attorney FAQ

Your next intake is one install away

Install the Chrome extension now. Use it on your next intake call.

7-day free trial, credit card required, cancel by day 7 at no cost. The moment your client describes the first post, you text them the install link and they send you a forensic ZIP before they hang up.

Start the 7-day free trial Edge Add-ons version

Cancel by day 7 at no cost · download sample ZIP first · support@getproofsnap.com

Legal disclaimer: This page provides general information for civil-litigation attorneys and is not legal advice. ProofSnap is not a law firm and does not represent clients. Consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before relying on any content. The case summary is abbreviated for context; read the opinion before citing it. Statutes and rules change; verify current text before filing. Admissibility is decided by the court on a case-by-case basis. ProofSnap supports authentication but does not guarantee admission.

Vertical guides for lawyers

Legal research shortcuts