Why now: Rossbach sanctions · FRCP 37(e) duty to preserve

For plaintiffs' PI · LTD · Workers' Comp · Bad-Faith Counsel

The Facebook post that kills their claim will be deleted in 48 hours. Capture it first.

Q: When does the duty to preserve opposing party social media kick in?

The duty to preserve electronically stored information attaches when litigation is reasonably foreseeable — generally well before a complaint is filed. FRCP 37(e), amended in 2015, codifies the framework: if ESI that should have been preserved is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps and it cannot be restored, the court may impose curative measures; only on a finding of intent to deprive may a court instruct the jury that the lost information was unfavorable (adverse inference) or dismiss the action. For plaintiff-side preservation of the opposing party's public social media: the moment the matter is opened — incident, demand letter, FNOL — is the moment to capture, because the opposing party's deletion-after-foreseeable-litigation creates the spoliation exposure on their side, and your delay creates it on yours.

Q: Can I capture an opposing party's public Facebook, Instagram, or Strava post without their consent?

Public-facing social media that the opposing party has posted to the open internet has no reasonable expectation of privacy. ProofSnap captures what your browser sees — the same content any member of the public viewing the URL would see. This is standard plaintiff and defense practice, well-documented in social media discovery treatises and 2024–2025 California Advocate Magazine guidance. ProofSnap does not log into the opposing party's account, scrape behind their privacy settings, or use deceptive friending — those tactics raise ethics and computer-fraud concerns separate from the capture tool. For content behind login, capture is performed from the user's own authenticated browser session (e.g., your own LinkedIn account viewing the opposing party's public-to-connections profile).

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

FRE 902(13) and FRE 902(14) are amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 902 effective December 1, 2017, that added two new categories of self-authenticating evidence. FRE 902(13) covers certified records generated by an electronic process or system — server logs, transactional records, and capture-tool outputs. FRE 902(14) covers certified data copied from an electronic device, storage medium, or file — data authenticated by a process of digital identification, typically cryptographic hashing. Both rules require a Rule 902(11)-style written certification from a qualified person, made under penalty of perjury under 28 U.S.C. § 1746. The certification bridges the technical capture (the ZIP) and the courtroom (the exhibit). ProofSnap supplies the underlying technical record — SHA-256 manifest, RSA-4096 signature, Bitcoin OpenTimestamps anchor, ISO/IEC 27037 forensic log, chain of custody — that the certification references; the attorney or qualified custodian authors and signs the certification.

Q: How is ProofSnap different from Page Vault, Pagefreezer, or X1 Social Discovery for social media preservation?

All four tools capture social media with cryptographic integrity. Pricing and deployment differ: Page Vault $95/month Solo or $195/month Team (5 concurrent users) browser-based capture with SHA-256 hashing; Pagefreezer enterprise quote-only continuous archiving; X1 Social Discovery Windows desktop install at thousands per seat per year for mass-collection workflows; ProofSnap a Chrome/Edge extension at $28.99/month Enterprise (single attorney, 10 eIDAS qualified timestamps per month) or $18.99/seat/month Company Plan (minimum 2 seats, 5 eIDAS qualified timestamps per user per month) with SHA-256 + RSA-4096 + Bitcoin OpenTimestamps on every capture, plus a $49.99 one-time eIDAS SnapPack (10 captures) for solo matters or pre-retainer client capture. Best fit for the 1–5 attorney plaintiffs' PI / disability / workers' comp firm: ProofSnap. Best fit for a corporate compliance archive: Pagefreezer. Best fit for an enterprise SIU mass-collection workflow: X1.

Q: Does Rossbach v. Montefiore apply to social media screenshots, or only iMessage?

Rossbach v. Montefiore Medical Center, No. 21-2084 (2d Cir. 2023), addressed fabricated iMessage screenshots, but the defense playbook it cemented — compel forensic examination of the producing device, identify metadata inconsistencies, move for sanctions — has been imported wholesale into social media screenshot fights. The original defense theory in Rossbach was metadata-based: iOS version artifacts and timestamp anomalies inconsistent with the dates claimed. The same theory applies to a Facebook or Instagram screenshot a witness produces — date format, screenshot dimensions, OS chrome elements. A forensically captured ZIP defeats Rossbach-style attacks on entry because the SHA-256 + signature + Bitcoin anchor is internally consistent or visibly broken; there is no edited intermediate state to expose.

Q: Can my plaintiff client capture defense-surveillance evidence before retaining me?

Yes — and this is the most common fast-moving-matter pattern. The client purchases the eIDAS SnapPack ($49.99 one-time, 10 forensic captures with eIDAS qualified timestamps) directly on getproofsnap.com, captures whatever defense or insurer activity appears in their feed, public records, or portal during the first hours, 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 surveillance-evidence counter-capture (the insurer's investigator's public LinkedIn profile, social media trolling by the defendant after FNOL), bad-faith communications (every portal page after a denial), and time-sensitive deletion windows.

In short: ProofSnap is a Chrome / Edge browser extension that captures opposing party Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Strava, Venmo, and LinkedIn posts as FRE 902(13)/(14) self-authenticating ZIPs. Each ZIP carries a SHA-256 manifest, RSA-4096 signature, and Bitcoin OpenTimestamps anchor — the authentication foundation Rossbach-style fabrication challenges cannot tear apart, and the affirmative preservation record FRCP 37(e) rewards. Used by plaintiffs' personal injury, long-term disability, workers' compensation, and insurance bad-faith attorneys. From $49.99 one-time (eIDAS SnapPack 10) or $18.99 / seat / month (Company Plan, min 2). 7-day free trial.

Defense already monitors social media on every claim. You should too — forensically, with chain of custody, not as phone screenshots opposing counsel will move to strike under Rossbach.

Start 7-day free trial — install Chrome extension

Capture the opposing party's last 30 days of posts tonight. Cancel by day 7 at zero cost.

Sample ZIP

See what a forensic capture looks like

Pricing

SnapPack $49.99 · Ent. $28.99 · Co. $18.99

Chrome Web Store verified Microsoft Edge Runs locally · no privilege issue FRE 902(13)/(14) ready

ProofSnap Chrome extension — capture opposing party social media as FRE 902-ready ZIPs with SHA-256, RSA-4096, and Bitcoin OpenTimestamps

For your firm

✓Partners, associates, paralegals capture defense surveillance & opposing party feeds during intake
✓Admissible under FRE 902(13)/(14) with your Rule 902(11) certification
✓Firm-wide Company Plan $18.99 / seat / month, min 2 seats

For your clients

✓Client buys eIDAS SnapPack $49.99, captures 10 items, emails you the ZIPs
✓Evidence arrives before the retainer is signed or the post is deleted
✓Same forensic ZIP structure as firm-captured evidence

What ProofSnap is — and what it is not

ProofSnap is a digital evidence preservation tool. It captures the cryptographic foundation that supports FRE 901 / 902 authentication and the affirmative preservation record FRCP 37(e) rewards. It is not legal advice, a notary act, an expert witness, or a guarantee of admissibility. Admissibility is decided by the court on a case-by-case basis. We do not represent clients, give legal advice, or substitute for Daubert-level expert testimony if your matter requires it.

Why social media preservation became table stakes

Three trends, all 2023–2026.

Authentication challenges used to be a niche concern. They are now standard defense practice in any matter where social media is in the record — and standard plaintiff practice in any matter where the opposing party's social media might contradict their position.

01 · Defense plays Rossbach

Rossbach v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., No. 21-2084 (2d Cir. 2023)

Defense moved to compel forensic examination of plaintiff's phone, found metadata inconsistencies in iMessage screenshots, won summary judgment affirmed by the Second Circuit. The playbook — demand forensic exam, find the metadata gap, move for sanctions — now travels into every social media screenshot fight.

02 · FRCP 37(e) sharpened

Rule 37(e) ESI sanctions, 2015 amendment in full effect

The 2015 amendment unified the federal spoliation framework: failure to take reasonable steps to preserve ESI invites curative measures; intent to deprive opens adverse-inference, dismissal, or default. The duty attaches when litigation is reasonably foreseeable — well before a complaint is filed.

03 · AI-fabricated evidence rising

Admiral UK 2025: fraudulent claims +71% YoY; 23% include AI-generated photos

Insurer-side data: Admiral detected £86.8M in fraudulent claims in 2025, up from £50.9M in 2024, with nearly a quarter of fake claims now including AI-manipulated damage photos. Authentic captures need a verifiable chain of custody to stand apart from fabricated ones — from either side.

Sources: Rossbach v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., No. 21-2084 (2d Cir. 2023); FRCP 37(e) (2015 amend.); Admiral UK 2025 fraud report (via trade press, April 2026); Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, $308.6B annual US insurance fraud impact (CSU Global, 2022 baseline, still current).

The ZIP your firm or client produces

15-file forensic evidence package.

Designed to support authentication under FRE 902(13) (certified records generated by an electronic process or system) and 902(14) (certified data copied from an electronic device), both effective December 1, 2017, with a hash + signature + blockchain-anchor triple you or opposing counsel can verify independently at opentimestamps.org.

screenshot.jpeg Visual capture of the post or profile

capture_video.webm Screen recording of the capture session

page.html Full HTML content of the social media page

domtextcontent.txt Extracted DOM text (post content, comments)

metadata.json Timestamp, URL, browser, TLS handshake

evidence.pdf Compiled evidence report (Bates-stampable)

provenance_certificate.pdf Content credentials and capture integrity

c2pa.json C2PA Content Credentials manifest (anti-deepfake provenance)

manifest.json File listing with SHA-256 hashes

manifest.sig RSA-4096 digital signature

manifest.json.ots OpenTimestamps Bitcoin anchor

publickey.pem Public key to verify the signature

forensic_log.json ISO/IEC 27037 capture log

chain_of_custody.json Device, network, and NTP verification

manifest.json.tsr eIDAS qualified RFC 3161 timestamp (optional)

Rules 902(13) and 902(14) require a written certification from a qualified person. The attorney or qualified custodian prepares and signs that certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1746; ProofSnap supplies the underlying technical record to reference. Verifies offline by opposing counsel with only python3 + openssl + ots — no ProofSnap service or account required.

Start 7-day free trial → Download sample ZIP

What plaintiffs' attorneys capture

Nine forensic-capture moments across PI, LTD, and WC.

Every matter has a window. The post that contradicts opposing party's claim today is the post that disappears tomorrow. Capture before deletion is the affirmative move under FRCP 37(e).

01 · PI plaintiff — defendant's social

Defendant claims they were “just stopped at the light” — their Strava activity that morning shows aggressive cycling six miles from the intersection. Capture the activity, the splits, the heart-rate trace, the route map.

02 · LTD plaintiff — insurer surveillance

Long-term disability insurer's investigator publishes a LinkedIn portfolio of past matters — capture their public profile, prior cases, methodology disclosures for cross.

03 · WC defense — claimant Strava

Claimant alleges total disability from a back injury; their Strava feed shows weekly 50-mile rides. Capture the activity history with timestamps and elevation, not phone screenshots that opposing counsel will move to strike.

04 · WC defense — gig-work platforms

Claimant claims inability to work; their public DoorDash profile, Instacart rating page, or Uber driver public stats show active acceptance and ratings during the disability period.

05 · Bad-faith plaintiff — insurer portal

Capture every insurer portal page, denial letter PDF, adjuster chat transcript, and policy version. The bad-faith case is built on a timeline; the ZIP is the timeline you submit.

06 · ERISA LTD — vocational rehab posts

Plan administrator's vocational rehab consultant publishes a LinkedIn case study; the consultant's methodology contradicts what was applied to your client. Capture before they take it down.

07 · PI plaintiff — defendant's TikTok

Defendant in a rear-end collision posts a TikTok bragging about “the accident wasn't my fault, lol” with footage of the intersection. Forensic capture with screen recording, audio, full DOM text.

08 · LTD plaintiff — LinkedIn employment

Opposing party's expert files a report citing “current employment opportunities” while their own LinkedIn shows a six-month gap that contradicts the report. Capture both sides — the LinkedIn profile and the report citation.

09 · Behind-login — your client's data

Your client's own MyChart history, fitness app data, work-portal records — captured from their authenticated session for affirmative proof, not just defense rebuttal.

The legal framework

FRCP 37(e) and the duty to preserve, in plain language.

Spoliation cuts both ways. Your client's deletion exposure runs from the moment they reasonably anticipate litigation — not from the moment you file. The opposing party's runs from the same moment. Whoever captures first writes the record.

The rule

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), amended December 1, 2015: “If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court…”

37(e)(1) · Curative measures

On finding prejudice from the loss, the court “may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice.” Examples: barring use of unaffected evidence on the topic, permitting additional discovery, instructions short of adverse inference.

37(e)(2) · Intent-to-deprive sanctions

Only on finding the party “acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information's use in the litigation,” the court may instruct the jury to presume the lost information was unfavorable, dismiss the action, or enter default judgment.

When the duty attaches

The duty to preserve attaches when litigation is reasonably foreseeable — well before a complaint is filed. The trigger is fact-specific, but for the matters this page targets it is usually one of:

·Personal injury: the date of the incident, or the date the demand letter is sent / received, whichever is earlier.
·Long-term disability: the date the claim is filed, the date of the first denial, or the date the insurer requests medical records, whichever is earlier.
·Workers' compensation: the date of the workplace incident, the FNOL date, or the date the employer's HR opens a file, whichever is earliest.
·Insurance bad faith: the date of the denial letter, the date of any “reservation of rights” correspondence, or the date of a recorded statement, whichever is earliest.

Practical translation: the moment the matter is opened is the moment to capture the opposing party's public-facing social media. Each capture is the affirmative preservation record; each delay is a potential 37(e) exposure on either side.

This page summarizes federal rules and doctrine; state rules vary. Verify the rule text and your jurisdiction's case law before filing — this is not legal advice.

The authentication cases your motion will cite

Six anchor cases for social media in court.

Cautionary precedent — the defense playbook

Rossbach v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., No. 21-2084 (2d Cir. 2023)

What happened. Plaintiff in an employment-discrimination matter produced iMessage screenshots as core evidence of discriminatory communications. Defense moved to compel forensic examination of plaintiff's phone. Examination revealed metadata inconsistencies suggesting the screenshots were fabricated — iOS version artifacts and timestamp anomalies that could not exist on the dates claimed.

Result. District court granted summary judgment to the defendant; Second Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff's case was dispositively over — not on the merits, on the evidence.

Why it matters here. The defense playbook from Rossbach — compel forensic exam, identify metadata gap, move for sanctions — has since been imported into social media screenshot fights. The same theory applies to a Facebook or Instagram screenshot a witness produces: date format, screenshot dimensions, OS chrome elements all become attack surfaces.

How ProofSnap closes the attack. Each capture is sealed at the moment of acquisition 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 Bitcoin anchor. The Rossbach-style examination has no internal contradiction to find — the file is either deterministically intact, or visibly broken.

Five foundational cases your motion will reference

Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007) — Judge Grimm's foundational ESI framework (Rule 901 / 801–807 / 1001–1008 / 403). The ZIP supports the Rule 901 identification prong; remaining prongs are your legal work.
Griffin v. State, 419 Md. 343 (2011) — social media printouts alone do not authenticate authorship. ProofSnap captures the full account profile alongside posts, giving you the circumstantial foundation under FRE 901(b)(4).
Commonwealth v. Mangel, 181 A.3d 1154 (Pa. Super. 2018) — extends Griffin's authorship concern. Same foundation applies; the ZIP's HTTP/TLS metadata can rebut a spoofing defense.
United States v. Vayner, 769 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014) — VKontakte profile authentication reversed for insufficient circumstantial evidence of ownership. HTTP/TLS handshake metadata captured in the ZIP rebuts the Vayner concern.
Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) — MySpace profile authenticated through distinctive content, photos, and corroborating circumstances. ProofSnap captures all three layers in a single ZIP.

ProofSnap strengthens your foundation across every authentication case — start 7-day free trial

Already evaluating Page Vault, Pagefreezer, or X1?

How ProofSnap compares.

All four are credible. Differences are in price model, deployment friction, behind-login flow, blockchain anchoring, and client-side capture. Public information, last reviewed May 2026 — verify current pricing on each vendor's site before purchasing.

Feature	ProofSnap	Page Vault	Pagefreezer	X1 Social Discovery	Phone PrtScn
Solo / single attorney	$28.99/mo Enterprise · $49.99 SnapPack one-time	$95/mo Solo	Quote only	$2K–$5K+/yr per seat	Free, no integrity
Small firm (2–5 seats)	$18.99/seat/mo Company (min 2)	$195/mo Team (5 concurrent)	Quote only	$10K–$25K+/yr total	Free, no integrity
Deployment	Chrome / Edge extension, 30 sec	Browser-based, account required	Cloud archive, IT onboarding	Windows desktop install	Built into phone OS
SHA-256 + RSA-4096 signature	✓ Both, every capture	SHA-256 only	SHA-256 only	SHA-256 only	—
Bitcoin OpenTimestamps anchor	✓ Every capture	—	—	—	—
eIDAS qualified timestamp (EU)	✓ Enterprise & SnapPack	—	—	—	—
Behind-login capture (user's session)	✓ Native	✓	✓	✓	✓ (screenshot)
Client-side capture (pre-retainer)	✓ eIDAS SnapPack $49.99	—	—	—	✓ (no integrity)
Offline verification (no vendor)	✓ python3 + openssl + ots	Vendor-hosted	Vendor-hosted	Vendor-hosted	—
FRE 902(13)/(14) self-authenticating	✓	✓ (with affidavit)	✓ (with affidavit)	✓ (with affidavit)	—
Free trial	7 days, all plans	Demo only	Demo only	Demo only	n/a

vs. Page Vault

A 5-attorney firm on ProofSnap Company is ~$94.95 / month (5 × $18.99). Page Vault Team is $195 / month for the same headcount. ProofSnap adds Bitcoin OpenTimestamps, RSA-4096 signature, and eIDAS, plus a $49.99 SnapPack the client can buy directly pre-retainer.

vs. Pagefreezer

Different problem. Pagefreezer is continuous compliance archiving for entire account streams; ProofSnap is per-matter capture at the moment of intake. For a plaintiffs' firm capturing the opposing party's posts, ProofSnap fits the matter-by-matter workflow.

vs. X1 Social Discovery

~10× less expensive at small-firm scale. X1 wins on enterprise mass-collection (100,000+ items per matter); ProofSnap wins on per-matter capture, cross-platform (Mac/Linux via Chrome/Edge), and client-side SnapPack.

Comparison based on each vendor's publicly available marketing materials and software-review databases as of May 2026 — Page Vault pricing per page-vault.com/pricing. Verify current pricing and feature parity directly with each vendor.

Three ways to buy

Start where the matter sizes.

7-day free trial on subscription plans. Billing starts at day 8 unless you cancel — credit card required to start, charged only after the trial period if you do not cancel.

Solo matter · one-time

eIDAS SnapPack 10

$49.99 one-time

10 forensic captures with eIDAS qualified timestamps.

No subscription, no auto-renewal

10 captures with eIDAS qualified timestamp on every one
Bitcoin OpenTimestamps + SHA-256 + RSA-4096
Client-buyable for pre-retainer capture
FRE 902(13)/(14) self-authenticating ZIPs

Buy SnapPack →

Best for a solo matter or pre-retainer client capture

Single attorney · recurring

Enterprise (solo seat)

$28.99 / month

Unlimited captures, one attorney. Annual $280/yr (save 20%).

✓ 7-day free trial · cancel by day 7 at zero cost

Unlimited captures
10 eIDAS qualified timestamps / month (EU court-ready)
Bitcoin OpenTimestamps + SHA-256 + RSA-4096
FRE 902(13)/(14) self-authenticating ZIPs
Email support · response within 1 business day

Start 7-day free trial →

Credit card required to start · cancel by day 7

Firm-wide

2–25 attorneys · recurring

Company Plan

$18.99 / seat / month

Minimum 2 seats. 5-seat firm = $94.95/mo (vs Page Vault Team $195/mo).

✓ 7-day free trial · cancel by day 7 at zero cost

Unlimited captures per seat
5 eIDAS qualified timestamps per user / month
Team dashboard + shared audit log
Email support · response within 1 business day

Start 7-day free trial →

Credit card required to start · cancel by day 7

Light user without monthly billing? Essential $8.99/mo or Professional $16.99/mo on the main pricing page. Questions? support@getproofsnap.com.

Frequently asked

Fifteen things plaintiffs' attorneys ask first.

When does the duty to preserve opposing party social media kick in?

The duty to preserve ESI attaches when litigation is reasonably foreseeable — generally well before a complaint is filed. FRCP 37(e), amended in 2015, codifies the framework. For plaintiff-side preservation of the opposing party's public social media: the moment the matter is opened (incident, demand letter, FNOL) is the moment to capture, because the opposing party's deletion-after-foreseeable-litigation creates spoliation exposure on their side, and your delay creates it on yours.

Can I capture an opposing party's public Facebook, Instagram, or Strava post without their consent?

Public-facing social media has no reasonable expectation of privacy. ProofSnap captures what your browser sees — the same content any member of the public viewing the URL would see. This is standard plaintiff and defense practice, well-documented in social media discovery treatises. ProofSnap does not log into the opposing party's account, scrape behind their privacy settings, or use deceptive friending — those tactics raise ethics and computer-fraud concerns separate from the capture tool.

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

Two amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 902 effective December 1, 2017. 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 (typically cryptographic hashing). Both require a Rule 902(11)-style written certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 from a qualified person. ProofSnap supplies the underlying technical record (SHA-256 manifest, RSA-4096 signature, Bitcoin OpenTimestamps, ISO/IEC 27037 forensic log); the attorney or qualified custodian authors and signs the certification.

How is ProofSnap different from Page Vault, Pagefreezer, or X1 Social Discovery?

All four are credible. Page Vault: $95/month Solo or $195/month Team (5 concurrent users); browser-based; SHA-256 only. Pagefreezer: quote-only enterprise compliance archiving. X1 Social Discovery: Windows desktop, thousands per seat per year, enterprise mass-collection. ProofSnap: Chrome / Edge extension at $28.99/mo Enterprise (single attorney, 10 eIDAS qualified timestamps per month) or $18.99/seat/mo Company (min 2 seats, 5 eIDAS per user per month), with Bitcoin OpenTimestamps + RSA-4096 on every capture, plus $49.99 eIDAS SnapPack for solo matters or pre-retainer client capture. Best fit for the 1–5 attorney plaintiffs' PI / disability / WC firm: ProofSnap.

Does Rossbach v. Montefiore apply to social media screenshots, or only iMessage?

Rossbach addressed fabricated iMessage screenshots, but the defense playbook it cemented — compel forensic examination of the producing device, identify metadata inconsistencies, move for sanctions — has been imported wholesale into social media screenshot fights. Date format, screenshot dimensions, OS chrome elements all become attack surfaces. A forensically captured ZIP defeats Rossbach-style attacks on entry because the SHA-256 + signature + Bitcoin anchor is internally consistent or visibly broken; there is no edited intermediate state to expose.

Strava, Venmo, LinkedIn — can ProofSnap capture them as evidence?

Yes. ProofSnap captures any web URL the Chrome or Edge browser can render: Strava activity pages, Venmo public transaction feeds, LinkedIn profiles, TikTok videos and profiles, Instagram posts and Stories, Facebook posts, Reddit posts, YouTube videos, GitHub commits, X (Twitter) posts, marketplace listings, behind-login dashboards. Open the URL in your browser, click Capture, receive a self-authenticating ZIP in about 41 seconds.

What if the opposing party deletes the post before I can capture it?

ProofSnap captures live content; it cannot retrieve content that is already gone. Once deletion occurs after the duty to preserve has attached, four moves: (1) issue a preservation letter to the opposing party and the platform; (2) check the Internet Archive Wayback Machine for any snapshot; (3) consider a Rule 45 subpoena to the platform for the deleted content; (4) where appropriate, move for sanctions under FRCP 37(e). Best practice: capture the moment the matter is opened.

Can my plaintiff client capture evidence before retaining me?

Yes — the most common fast-moving-matter pattern. The client purchases the eIDAS SnapPack ($49.99 one-time, 10 forensic captures with eIDAS qualified timestamps) directly on getproofsnap.com, captures whatever appears in the first hours, and emails you the ZIPs before the retainer is signed. Same forensic ZIP structure your firm would produce; no firm subscription required.

What is FRCP 37(e) and how does it interact with social media preservation?

FRCP 37(e), amended December 1, 2015, governs the loss of electronically stored information that should have been preserved. Curative measures on a showing of failure to take reasonable steps and prejudice; adverse inference instruction, dismissal, or default judgment available only on a finding of intent to deprive. For social media: a party who deletes posts after reasonably foreseeable litigation has not taken reasonable steps to preserve; for posts a plaintiff captures contemporaneously with ProofSnap, the cryptographically sealed ZIP is the affirmative preservation record.

Do I need eIDAS qualified timestamps for a US-only matter?

Almost never for US-only matters. OpenTimestamps (Bitcoin) plus SHA-256 + RSA-4096 is the FRE 902(13) foundation. eIDAS qualified timestamps (EU Regulation 910/2014 Article 41) add a statutory presumption of accuracy across all 27 EU member states — valuable for matters with EU-domiciled defendants, foreign platforms, DSA Article 16 takedowns, or GDPR actions. Company Plan includes 5 eIDAS / user / month; Enterprise tier ($28.99/mo) includes 10 / month; eIDAS SnapPack ($49.99 one-time) includes 10.

Privilege, malpractice insurance, and ethics?

ProofSnap runs locally in the browser tab. Captured content is never sent to our servers — the ZIP is produced client-side. No attorney-client privilege issue because captured social media posts are public-facing or session-authenticated third-party content under the firm or client's control. Company Plan uses per-seat credentials. Support across all tiers is email at support@getproofsnap.com with response within 1 business day. Malpractice and professional liability coverage: ProofSnap typically falls within standard office-technology coverage, analogous to Lexis / Westlaw / Clio usage. Confirm with your carrier; we are not an insurance broker.

What if opposing counsel challenges the screenshot as fabricated?

Three answers, in order of technical depth. (1) Hand opposing counsel the ZIP and the verification command — python3, openssl, and the ots client open-source toolset verify the SHA-256 manifest, RSA-4096 signature, and Bitcoin OpenTimestamps anchor offline in under a minute. (2) The Bitcoin OpenTimestamps anchor proves the manifest existed at the captured block height; that block is preserved by the entire Bitcoin network. Any post-capture edit to one byte breaks the hash and orphans the timestamp — no edited intermediate state to present. (3) The forensic_log.json and chain_of_custody.json files document the capture session under ISO/IEC 27037 conventions.

Is ProofSnap a substitute for an expert witness or legal advice?

No. ProofSnap is a digital evidence preservation tool, not a legal service or an expert witness. It does not provide legal advice, replace a notary act, or guarantee admissibility. ProofSnap strengthens the technical foundation under FRE 901/902; the attorney still authors the Rule 902(11) certification, drafts motions in limine, and retains an expert if Daubert-level testimony is required.

How long does ProofSnap 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. SHA-256 and RSA-4096 are NIST-recommended standards expected to remain secure through at least 2030. Verification requires only python3 + openssl + ots client — standard open-source tools.

How does ProofSnap integrate with Relativity, Everlaw, 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. ZIPs ingest cleanly into Relativity / Everlaw / Logikcull for Bates stamping and production. The evidence.pdf is a standard PDF/A document ready for Bates-stamping at sub-Bates granularity (PS000123.001, etc.).

The post your case needs is being deleted now.

Capture the opposing party's last 30 days of posts in your first session tonight — before opposing counsel sends the preservation letter that prompts a delete.

Start 7-day free trial → See pricing

Cancel by day 7 at zero cost · download sample ZIP first · support@getproofsnap.com

Legal disclaimer: This page provides general information for plaintiffs' personal injury, long-term disability, workers' compensation, and insurance bad-faith 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. Case-law summaries are abbreviated for context; read the opinions before citing them. 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.

Sister guides for attorneys

Legal research shortcuts