Skip to main content

Security report for free.law

Free Law Project · Non-profit · United States

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

Free Law Project is a leading nonprofit organization dedicated to making the legal ecosystem more equitable and competitive through technology, data, and advocacy. They provide a suite of open-source tools and datasets including CourtListener, RECAP, and Bots.law, serving journalists, researchers, legal professionals, and the public. Their market position is strong as a pioneer in legal data transparency and open access, supported by donations and organizational sponsorships. Technically, the website is built on modern frameworks such as Next.js and React, hosted on Netlify, and optimized for performance and mobile responsiveness. The site demonstrates good SEO and accessibility practices, with a clean, professional design and clear navigation. Analytics are implemented via plausible.io, indicating a privacy-conscious approach to user tracking. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and employs domain status protections but lacks DNSSEC and security headers like CSP or HSTS. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. Privacy compliance is partial, with a basic privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism or detailed GDPR compliance statements. Contact information is limited to a contact form, with no direct emails or phone numbers publicly listed. Overall, the website presents a low-risk profile with a high degree of professionalism and trustworthiness. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, implementing DNSSEC, adding cookie consent, and publishing a security.txt file to improve incident response transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.

GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.

Priority findings

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Security headers

    Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Twitter

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching free.law

This scan found 20 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. See sample alerts.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
52
Security headers
75
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
70

Not counted

  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Free Law Project operates as a nonprofit focused on legal data transparency and technology innovation. Their business model relies on open-source tools, data services, and donations. They have a strong partnership ecosystem including CourtListener and Bots.law, and maintain active engagement with the legal and research communities. Their growth is evidenced by continuous content updates, expanding datasets, and advocacy initiatives. The organization targets a diverse audience including journalists, researchers, legal professionals, and the general public interested in legal information access. Their market positioning as a leader in open legal data is reinforced by their comprehensive services and community trust.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS, domain registration protections, and no visible vulnerabilities. However, it lacks advanced DNS security (DNSSEC) and important HTTP security headers, which are recommended best practices. The absence of a published security policy or incident response contact limits transparency in handling security issues. Privacy compliance is basic, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent or detailed GDPR adherence. The use of plausible.io analytics suggests minimal user tracking, aligning with privacy principles. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be improved with additional controls and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement DNSSEC to secure DNS queries and prevent spoofing.
  2. Add HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Publish a security.txt file to provide clear vulnerability disclosure and incident response contacts.
  4. Introduce a cookie consent mechanism if cookies or tracking scripts are used.
  5. Enhance privacy policy to explicitly address GDPR compliance and data retention.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Free Law Project
Description
Free Law Project is the leading nonprofit using technology and data to make the legal ecosystem more equitable and competitive. Creators of CourtListener, RECAP, and Bots.law.
Key services
CourtListener legal opinions archive, RECAP suite for PACER document access, Bots.law case update bots, Legal data APIs and bulk data, Legal advocacy and open data initiatives
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Next.js, Tailwind CSS, AWS DNS (Amazon Route 53), JavaScript
Frameworks
Next.js, React
Platforms
Netlify
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Domain status includes clientUpdateProhibited and clientTransferProhibited
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No vulnerable libraries detected in scripts

Analytics and tracking

Services
plausible.io
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
plausible.io
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is a nonprofit legal data and technology provider with a strong focus on transparency and open access.
  2. Content is rich, well-structured, and professionally presented with active blog and project updates.
  3. No signs of adult or inappropriate content; suitable for general audiences.
  4. Uses modern web technologies and is hosted on a reputable platform (Netlify).
  5. Security practices are good but could be improved with additional headers and DNSSEC.
  6. No cookie consent mechanism detected despite possible tracking via plausible.io.
  7. WHOIS data is privacy protected but consistent with nonprofit entity and domain age supports legitimacy.
  8. Social media presence on Twitter and Mastodon supports community engagement.
  9. No visible contact emails but contact form is available.
  10. No terms of service or explicit privacy compliance statements beyond basic privacy policy.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack including React and Next.js, enabling server-side rendering and fast performance. Tailwind CSS is used for styling, contributing to a responsive and accessible design. Hosting on Netlify provides reliable infrastructure and CDN capabilities. The site loads quickly and is optimized for mobile devices. Analytics are implemented with a privacy-focused service (plausible.io). No CMS is detected, indicating a custom or static site generation approach. The technical implementation is robust with opportunities to improve security headers and DNS security.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with free.law. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review free.law.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.