Page Vault Resources

Legal Wins with Page Vault: Cases Where Digital Evidence Mattered

Last Updated December 2024

Introduction

In today’s legal world, digital evidence isn’t just helpful—it’s essential, especially in cases involving trademark and other civil disputes. Page Vault’s web capture technology has become the go-to tool for attorneys tackling these challenging cases. By capturing critical content from websites and social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, X, and more, Page Vault empowers legal professionals to preserve and authenticate online evidence. Here, we dive into a few high-profile cases where Page Vault was used and digital evidence made a difference. These examples show how this technology is reshaping legal strategies to protect brands, uphold contracts, and pursue justice.

Capturing Online Evidence Before It's Gone (Specht v. Google)

Last Updated March 2024

As legal teams address the myriad aspects of a case, it can be easy to overlook the importance of securely capturing and preserving digital content, such as websites, social media sites, and online videos. After all, the evidence is publicly available, and even if it gets removed, there are tools such as the Internet Archive (also known as the Wayback Machine) that can demonstrate what a site looked like in the past – right?

Admissibility Risks of Submitting Simple Screenshots as Evidence

Last Updated March 2024

When digital content—such as websites and social media sites—might be introduced as evidence in a case, legal counsel must ensure that the evidence is properly collected and authenticated under the relevant rules of evidence. Taking simple screenshots without authentication can result in the evidence being ruled inadmissible, putting the entire case at risk.

What You Can Learn from IL v. Lorenzo Kent

Last Updated March 2024

Here at Page Vault, we talk a lot about the importance of web content authentication. Recently, we came across the IL v. Lorenzo Kent, 2017 IL App (2d) 140917, No. 2-14-0917 (Lorenzo Kent) opinion which reversed a first-degree murder conviction, in part because of a piece of web evidence that was not properly authenticated.