Auditzo helps law firms, privacy teams, and compliance professionals document technical website evidence for CIPA-style tracking review, cookie consent behavior, third-party requests, pixels, browser storage, and ADA/WCAG accessibility observations.
Need a focused starting point? Review our Manual Evidence Audit. Need technical fixes after findings? See Website Tracking Remediation.
Scoped around the matter, website, jurisdiction focus, and evidence depth.
Lawyers and privacy teams do not need vague screenshots, generic scanner rows, or unsupported conclusions. They need a documented view of what the website did, when it was tested, what was observed, and which technical signals may need legal, privacy, accessibility, or remediation review.
Auditzo can work as a technical evidence layer for law firms that need structured website behavior documentation before legal review, client advisory, remediation planning, or post-remediation verification.
This page is for teams that need more than an automated report and want technical evidence prepared in a way that can support serious review.
For attorneys reviewing website tracking, consent behavior, CIPA/CPRA concerns, ADA/WCAG accessibility issues, or client risk questions.
For internal teams that need technical clarity before legal, compliance, vendor, or remediation discussions.
For larger organizations that need defined scope, documented findings, and custom evidence packages across one or more websites.
For teams supporting brands that need deeper documentation than a standard scanner output.
The exact legal question is handled by counsel. Auditzo focuses on documenting the technical behavior that helps the right people review the issue clearly.
Discuss Your ScopeTechnical observations around tracking scripts, session tools, pixels, chat widgets, consent behavior, and third-party requests.
Screenshot-backed observations for keyboard navigation, link purpose, form labels, headings, image alt text, focus behavior, and WCAG-oriented issue mapping.
Documenting whether cookies, trackers, storage entries, or requests appear before meaningful consent interaction, where testable.
Evidence-focused review of website tracking behavior that may be relevant for privacy or compliance analysis.
Helping teams understand what was technically observable on the website before deciding next steps.
If the matter involves a CIPA website-tracking allegation, our CIPA demand letter technical evidence guide explains what to preserve, how allegations can be translated into testable technical questions, and why current-state evidence may matter before the website changes.
Custom packages for law firms, agencies, or enterprise groups reviewing multiple websites or brands.
After fixes are applied, Auditzo can help verify whether selected tracking, consent, accessibility, or implementation behavior changed as expected.
Auditzo can support law firms and compliance teams with technical ADA/WCAG-oriented website accessibility evidence. The output is designed to be useful for legal review, remediation planning, and retesting after selected fixes.
Keyboard navigation checks, focus behavior, form labels, error-message behavior, link purpose, buttons, headings, landmarks, and image alt text.
Issue examples can be mapped to relevant WCAG success criteria with severity notes, affected pages, evidence references, and remediation guidance.
Findings can include screenshots, affected elements, reproduction notes, and developer-ready observations for remediation teams.
After fixes, Auditzo can retest selected issues and document whether the observed technical behavior changed as expected.
Scope is agreed before work starts. Depending on the website and objective, an evidence package may include the following.
Region, browser, timestamp, test path, consent journey, accessibility test notes, and environment details used during the review.
Visual references for banners, page state, network activity context, accessibility findings, and relevant user journeys.
Third-party domains, request activity, trackers, pixels, scripts, and network behavior visible during testing.
Observed cookies, browser storage entries, categories, domains, and changes across tested consent states.
No-interaction, reject, and accept journeys where available and appropriate for the website being reviewed.
WCAG-oriented issue examples for keyboard access, focus order, headings, labels, link purpose, alt text, contrast, and ARIA behavior where scoped.
A clear report with observations, supporting references, technical risk indicators, accessibility findings, and next-step direction.
Remediation-oriented notes that help technical teams understand the affected element, behavior, and suggested fix direction.
Evidence IDs, file references, testing notes, and structured summaries that make the report easier to review and discuss.
We keep the process structured so findings are easier to review, compare, and explain.
We confirm domains, pages, jurisdiction focus, consent journeys, accessibility checks, evidence depth, and desired report format.
We document the testing environment, browser setup, location assumptions, timestamps, and test constraints.
We test agreed pages and collect relevant screenshots, cookies, storage observations, accessibility observations, and request-level evidence.
Where applicable, we compare behavior across no-interaction, reject, accept, selected user journeys, and selected accessibility test paths.
We organize findings into clear technical observations, not legal conclusions.
You receive the agreed evidence package, report, and optional technical walkthrough if included in scope.
Not every situation needs a custom legal-team package. Start with the right scope and scale only when needed.
Automated evidence report for teams that need more than a free scan.
Focused human-reviewed technical evidence for a defined website scope.
Custom evidence package for serious legal, privacy, accessibility, or multi-domain review.
This matters because legal/privacy/accessibility work needs clean expectations from the start.
Our role is technical: observe, document, organize, and explain website behavior so the right legal, privacy, accessibility, or remediation professional can review it properly.
We can work under NDA, keep scope controlled, avoid unnecessary sharing, and prepare reports in a format that suits your internal review process. For law firms or enterprise teams, we can also discuss naming conventions, redactions, evidence folders, and delivery preferences before the audit starts.
For sensitive work, we usually share redacted samples or walk you through the report structure before scope confirmation. Sample reports are available on request so we can share the most relevant example for your review.
Covers cookies, consent-state comparison, third-party requests, pixels, browser storage, HAR/network evidence, and technical review items.
Covers WCAG-oriented observations, screenshots, affected elements, severity notes, and developer-ready remediation guidance.
Clear answers before you request a custom proposal.
No. Auditzo provides technical website evidence reports and evidence-focused documentation. Legal conclusions should be made by qualified counsel.
We can document technical website behavior that may be relevant to CIPA review, such as trackers, session tools, pixels, third-party requests, browser storage, and consent behavior. We do not provide legal interpretation.
Yes. We can document technical accessibility observations such as keyboard navigation issues, focus behavior, missing labels, link purpose issues, image alt text, heading structure, contrast concerns, and WCAG-oriented issue examples. We do not provide ADA legal conclusions or certification.
Yes. We can scope multi-domain or portfolio audits for law firms, agencies, and enterprise teams. Pricing depends on number of websites, pages, evidence depth, report format, and timeline.
Yes, where scoped. Standard evidence packages may include summarized request-level observations. HAR files, deeper network exports, or custom capture workflows can be added to the scope.
Yes. For sensitive matters, client websites, or legal-team work, we can discuss NDA and confidentiality requirements before starting.
Yes, technical fixes can be handled separately through Website Tracking Remediation, depending on access, platform, consent tool, accessibility issue type, and implementation complexity.
Yes. Retesting can be scoped after selected fixes are applied so the report can document whether the observed technical behavior changed as expected.
Tell us the website, concern, jurisdiction focus, accessibility needs, and evidence depth you need. We will recommend the right scope before quoting.
Not sure what you need? Start with a free website audit or review the Manual Evidence Audit.