Description

A focused course, tailored for you

The Platform Regulatory Counsel Evidence Workbook

Turn DSA, DMA, AI Act and platform-liability questions into a defensible evidence map your engineering and policy partners can actually execute.

You are the regulatory lawyer who has to convert a recital into a row a product manager can ship against, across four regulators, against a backdrop of state-AG subpoenas and EU-Commission information requests.

$199 one-time

Tailored to your situation. Access within 24 hours. 30-day money-back.

Includes a hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access, generated for your specific situation.

Why this course

Platform regulatory counsel sit between the obligation text and the engineering reality. The DSA Article 34 systemic-risk assessment, the DMA gatekeeper interoperability and self-preferencing rules, the EU AI Act foundation-model obligations, the UK Online Safety Act child-safety duties, the US state-AG content-moderation actions, the Indian DPDP Act, the Brazilian LGPD enforcement notices, the Singapore IMDA codes. Each has its own evidence shape, its own refresh cadence, its own escalation path. The legal team writes memos. The product and ML teams ask for a workbook. The policy team asks for a regulator-response binder. Nobody has the through-line from a single recital to a single surface to a single log file with a single owner and a single review date. That through-line is what this course builds, repeatably, for the kind of obligations a platform legal team faces every quarter.

What you walk away with

Ship a single platform-obligation workbook that covers DSA, DMA, AI Act, UK OSA, and the two or three local regimes your platform is exposed to.
Translate each recital or article into a row a product manager or ML researcher can act on, with owner, evidence type, log location, and refresh cadence.
Stand up a regulator-response binder that pulls from the same evidence file the workbook references, so a 24-hour information request does not trigger a fire drill.
Cut the time from a new regulator publication to a tracked obligation row from weeks to days.
Give the deputy GC or AGC a one-page status doc on every regulator, refreshed on a cadence that matches the regulator's own review cycle.

The 12 modules

Module 1. Obligation intake for platform counsel

Walk through how a regulatory lawyer at a consumer platform receives a new obligation: an EU Commission delegated act, a state-AG complaint, an IMDA code update, an FTC consent-order modification. The module covers the intake checklist (jurisdiction, instrument type, in-force date, threshold trigger, enforcement authority, evidence form) and the routing from intake to the obligation register row. Templates for the intake form and the routing decision tree are included.

Module 2. The platform obligation register

Design the register that holds DSA Article 34, DMA Article 6, AI Act Article 55, UK OSA Section 11 duties, DPDP Section 7 duties, and the rest in one place. Columns covered: regulator, instrument, article or recital, obligation statement, owning team, evidence type, refresh cadence, retention rule, last review, next review, status. The module shows how to keep the register usable for both legal review and product handoff, with versioning that survives a quarterly refresh.

Module 3. Surface mapping

Map every obligation row to the specific product surface or system that touches it. Newsfeed ranking, recommender systems, advertising delivery, messaging, search, generative features, payments, marketplace listings, child accounts, age-assurance. The module covers how to keep the surface map fresh as the platform ships new surfaces, and how to flag obligations that orphan when a surface is deprecated. Worked example walks an AI Act Article 55 obligation onto a specific foundation-model deployment.

Module 4. Evidence type catalogue

Catalogue the evidence types a platform regulator actually asks for. Risk-assessment write-ups, conformity declarations, transparency reports, audit logs, model cards, data-sheet entries, mitigation experiment results, takedown statistics, appeal-resolution timelines, training-data summaries. The module covers how each evidence type is produced, who owns it, where it lives, and how often it refreshes. Includes the template that maps obligation row to evidence type to log location.

Module 5. Working with engineering and ML

Build the handoff from the obligation row to the engineering or ML team that has to produce the evidence. The module covers the joint-review meeting cadence, the ticket template that survives legal-engineering translation, the escalation path when an obligation has no clear owning team, and the disagreement protocol when product and legal read a recital differently. Includes a sample joint-review pack used for an AI Act foundation-model deployment review.

Module 6. Working with policy and public-policy

Coordinate with the public-policy team who is in the room with regulators and the policy team who is writing the position papers. The module covers the divide-of-labour map (who answers what, who attends what, who clears what), the input cadence into policy comment letters, the brief format that lets a policy lead carry a legal position into a regulator meeting, and the post-meeting capture template so a verbal regulator signal lands in the obligation register the next morning.

Module 7. Regulator-response binder

Stand up the binder that gets pulled when a Commission information request, a state-AG CID, or a national-DPA inquiry arrives. The module covers binder structure (cover page, scope statement, evidence file, narrative responses, exhibit log), the 24-hour and 72-hour response choreography, the chain-of-custody rules for the evidence file, and the privileged-versus-produced sorting protocol. Includes a worked binder for a representative DSA information request.

Module 8. Periodic risk and conformity cycles

Run the periodic cycles that the major regimes require. DSA annual systemic-risk assessment, AI Act conformity-assessment refresh, DPDP and LGPD periodic reviews, child-safety duty annual reports. The module covers the timeline from the kick-off memo to the published file, the cross-functional inputs at each stage, the sign-off ladder, and the audit-trail rules. Includes the project plan template and the sign-off ladder template.

Module 9. Transparency reports and public artefacts

Manage the artefacts that go public. Transparency reports, model cards, AI-system disclosures, takedown statistics, appeal-outcome reports. The module covers the production cadence, the legal-review checkpoint that does not collapse the publication schedule, the consistency checks against the obligation register and the evidence file, and the press-and-policy alignment that prevents a number from drifting between the report and the policy team's external messaging.

Module 10. Cross-regulator inconsistency management

Handle cases where two regulators want different things from the same surface. EU DSA risk-assessment language versus UK OSA language, EU AI Act foundation-model rules versus US AI executive-order guidance, state-AG content-moderation positions versus EU rule. The module covers how to record the inconsistency in the register, brief the deputy GC and public-policy lead, and make a documented decision on which interpretation the platform implements while preserving the audit trail.

Module 11. Outside-counsel coordination

Use outside counsel without surrendering the through-line. The module covers the scope-memo template that names the obligation rows and surfaces in scope, the work-product handoff back into the obligation register, the privileged-review protocol, and the budget-discipline rules that keep outside-counsel spend tied to a defined obligation rather than open-ended advice. Includes the engagement-letter rider that locks the work-product format to the register schema.

Module 12. Status reporting upward and across

Produce the reporting that the deputy GC, the AGC for regulatory, the GC, and the board's risk committee need. One-page status doc per regulator, quarterly trend slide, in-flight enforcement matter log, regulator-relationship temperature read. The module covers the cadence, the format that survives a CEO read, and the link back to the obligation register so the board view and the working-level view never drift. Includes the one-pager and quarterly slide templates.

How this addresses your situation

Specific modules that map to what you said you are dealing with.

Module 1 anchors on the morning a new regulator publication lands in your inbox and the question is whether it triggers a new obligation row.

Modules 2 to 4 are the workbook build: register, surface map, evidence catalogue. These are the spine the rest of the course hangs on.

Modules 5 and 6 are the cross-functional translation layer: getting engineering, ML, and policy to ship against the workbook rather than around it.

Modules 7 through 12 are the regulator-facing and leadership-facing artefacts the workbook makes possible: binders, periodic cycles, transparency reports, cross-regulator decisions, outside-counsel discipline, status reporting.

What you get with this course

Twelve written modules in the Art of Service learning environment, each with worked examples drawn from a representative platform-counsel workload.
Downloadable templates: obligation register schema, surface map, evidence-type catalogue, joint-review pack, regulator-response binder, periodic-cycle project plan, status one-pager, quarterly trend slide.
Hand-built implementation playbook tailored to a platform regulatory counsel, delivered alongside course access.
30-day money-back if the workbook does not survive contact with your actual obligation stack.

What you will have in hand by Day 1, Week 1, Month 1

Within 24 hours: learning environment account provisioned, implementation playbook delivered alongside.

Week 1: complete modules 1 to 4 and stand up the first version of the obligation register and surface map.

Week 2: complete modules 5 to 8 and run the first joint-review meeting and the first periodic-cycle kick-off using the workbook.

Week 3: complete modules 9 to 12 and ship the first one-page status doc and the first transparency-report consistency check off the workbook.

Week 4: refresh cycle on the obligation register, evidence-file audit, and the first cross-regulator inconsistency decision recorded in the register.

Before and after

Before

Memos per regulator, no shared evidence file, engineering and policy asking for a workbook the legal team has not written, regulator-response work is a fire drill each time.

After

One obligation register, one surface map, one evidence file, one regulator-response binder process, one status reporting cadence, all maintained on a refresh cycle that matches the regulators' own review cycles.

What happens if you do not address this

An information request lands without a binder ready, the response is built from scratch under deadline, the evidence file is reconstructed from email threads, and the deputy GC asks why the workbook everyone has been asking for still does not exist.

Who it is for

In-house regulatory counsel at a large consumer platform, working alongside policy, public-policy, trust-and-safety, product, ML research, and security teams. Typically reports into a deputy GC or AGC for regulatory. Owns or co-owns the obligation register, the regulator-response process, and the evidence file behind the periodic risk assessments and conformity declarations.

Who this is NOT for. Outside counsel running litigation matters. Privacy-only counsel without platform-regulation scope. Pure policy advocates. GCs of platforms below VLOP / gatekeeper / foundation-model thresholds where the obligation density does not justify a dedicated workbook.

How it arrives

Text-based course in the Art of Service learning environment, plus downloadable templates and worked examples for every module, plus the hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access.

Time investment. Roughly two to three hours per module across four weeks. Heavier on the workbook-build modules, lighter on the reporting modules.

Why $199 is the right number

Outside-counsel memos give you legal interpretation, not the engineering-handoff workbook. A GRC platform gives you control libraries written for security teams, not platform regulatory text. A privacy-only programme misses the DSA, DMA, AI Act, and platform-liability obligations entirely. This course gives you the workbook the legal team itself owns, sized for a platform regulatory counsel's workload.

FAQ

Is this a substitute for outside counsel?

No. It is the workbook outside counsel hands work product back into so the legal team retains the through-line from recital to evidence to refresh cycle.

Does it cover US state-AG actions as well as EU regulation?

Yes. The obligation register schema is regulator-agnostic and the modules walk through worked examples on both EU instruments and US state-AG matters.

How current is the regulatory content?

The course teaches the workbook method, not a frozen regulatory snapshot. As new instruments land, you add rows to the register the course taught you to build.

Who in the legal team is this for?

Regulatory counsel and senior regulatory counsel who own or co-own the obligation register and the regulator-response process. Useful for the deputy GC or AGC for regulatory as a reference for what their team is shipping against.

What if I am at a platform below the VLOP / gatekeeper / foundation-model thresholds?

The workbook still works, but the obligation density is lower and a lighter-weight version may be more appropriate. Drop a note and we will tailor the implementation playbook to the lighter stack.

30-day money-back guarantee. If after a week of working through the materials this is not what you needed, reply to the receipt email and a full refund is processed. No questions, no forms.

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.