The register
The product. The refund is the pretext that generates the data; the record of who answers is the asset. This page publishes the record and never the verdict — no adjectives, no scores, anywhere.
The question
Non-use is unprovable in the direction that matters. Whether a company holds the record is answerable by every company, short, comparable, and concedes nothing. The second question — “then show me” — follows only where the first is yes, because a company that has said it holds the record has no basis for withholding it from the person it is about.
The entry format — no verdict field anywhere
| Field | Note |
|---|---|
| Company | As named on the contract. |
| Date asked | |
| Exactly what was asked | Quoting the published template, by version. |
| Date replied, or no reply as at a date | Silence is a row, not a blank. |
| What was said | Verbatim, requester's details removed. |
| Nothing else | No score, no label, no adverb. |
The legal footing: a body trading for profit must show serious financial loss before a defamation claim gets off the ground, and substantial truth is a complete defence. A dated record of what was asked and what was answered is protected by truth; a characterisation is protected only as opinion, and only where its basis is published beside it. The record is that basis. The design avoids the invitation rather than relying on winning the case, because the deterrent in practice is the cost of defending rather than the likelihood of losing.
- Date asked
- 3 March 2027 (illustrative)
- Asked
- The published question template, v1
- Replied
- 2 April 2027 — 30 days
- Said
- “We retain login timestamps and feature-usage events for the lifetime of the account. A CSV export is available on request.”
The three answers — three different things
| Answer | What it is | Recorded |
|---|---|---|
| Holds it, disclosed | The best case. | With the response time. |
| Holds it, refused | A compliance question about a right the person has. | Verbatim, with the reason given. |
| Does not hold it | A legitimate design choice (data minimisation). | Neutrally, no penalty. |
| Answered by policy | A published conformance policy page, accepted as an answer. | As such — see the reflexivity defences below. |
| No reply | Silence, after the second ask. | “No reply as at [date]” — a fact, not a blank. |
The inconsistency test
The register's strongest instrument and its fairest. A company that holds no usage record cannot simultaneously be personalising your experience, recommending content based on what you watched, optimising engagement, or reporting engagement metrics to investors — those claims require exactly the data the answer denies holding.
The test is not that they refused. It is that the answer to a data subject and the claims in the marketing cannot both be true.
Factual, checkable by anybody, and it lands only where it is actually true — a company that genuinely holds nothing and claims nothing passes cleanly. It is run only against a company's own published claims, quoted and linked. The method for reading marketing carefully enough to be sure is slow, and it is not yet written up as a repeatable procedure — an honest gap, carried rather than hidden. See what this site ships.
The reflexivity defences
A register that publishes refusals teaches legal teams to refuse. Three mitigations, in order of leverage:
A published policy page counts as an answer
Answering becomes a one-time cost — the only version a large company will actually do.
The good path published as loudly as the bad
“Answered in full, in nine days, in machine-readable format” is as prominent as any refusal. A site that only names other people's gaps is not read as research.
Never publish a first refusal
Ask twice, at a published interval, so every published refusal is a considered one.
Governance — before entry one
A founder-led list is a founder's grievances until the selection rule is published. So the register publishes the following before its first row, not after:
| Item | Status |
|---|---|
| The selection rule — who gets asked, and why | Not yet published |
| The refusal interval — the stated gap between the two asks that defines a refusal | Not yet published |
| The question template, versioned — entries will quote it by version | Not yet published |
| The review process for entry one — a solicitor, before publication, not after | Not yet started |
| The authority-capture workflow — evidence of authority for a representative request | Not yet built |
| The transition intent — the register data lives in a vault, so a future move to a neutral domain or non-profit is a re-point, not a migration | Designed in — see the vault architecture |