TECHNOLOGY & DATA | CONTRACTS, RISK & COMMERCIAL COUNSEL

Technology, AI, EdTech & Data Privacy Counsel

AI and technology arrangements can expose a company to risks long before a dispute arises: who may use the data, who owns outputs or improvements, who is responsible when the system fails, and what happens if a customer or vendor needs to exit. BOLO advises selected businesses on software, EdTech, healthcare technology and related agreements, connecting contractual obligations to the product’s real-world use and the applicable regulatory environment.

Discuss a Technology or AI Agreement

Call 609-200-6677

Consultations are by appointment. If a deadline is approaching, call the firm. Do not submit confidential materials through initial web intake.

AI and technology contracts should clarify obligations before a dispute starts.

A product may work well while its contract leaves ownership, data use, service levels, compliance and exit rights unanswered. Those issues are easier to assess before a deployment becomes operationally entrenched.

Identify who supplies the technology, what business decision is pending, and when a contract or deployment must be finalized.
Focus an initial legal review on the particular data, licensing, indemnity and regulatory questions raised by the deal.
Agree on the scope and cost of a document review or continuing counsel before legal work begins. Do not send proprietary code or confidential datasets in public intake.

Discuss a technology agreement

See contract-review services

A public form is for general contact only. Do not send confidential information before receiving appropriate instructions; contacting BOLO does not by itself establish representation.

Who this practice serves

BOLO evaluates selected matters for software and AI companies, education technology providers, digital health businesses, healthcare revenue-cycle and management companies, laboratories, diagnostic technology and device manufacturers, founders and organizations buying or deploying enterprise technology.

These clients may be negotiating software-as-a-service subscriptions, master services agreements, intellectual property or data licenses, implementation statements of work, development relationships, confidentiality agreements, platform terms, reseller agreements or commercial disputes. The firm evaluates whether the matter fits its scope and admission requirements rather than presenting itself as technical counsel for every product or jurisdiction.

An AI agreement should allocate real operational risk

AI contracts should address more than license fees and a generic confidentiality clause. The parties may need to allocate responsibility for evaluating outputs, intended and prohibited use cases, safety and human review, model or vendor changes, response quality, availability, limitations on automated decisions and representations made about performance.

Define whether client prompts, uploaded files, results, model feedback and usage data may be retained or used for model improvement, marketing or third-party sharing. State who owns or may use generated deliverables and underlying source materials. Review warranty exclusions, indemnity language, liability caps, audit rights and obligations after termination with the actual system architecture in mind.

Education technology adds student-data and institutional obligations

Technology vendors working with schools or educational institutions may encounter FERPA, student-data protections, security requirements and contract restrictions. FERPA’s application and any school-official exception depend on the educational institution and specific handling of education records. The U.S. Department of Education identifies oversight and restrictions on secondary use and redisclosure as important considerations when schools outsource covered functions.

A contract should clearly address permitted purposes, access controls, subcontractors, retention, security incident response, deletion or export, change control, parent or institutional communications where applicable, and cooperation when the school receives a rights request. A generic statement that the vendor is ‘FERPA compliant’ does not replace examining who controls which records.

Healthcare and diagnostics technologies require a separate privacy analysis

A digital health, billing or laboratory technology vendor may process protected health information for a HIPAA covered entity. If the arrangement makes a company a business associate, the required agreement and safeguards should align with the actual data flow and services. Not all health-adjacent software or all personal information is subject to HIPAA; other federal or state obligations may apply instead.

Separate clinical decision-making, eligibility and reimbursement functions from general software performance promises. Evaluate which party is responsible for authorization, documentation, access, corrections, breach notifications and the operational response to a service outage or vendor lockout.

Contract terms that protect a business at scale

An effective MSA and statement of work should specify acceptance and change controls, milestones, dependencies, price adjustments, customer cooperation, service-level commitments, maintenance windows, disaster recovery and the consequences of nonperformance. Data return and transition rights matter because a customer may need the information long after the vendor relationship has ended.

BOLO also considers ownership arrangements, employment and contractor agreements, marketing representations, vendor onboarding and financing terms where those intersect with the core deal. The objective is a contract that decision-makers can actually administer, not a lengthy form that leaves the important risks unresolved.

When a technology deal becomes a dispute

A disagreement over development quality, API access, AI output, privacy or project milestones may be a scope dispute, warranty issue, regulatory concern or contractual default. Preserve executed versions, technical specifications, change tickets, acceptance records, audit logs, invoices and relevant statements by the parties. Litigation, arbitration, contractual notice and negotiation options require review of the actual agreement.

Companies selling into healthcare, education, finance or other regulated industries should also separate vendor promises from their customers’ statutory obligations. A contract can allocate operational duties between parties but cannot erase a regulator’s applicable jurisdiction.

How BOLO approaches technology engagements

The firm’s business-law, healthcare, investigations and operational background informs its approach to agreements involving multiple stakeholders and regulated information. BOLO starts by identifying the client’s business objective, the product, transaction parties, relevant law, data flows, ownership rights and the outcome expected from the engagement.

When specialist intellectual-property prosecution, security engineering, litigation outside admitted jurisdictions or another discipline is necessary, the scope and appropriate outside support are evaluated rather than implying one attorney covers every technical function.

Useful questions before signing or deploying

Who can use our data to train or improve a model? Look at the actual definition of customer data, derived data, prompts, output and analytics, and the applicable retention and vendor terms.

Does FERPA or HIPAA apply? Determine the parties’ roles and the information involved. A product’s connection to a school or healthcare practice alone does not supply the entire answer.

What happens when the technology relationship ends? Review data export, migration assistance, access to records, intellectual property and confidentiality survival before the agreement is signed.

Related legal services

Sources and legal context

The applicability of any rule depends on the facts, jurisdiction, date, and governing agreements.

Evidence, Operations, and Technology Belong in the Same Conversation

Brian O’Loughlin’s interest in legal technology includes law-school coursework in coding, work with large electronic discovery collections, and writing on discovery questions involving generative evidence. His broader management and investigative background emphasizes examining how a system actually operates before allocating legal risk.

For AI, software, EdTech, and data-focused agreements, BOLO considers the promised functionality, data use, information governance, documentation, responsibility for outputs, and remedies if performance falls short. Technical and jurisdiction-specific questions may require specialist involvement.

Meet the Founder

AI, digital health and privacy: match the agreement to the real technology

Technology contracts should allocate actual data flows, confidentiality, security, clinical decision-making, audit access and exit rights. A standard software license rarely answers every regulated-industry question.

For focused review: identify the vendor, information collected, how data moves, who makes decisions, incident-response terms and the intended product use. Request counsel with nonconfidential information.

These public materials explain legal issues, not a client-specific resolution. Review the sources and editorial policy.

Before your next launch, contract or vendor decision.

Describe the technology, customer or vendor relationship, transaction size, key agreement, regulated data involved, and upcoming deadline. Initial intake should not include source code, confidential datasets, patient records or privileged documents.