Investigative evidence + monitoring

Evidence systems built for examination.

Mercury Labs processes large volumes of data and files into traceable records for audits, investigations, regulatory examinations, and legal review—then keeps monitoring when the matter requires a current view of the market.

Request a methodology briefing See the ENDS examination

From collection to production

Large datasets made usable for audits and examinations.

Evidence rarely arrives as one clean dataset. It arrives as files, exports, captures, records, and changing public sources. We build the processing system that turns that volume into a reviewable corpus: normalized fields, preserved source material, repeatable classification, jurisdictional context, and production formats that investigators, analysts, and counsel can use.

Process at scale

Ingest, normalize, connect, and organize large collections of structured data and files without losing the source context behind an individual record.

Map the questions

Build versioned rule profiles around the statutes, regulations, and local ordinances relevant to each jurisdiction and examination.

Produce the record

Deliver structured datasets, per-entity histories, audit workpapers, and exhibit-ready documentation linked back to supporting material.

1,300+Merchants under continuous observation

50U.S. states included in jurisdiction coverage

DailyDefault observation cadence, configurable by risk tier

2024Continuous collection since, with history retained

Examination architecture

Every finding should lead back to its source.

The system connects the material being reviewed, the method applied to it, and the issue that placed it in front of an examiner. Review teams can move from a market-wide pattern to a specific entity, file, observation, and source capture.

Inputs

Document collections and matter files
Spreadsheets, database exports, and system records
Web pages, images, and timestamped storefront captures
Merchant, payment, shipping, and fulfilment data

Reviewable output

Normalized and linked evidence records
Classification with recorded basis and method version
Potential issue flags organized by jurisdiction
Structured productions and documented audit trails

Documented methodology

A controlled path from source material to production.

A finding that cannot be reproduced is not useful under examination. The collection, processing, classification, review, and production method is defined at the beginning of the engagement and versioned when it changes.

Scope

Define the population, data sources, legal questions, jurisdictions, taxonomy, retention, and delivery format.

Process

Collect or ingest the files and data, preserve source context, normalize fields, and connect related entities and events.

Classify

Apply deterministic rules first and model-assisted review where needed, recording the path and evidence behind each result.

Review + produce

Validate findings against the supporting material and deliver them in the format investigators, analysts, or counsel require.

Evidence handling

Built for the person who has to defend the record.

Collection volume matters, but provenance determines whether an individual finding can survive scrutiny. Evidence handling is part of the system design, not a report-writing step added at the end.

Timestamped capture

Every observation records when it occurred and the method version in force.

Source preserved

The underlying material is retained alongside extracted fields so the finding can be checked against what was observed.

Append-only history

New states are added without silently overwriting or backfilling the record that came before.

Versioned methodology

Method changes are dated so historical findings remain interpretable under the rules used at the time.

Chain of handling

Access, export, and production events can be logged to show who received which material and when.

Available for examination

The person who built the system can explain its operation where an engagement requires technical examination.

Flagship examination · ENDS online sales

State by state. Store by store.

Online sales of electronic nicotine delivery systems are governed by overlapping federal requirements, state laws, and local ordinances. Enforcement teams needed a reliable view of which merchants were selling into each jurisdiction and what happened at the storefront and checkout—not only what a policy page claimed.

Mercury Labs built continuous observation across more than 1,300 Shopify and WooCommerce merchants. The system recorded storefront status, ENDS products offered, age-verification behaviour, shipping destinations tested by state, and the payment and fulfilment infrastructure behind each checkout.

Jurisdiction-specific examinations connected those observations to the state requirements and applicable local ordinances in scope, helping counsel identify conduct that could warrant legal review while preserving the underlying record for examination.

Findings were delivered to the New York City Law Department and a coalition of 25 state attorneys general. The work supported the coalition’s engagement with Shopify, which ended vape product sales to United States customers across its platform in June 2026.

Professional reviewing evidence in a quiet meeting environment

1,300+Observed merchants

25State AG offices receiving findings

June 2026Platform-wide outcome

A necessary boundary

Evidence informs the legal determination. It does not replace it.

Mercury Labs documents behaviour, organizes large records, and identifies statutes, regulations, or ordinances that may be relevant to the examination. We do not characterize conduct as lawful or unlawful. Investigators and counsel draw conclusions from the produced record.

Who this is built for

One evidence base. Different production needs.

The underlying collection can support different workflows. The field set, review protocol, access model, and delivery format are shaped around the office responsible for acting on it.

Government

Regulators and public agencies

Audit-ready market views and jurisdiction-specific records produced for policy, regulatory, procurement, or administrative workflows.

Enforcement

Investigators and law enforcement

Entity histories, infrastructure connections, issue flags, and source records that support review from a market-wide pattern down to a specific observation.

Legal

Law firms and legal offices

Documented collection methods, per-entity evidence, structured productions, and technical support for litigation, regulatory, and enforcement matters.

Engagement structure

Start with a bounded examination.

Scoping establishes the sources, population, legal questions, jurisdictions, processing method, and production format. A defined pilot proves the record before an office commits to continuous monitoring.

01 · Scoping

Define the examination

Agree the source material, market boundary, jurisdictional profiles, taxonomy, review standard, retention, and delivery format.

02 · Pilot

Build the reviewable record

Process an agreed corpus or monitored population, test the methodology, and deliver enough evidence to evaluate continued use.

03 · Standing mandate

Keep the record current

Continue collection at an agreed cadence, incorporate new files and entities, and produce findings as the examination evolves.

Evidence + monitoring FAQ

Questions before an examination begins.

A methodology briefing can walk your team through the field set, processing method, evidence handling, limitations, and a redacted example record.

An engagement can combine large document collections, spreadsheets, database exports, system records, page and image captures, logs, and publicly observed marketplace data. The processing plan defines how each source is normalized, linked, classified, retained, and produced before work begins.

No. The system organizes observed facts, preserves the supporting record, and can map findings to statutes, regulations, or ordinances that may warrant review. Legal conclusions remain with the government, enforcement, or legal team responsible for the examination.

Each jurisdiction is treated as its own rule profile. Relevant state requirements and applicable local ordinances are versioned, then observed storefront behaviour—such as product availability, age verification, and shipping destinations—is evaluated against the profile to identify records for counsel or investigator review.

The system is designed for traceability: observations are timestamped, source captures are retained, methods are versioned, and findings can be traced back to the record that produced them. Whether a particular item is admissible in a particular forum is a decision for counsel.

Collection uses publicly accessible storefronts and sources at a rate and in a manner documented for the engagement. We do not access private systems or use credentials we are not entitled to use. Controlled purchasing is performed only where an engagement expressly provides for it and the legal basis has been agreed in advance.

Yes. Structured data, field definitions, per-entity records, and documented exports can be produced for the systems your analysts and counsel already use. The delivery format and schema are agreed during scoping.

Methodology before commitment

Bring us the examination. We will show you the system.

Request a briefing