Editorial Policy

• Primary sources. Factual statements rest on legislation, regulator guidance and other primary material, listed at the end of each document. Every link is checked before publication.
• Stated limits. Each document says what it cannot tell the reader and is never presented as legal advice.
• No fabrication. We do not publish invented case studies, testimonials, statistics, prices, valuations or reviewers.
• Independence. Buyers do not commission, review or approve content. See Commercial Disclosure.
• Usefulness. Material must serve a reader who never requests an assessment.

1. Topics are chosen from the questions decision-makers face when they first consider a data licence.
2. Research is taken from primary sources, with the date of checking recorded.
3. Drafts are written in plain language, and uncertainty is flagged as such.
4. Where a document addresses legal or data protection matters, we aim to have it reviewed by a suitably qualified professional. A reviewer is named, with the date of review, only when a real person has actually completed one. Until then the document is attributed to our editorial team and carries no reviewer statement.
5. The publication date is shown, and the revision date changes only when substance changes.

Data protection law, regulator guidance and market practice change. Documents are reviewed periodically and on learning of a material development. Where a regulator has indicated that guidance is under review, we say so and direct readers to the live source.

Please report errors or omissions to [contact email], identifying the document and passage and, if possible, a source. We will verify, correct confirmed errors promptly and annotate material corrections.

• Assertions that every organisation's data has a buyer, or forecasts of what may be paid.
• Content written solely to attract search traffic.
• Material duplicated from, or closely resembling, other sites we operate or anyone else's.
• Any statement implying that we act for or represent a buyer.