Uber reimagined the way the world moves. Ivo reimagined the way businesses deal with contracts. Today we’re announcing that Uber Technologies, Inc., the world’s leading mobility and delivery platform, has selected Ivo’s AI-powered contract intelligence platform to transform its legal operations.
Ivo was selected as Uber’s vendor of choice after a thorough selection process. “The evaluation involved various cross functional teams including Legal, Sales and IT. Uber selected Ivo because it was intuitive to use, demonstrated a high-level of accuracy, could work in multiple languages, and met its confidentiality requirements. Furthermore, the Ivo team was highly responsive to Uber’s needs,” Kate Gardner, Senior Manager, Contract Operations at Uber, said.
Uber needs a better way to search for specific and custom information inside their contracts without manual review. Many parts of the organization need business and legal insights from their library of agreements; Ivo will turn the process of extracting that data from a tedious slog to an operation that potentially could take minutes. In addition, Uber’s team wants the data to be presented clearly and integrated into their current technology stack, and Ivo’s ability to generate reports within its platform or within their existing workflows was particularly attractive.
“High-growth companies like Uber know that their contracts are a treasure trove of insights. However, extracting that information has always proven to be a difficult task,” said Min-Kyu Jung, CEO and co-founder of Ivo. "Our platform empowers legal teams to easily surface those insights and provide key information to the rest of the business, becoming a strategic cross-functional partner and amplifying their impact on the entire company.”
Ivo’s contract intelligence platform uses our proprietary AI engine, AiRE, to analyze contracts, identify key terms and risks, and reveal business intelligence that would traditionally require hours of manual review. The solution integrates with existing legal workflows, enabling global teams like at Uber to maintain their preferred processes while achieving efficiency gains.
This partnership underscores the growing adoption of AI-powered contract intelligence solutions among leading technology companies. These companies seek to understand the wealth of valuable information buried inside their business agreements as well as position their in-house legal teams as strategic business partners that can help their organizations grow.
Hundreds of in-house legal teams are using Ivo to transform their legal operations and transform their contract work into strategic insight. Schedule a demo today and see how Ivo’s contract intelligence platform could work for your business.
One of the most common questions we hear from our customers and prospects is whether products like ours can be built in-house or whether they need to be bought from a vendor like Ivo. And it’s a very good question. Many companies, particularly large technology companies, are used to building their own tools, which makes a lot of sense. These are companies with huge amounts of resources, the most talented engineers, and the technical know-how to build successful products.
One thing we often hear from customers is that they have to go through a robust cost-benefit analysis when considering whether or not to buy these tools. Buying a legal AI solution is not easy right now. There are so many different vendors saying so many different things, and it’s important for legal professionals to make the right decision on which tools will solve the challenges they face. And, in order to select the right tool, contracting teams have to filter through the noise of the myriad of different solutions in the market.
There are three important considerations to think about when calculating whether the right approach is to build a legal tool in-house vs. buying from a vendor. They are:
Figuring out the ways your organization would answer all of those questions will make the answer of whether to build or buy an AI legal solution more clear.
Companies usually undergo a very robust cost-benefit analysis of whether to buy a software tool, and many, many organizations believe that they can build a tool with the right functionality for their contracting teams more efficiently and effectively than buying from a vendor. There are many factors that go into this economic decision. The choice to purchase software creates costs in the ongoing subscription fees, possible professional services, and additional licensing fees, whereas building in-house requires an upfront investment in development resources as well as the hidden opportunity cost. Will the business decide that it makes sense to divert engineering talent to creating a tool for contracting teams? How will those resources be prioritized? And what happens to the project if something else takes priority? Ultimately this decision rests on whether a tool can be procured at a lesser cost than the time and resources to build it in-house.
One of our customers told us, “It’s been a while since we’ve had to deal with something that is so new and so powerful and yet could be such a big mistake if not implemented properly.” Legal and contracting professionals need to be able to trust their AI tools; it is a professional necessity. A small mistake could present unacceptable risk. Sometimes companies have the perception that a tool built in-house is created with more sophisticated technology than tools built by external vendors, and will therefore be more accurate and more trustworthy.
One of the things that we’re particularly proud of at Ivo is that our product is purpose-built for lawyers because lawyers are part of the custom implementation for every customer. We can therefore guarantee that our contract solutions will be accurate, trustworthy, and fit for purpose. Our contract intelligence solution, for example, has a 97% score against the CUAD dataset.
One of the thorniest challenges when it comes to software built in-house is the cost to maintain it. It’s an almost-universal problem; when the engineers who built custom software leave the company, they take their institutional knowledge with them, and there often isn’t documentation or community support that can answer questions or fix issues with the product. Important implementation decisions and key workarounds only exist in the developers’ memories, and when they’re gone, so too is that knowledge. The remaining teams have to struggle to comprehend undocumented code or unconventional design patterns without the context of why the technical decisions were made. And as the software ages, the problem gets worse. Integration with evolving business systems, security updates, and compatibility fixes become difficult without developers who understand the original code. None of the solutions are good: companies can hire an expensive consultant to rebuild the software or rebuild from scratch, both of which negate any cost savings of building in-house, or simply stopping the use of the tool altogether, which negates any benefit to adoption in the first place.
In order to solve the build vs buy question, organizations must honestly figure out not just whether they can build the software today — a thorny question even in the most well-resourced organizations — but also whether or not they can maintain and support it for years to come, even as team members leave the company. Every business needs to ask themselves about the right place to allocate their resources. Is building and maintaining custom software a core strategic business function? Or does that divert valuable engineering resources away from the core business? Being able to clearly assess that question, with dedicated consideration to the factors above, will go a long way to solve the build vs. buy conundrum.
We recently released Research, our legal resource tool that uses trusted, authoritative sources to and in-line citations to fill all your legal research needs. It’s extremely important to use trusted, citable sources for legal research, for obvious reasons, and Research gives you line-by-line citations so you can check the accuracy of the results.
For US matters, those sources include EDGAR / SEC Filings, U.S. Code and Congress.gov, eCFR and the Federal Register, as well as reputable indexes for court case retrieval. For questions involving UK/EU matters, Research uses materials from official databases like Companies House, Parliament, and the Court of Justice.
What kinds of prompts can you use with Research? The feature excels at case law and statute search, multi-jurisdiction research, and compliance. Here are a few example prompts that you can use with it:
Another capability of Research is that it can summarize new and relevant statutes very quickly for executive review or wider consumption. An example of a prompt for this might be:
Research is also able to take into account context about your company through the company profile feature. For example, if Ivo knows that your company is located in California without specifying a jurisdiction in your prompt, Research will look to statutes, regulations, and case law that are specific to California.
Research is a powerful feature and our customers report that it saves them a great deal of time and effort. If you’d like to see how it could be useful in your workflow, schedule a demo today. Happy researching!
Many professionals who have worked with contracts have faced this critical question: Where are all of our contracts, and what's actually in them?
For every organization, particularly those of significant size or age, this isn't a trivial question. It represents a fundamental risk. Every employment agreement, partnership arrangement, vendor relationship, and supplier agreement represents a legal obligation. And for many companies, the honest answer to where, precisely, these obligations are documented is that they’re not entirely sure.
Recently, a general counsel shared with us the experience of trying to centralize their organization's contracts. After a long, hard 12 months, they discovered contracts were scattered across nine different locations including individual employee hard drives. The risks represented by this were incalculable. If an employee’s hard drive crashed, that business relationship could be lost forever. And the 12 month effort wasn’t successful. Even after that investment of time and resources, they weren't confident they'd found everything.
This scenario is more common than it should be. Contracts are processed by different business units, stored where they're worked on, and filed in whatever system seems convenient at the time. Even when companies implement contract lifecycle management tools, their effectiveness depends entirely on consistent metadata tagging, which is a manual process that's both time-consuming and vulnerable to human error.
The risks become particularly critical during litigation or regulatory inquiries, when legal teams need immediate access to every relevant agreement. We’ve spoken with legal teams who face regular litigation and understand they must be able to surface all contracts with specific counterparties on short notice. Many organizations aren't this prepared.
If companies aren’t so proactive, the alternative is scrambling to reconstruct contractual history during a crisis, and that’s exactly the kind of fire drill that no general counsel wants to manage. Some organizations have simply accepted that certain contracts are permanently lost. But that acceptance can introduce unmanageable risk. This simply shouldn’t happen.
The contract management technology that many contracting teams work with is a simple repository where the contracts are tagged with metadata, which can then be queried with a rudimentary search system. This approach works when everything is properly tagged and filed, but metadata tagging being a difficult, manual process, there are always errors.
But what if the approach could be different?
Ivo Repository uses AI to extract information from contracts at scale, without requiring upfront metadata tagging. You can load your existing contracts from wherever they currently live and immediately begin querying them, identifying relationships between agreements, spotting historical changes in terms, and flagging potential risks or opportunities for renegotiation. Not only will you be able to find your contracts, but you’ll be able to get critical information out of them quickly and easily, without hours or days of manual work.
Schedule a demo and see just how powerful Repository is, and whether it could solve the challenges your company is facing with contracting work.
What if you had a co-worker that you could ask any question and have it answered in moments, without leaving your workflow?
That’s Ivo Assistant.
Ivo Assistant is a true legal partner, a smart associate that can help you with so many different kinds of legal tasks right where your work is done. Tasks that would have taken you hours or even days to do before Ivo now can take minutes or sometimes even seconds.
It offers real-time collaboration in both our Ivo Contract Review for Microsoft Word and Ivo Repository products.
You can use plain-language prompts to redline, revise, and explain clauses while reviewing contracts, and you can also use it to ask questions of your contracts, such as
“Which contracts auto-renew in Q3?” or “Where are we missing liability caps?” and get instant insights, risk flags, and patterns across your agreements.
We often hear from customers about how much they like being able to get instant answers from their contracts, and that questions that might have taken days to answer now become trivially easy. We heard from one general counsel that a particular question took her five hours to answer using her CLM. Now, with Ivo Assistant in Repository, answering that same question takes just seconds.
If you could ask your contracts anything, and get the answers you needed quickly, what would you ask? Assistant in Repository is a powerful tool that allows you to get all kinds of information about your contracts that could help every department in your business. The marketing team might want to know which customers have given you logo rights to use marketing materials, or the customer success team might want a table summarizing which customer contracts are up for renewal in the current year by month. Assistant makes answering those questions extremely simple.
But it can also do so much more. As always, when prompting Assistant, we suggest that you make your prompts as precise and specific as possible. Here are a few suggested prompts our customers have used to obtain useful information:
This particular set of prompts deals with a situation familiar to every attorney. You're reviewing terms and you know you've seen this language before, possibly even agreed to something similar, but you can't quite remember which agreement or which counterparty. With Assistant, finding the answer is as straightforward as asking the question.
Schedule a demo if you’d like to see how Assistant could work within your workflow. Happy prompting!
Ivo has recently launched one of our most highly requested features. Users can now bulk upload documents with Ivo Assistant in both PDF and Docx formats. Using Assistant, you can quickly and easily compare and contrast documents or extract key data.
Using Assistant, if you have several versions of an agreement and want to know the differences between them, you can now upload all versions and ask Assistant to generate a table of its findings, all within your existing workflow.
This feature is also useful for fact extraction. You can query a large batch of documents by asking something like, “What do each of the documents I uploaded say about termination rights or the effective date?” or “Please extract the key facts and generate a table of the results.”
Here are more ideas of prompts you can use in Assistant with the bulk upload feature:
Want to see how this feature can transform your workflows? Schedule a demo!
Metropolis, the largest parking operator in the US, has adopted Ivo’s AI-powered Contract Review platform to streamline and speed up the contract review process. Metropolis will be using Ivo to ensure consistency and accuracy in its contract review workflows.
Metropolis is famous for using technology to solve real-world logistics problems. Companies in these industries know that speed is a competitive advantage, yet legal teams are often mired in laborious contract review processes. Accuracy and consistency is also a concern for teams with multiple lawyers, so having a single source of truth for standards and procedures will be invaluable for the legal team.
Accuracy and consistency are non-negotiables when it comes to contract review. But lawyers everywhere are challenged by dense, lengthy contracts that must be reviewed by multiple parties. Ivo makes analyzing, comparing, and reviewing contracts trivially easy, shortening processes that normally can take years into just a few weeks.
“We’re pleased that logistics leaders like Metropolis are using Ivo to speed up contract review,” said Min-Kyu Jung, CEO and co-founder of Ivo. “It’s fantastic to see how Metropolis is using Ivo to help its legal team achieve strategic impact for the business.”
Across the logistic sector, legal teams are reimagining their workflows with Ivo’s AI-powered contract review platform. With custom playbooks that deliver surgical redlines and consistent insights, Ivo helps legal teams achieve surgical accuracy and consistency, saving up to 75% of the time spent on manual contract review.
Find out how Ivo is helping companies in every industry re-imagine the contract review process.
Ivo’s latest product release is Research — a concise, report-style legal tool that uses authoritative sources and trusted inline citations for all of your legal research needs.
Research uses a dataset that has been created with high-quality primary and secondary legal sources. Ivo’s Research feature conducts all research exclusively within this dataset, ensuring precise and reliable outputs, rather than relying on generic web sources which could produce inaccurate results.
In the US, those sources include EDGAR / SEC Filings, U.S. Code and Congress.gov, eCFR and the Federal Register, as well as reputable indexes for court case retrieval. For questions involving EU matters, we use materials from official EU portals (Companies House, Parliament, Court of Justice).
To further ensure reliability, we have ensured that each claim in a Research report is cited inline at the sentence level. Additionally, we avoid indirect citations. If a case quotes a statute, we cite the statute directly; if a case cites another case, we find and cite the original. Quotes are also cited against the source and pinpoint to specific sections. Finally, for broad propositions, Research will generate multiple authorities and reasoning excerpts — not a single, superficial citation.
Research is also able to understand context about your company through the Company Profile feature. For example, if Ivo knows that your company is located in California, without specifying the jurisdiction in your prompt, Research will look to California-specific statutes, regulations, and case law. For mixed federal-state or multi‑state questions, Research organizes your report into clearly labeled jurisdictional sections.
The new Research feature uses a number of cooperating agents to double‑check work: a retrieval agent (finds and deduplicates sources), an authority/ranking agent (promotes primary law), a cite‑checker (verifies text and pinpoints citations), a conflict reviewer (flags contradictory authorities), and a gap detector (signals when evidence is thin rather than speculating).
The results from Research come as a comprehensive legal memo. You’ll find Issue, Brief Answer, and Analysis with inline, sentence‑level citations next to each assertion. Authorities are clickable back to the source. You can also download the memo as a separate Word document.
Schedule a demo to see how Research would work in your workflow.
My favorite part about attending events with Ivo is hearing legal professionals talk about what they’re interested in and challenged by with new technology.
I attended SOLID Atlanta and got a chance to have in-depth conversations with both in-house counsel and lawyers from firms around the country... We talked about how legal professionals’ role has become less about the universe of knowledge that they need to have access to, but more about their ability to provide judgment and a wise legal perspective. And despite having comfort with AI tools, they (and myself as a member of this community) still believes strongly that having a human element in the AI process is critical for organizations to be successful in 2025 and beyond. They also noted that senior leadership is no longer skeptical of innovation, but hesitation breeds from knowing which tools are worth investing in and which are not. I heard how the current legal SaaS business model is at odds with how legal teams buy. Often CFOs have a budget for just one tool for Legal — e.g. a CLM — but current tech is sold in modules - this is somewhat new for in-house teams to need resources for multiple tools.
The two biggest concerns that were shared last week that I feel I personally can impact are the need to ensure end-user adoption and integration in the existing workflow. This is where AI companies can do better to provide support and implementation that leads to successful and repeatable outcomes. In-house counsel in particular need assurances that the AI products that they are buying will be adopted by the end users, or they will not hesitate to walk away from the purchase.
My takeaways from SOLID Atlanta were that attorneys are well aware that AI was changing their role and moving them from knowledge gatekeepers to strategic advisors. And they were open to that shift as long as they could bring their judgment and trusted colleagues along on the journey.
Take a look at how companies in numerous industries have reimagined their legal workflows with Ivo.
Connect with us now to learn how we can streamline your contract review process
.jpg)
