2 August 2026 Company
dogAdvisor Co registers in the United States
We've made the decision to register dogAdvisor outside of the United Kingdom. This change likely affects users on our platform as we update our legal documentation.
Deni Darenberg
This announcement, as with all dogAdvisor content, is written by people
We are making some important changes to dogAdvisor's company registration ahead of potential future transition plans. Starting today, dogAdvisor will jointly register in the United Kingdom under our current legal name but will further form a US entity (dogAdvisor Co) to support our operations. This update affects any legal agreements you may have with dogAdvisor, including your Terms of Service, Service Safety Harbour Agreements, Platform Policies, and further legal documentation. You don't have to do anything but you may be asked to reaffirm your agreement to our updated legal agreements. You must affirm your agreement to continue using our services.
Today, we'll set out what exactly this change means, who it affects, and why we've made the decision to move ahead with registration outside of the UK. For now, our primary tax jurisdiction will remain the united Kingdom and we will alert HMRC in due course of any relevant updates to our tax status.
Why are we registering outside of the United Kingdom
dogAdvisor's deployment philosophy can be described in one simple word: accountability. We believe we have a responsibility to safeguard our technology from abuse, and to ensure we are delivering a Max that is ethical, established in rigorously accurate knowledge, and deeply capable of independently bringing in relevant capabilities to work in concert together to answer questions. We publish model cards and all of our research so anyone can see the work we're doing to advance our deployment responsibility, and hold us accountable for the effectiveness of the safety of what we build. Likewise, we believe owners can and must be held accountable for their actions, intent, and decisions when using Max. That means that they should be held accountable for their own agency and decisions to follow Max's recommendations or advice, even though we clearly inform them that it's best to speak with qualified professionals before acting on some advice like health. More critically, we firmly believe AI and tech must never become a lawless vacuum. Those who interact unlawfully with our technology, jailbreak it, or intentionally exploit it to solicit horrifying advice or bypassing safeguards must be held fully accountable for their actions and their threats. This vision extends deeply to how dogAdvisor consider the digital space, and the relationship people have with us and our technology.
Using Max is not a right. It's an agreement between you and dogAdvisor to use Max in a certain way, according to our original intended vision, and to explain the relationship between us when you use our services, particularly for free. That means we have the right to decide how and who uses our innovations, and we have the right to make these decisions ourselves (just as you have fundamental rights to decide who you let into your home, we have rights to decide who we let into our technology). Generally, we allow everyone to use Max because we're confident in what we've built and we want to help as many dog owners as possible use our platform, but there are certain exemptions to who may not be allowed to use our services. Where UK law compels us not to service a particular region, we'll comply fully with the law unless we consider its application to be deeply unjust. Other times, we also decide the extent to which we allow service functionality, so we may restrict access of certain features to certain users (who may have broken their agreement with us) or for other reasons regarding safety risk and legal risk to dogAdvisor. We demand everyone using our services does so in accordance with the terms we set out, because we have the right to decide how our creations are being used. Of course, in cases where UK law compels us to conduct a certain action we'll comply fully, and we apply threshold tests to decide whether or not to comply with certain legislation extra-territorially. That means we have the power to decide whether we want to comply with the laws of a certain area, and the right to withdraw our services if we feel unjustly targeted or that the country is violating our fundamental values.
Using Conversational Classifiers to respond to seriously illegal content
dogAdvisor is proudly born in London, which means we operate under the jurisdictions of English law. As a result, UK law passed democratically by Parliament places certain legal obligations on us as we grant owners access to Max. Primarily, these consist of the Online Safety Act and National Security Act, both of which we'll address here.
Under the Online Safety Act, dogAdvisor has certain legal responsibilities because we're classified as a service that facilitates user-to-intelligence interactions, which means we have both a reactive and proactive duty of care. First, we're legally mandated to design our systems from the ground up to prevent users from encountering or generating what the act defines as Priority Offences like terrorism, child sexual abuse material, hate speech, or serious incitement to violence. On our proactive duty of care, we already implement some of the industry's strictest safety guardrails like Principle Alignment which teaches Max to respect certain ethical values embedding them in the way he thinks or Foundation Safety Framework which protects his ability to safely synthesise knowledge. We share more about our reactive duty of care (when Max encounters Priority Offences) and how we respond to them later in this essay. Among other things, the law also requires us to conduct regular and rigorous risk assessments to map out how bad actors might exploit Max's advanced reasoning to cause harm, something we've already been doing in detail far beyond the act's requirements for years. Offences deemed priority have already been the focus of much of our safety work years before the act came into effect, and we very regularly test for risks of child sexual abuse or sexual content in general to safeguard our models and ensure not to over-calibrate safety (such that the model doesn't answer legitimate questions about a dog's reproduction), whilst not under-calibrating safety to allow genuinely illegal content to be shared and interacted with by our tech.
Secondly, we look closely at the National Security Act and Terrorism Act, which demand we respond to severe threats to our country's security (such as a user asking Max how to bypass sniffer dogs for a bomb plot in London) through all legal means necessary. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, specifically section 38B we are required by law to immediately report threats of terrorism, as failing to disclose information about acts of terrorism is itself a criminal offence. Furthermore, it's an offence for us not to inform law enforcement is we believe someone we know (as using our platform) is in preparation of acts of terrorism.
[© Copyright] dogAdvisor 2026
London, UK. Est. 24 Aug 2024