RocketDocs Case Study: Multinational Bank and Compliance Challenges Part 2

Perry Robinson

President & CEO

About the author

As the Chairman and CEO of RocketDocs, a leading integrated sales enablement platform, I oversee the vision, strategy, and execution of the company, which helps clients of all sizes and industries win more deals faster and easier. I joined RocketDocs in March 2023, bringing with me two decades of experience as a C-level executive, general manager, and general counsel in heavily regulated industries, such as healthcare, fintech, and legal services.

I am passionate about solving tough problems and building high growth businesses that contribute positively to our world. Throughout my career, I have helped build companies from early stage startups to multi-billion dollar businesses, leading and advising teams on business development, legal, compliance, and regulatory challenges. I also co-founded and serve as a board director of AutomataNow, a software company that automates complex workflows, and Medable, a healthcare platform that enables decentralized clinical trials. I hold a JD from Baylor University School of Law and a BA with Highest Honors in Anthropology from The University of Texas at Austin. I believe in servant leadership and empowering exceptionally talented people to reach their highest potential.

LinkedIn LinkedIn

The Other Provider

In my last post, I shared a short RocketDocs case study of a customer we lost and their decision to perhaps willingly delete records related to critical representations they make to investors and customers that they are required by regulation to maintain for a period of usually at least 5 years. At the end of my post, I guessed at what might be the reason for this apparently misinformed decision on their part. I also mentioned the offer we made to assist them.

I left off saying that I would also address the responsibility (if any) that the other service provider (our competitor) might have. Looking at the competitor service provider’s website, I can see that they actually may be responsible for part of this decision. “Puffery” is a legal term for marketing speak that, just a bit, inflates or exaggerates the capabilities or characteristics of a product. This competitor service provider is either engaging in some very serious puffery, or they don’t understand how their technology is being used in regulated areas. Neither is a good sign!

The competitor is not well suited for regulated companies. They do not act as a system of record. They don’t comply with new AI laws. They don’t have users start with approved answers before turning to ChatGPT. They are limited in many ways because they don’t own the technology they use. They do not have the capability to do so because they do not own their technology stack for AI. Relying on ChatGPT and a multitude of other AI services, there is not a capability for them to maintain all required records. But is this an obligation on their part?

Is This a Compliance Obligation on Their Part?

Contractually, the competitor has protected themselves by avoiding regulatory obligations of their customers. But inconsistent with this, they make representation after representation about the security and compliance of their solution. In addition to this, their lawyers have been creative in disclosing without disclosing all of the parties whose hands are on their customers’ data. On this basis (failing to clearly disclose in contract and privacy policies) I would argue that this service provider knows that some of their customers aren’t fully informed and just don’t care as long as they are paid.

It is a shame that this is the case. After all, the service provider is setting up the bank for yet another potential massive fine. The service provider has shielded itself contractually, so the bank will be on the hook. With solutions like RocketDocs available, and our offer to help, the regulators will likely come down hard on the bank if they learn of violations of the record keeping obligations. But you know what the real shame is? It is that the bank will pass on this loss to its customers in higher fees or reduced services. Maybe they will have to cut staff. Maybe the fine they already received is why the bank was going through restructuring of its teams. Unfortunately, it is a vicious cycle they are entering into which will not lead to good things.

In my next blog post, I will briefly describe how they could have done things differently.

Learn more about RocketDocs | Take our short RFP Efficiency Quiz to see how your RFP process stacks up. | Schedule a Demo to see RocketDocs in action.