Commercial Analytics & the Daubert Challenge
caution
Core idea
Commercial analytics reports (e.g. Chainalysis) have been accepted as expert evidence in numerous US federal prosecutions since 2015, but defence counsel increasingly challenges the opacity of proprietary clustering models: if the methodology cannot be independently replicated, it may fail the Daubert standard for scientific expert testimony.
When to use
When relying on any commercial clustering or analytics tool for evidence that may be presented in court.
Avoid when
Do not present commercial-tool output while simply pointing at the tool; if you cannot independently explain the heuristics it applied, the underlying data, and the assumptions, opposing counsel may succeed in excluding it.
Example
In the US v. Sterlingov appeal, defence filed a Daubert challenge to Chainalysis testimony, arguing its heuristics’ error rate had never been tested or disclosed; the court allowed the testimony, but the challenge signals where defence strategy is heading (see also US v. Harmon, D.D.C. 2021).
Related
Court-Tested Attribution Evidence Types, Attribution Confidence Levels, Crypto Address Attribution Process