Legaltech firms say more clarity is needed from new government guidance around digital verification services.
The Digital Verification Services (DVS) Trust Framework 1.0 and accompanying Money Laundering Regulations (MLR) guidance were developed to draw a clear line between compliant and non-compliant services.
Jointly published by HM Treasury and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), the framework and guidance clarify that only digital verification services certified against the UK Digital Identity and Attributes Trust Framework and listed on the government’s Digital Verification Services (DVS) Register can be used to fulfill customer due diligence obligations. Certified providers must display the new ‘UK CertifID’ trust mark to signal their certification status.
The guidance states that “digital verification services which are not certified and therefore not on the DVS register cannot reliably be deemed suitable for identity verification in compliance with the MLRs”.
The DVS Trust Framework 1.0, published on 3 March 2026, establishes detailed standards for certified providers including biometric testing requirements and security controls.
However, according to digital identity verification company Credas Technologies, whilst four levels of confidence are defined – low, medium, high and very high – neither the guidance nor the framework prescribe which level property professionals must achieve for MLR compliance, “creating uncertainty for businesses seeking to ensure full compliance”.
Credas is now calling on sector regulators to clarify which level of confidence (LoC) under Good Practice Guide 45 (GPG45) is required for compliance.
Meanwhile, client due diligence platform Thirdfort thinks the new guidance will provide reassurance to some businesses that had sought clearer regulatory direction on when, and how, digital identity checks could be used to satisfy MLR requirements.
Thirdfort co-founder and chief product officer Jack Bidgood described the guidance as a “significant and timely step for regulated sectors including property, legal and financial services”.
He said:
“Digital identity and AML technology are already embedded within the compliance frameworks of many regulated firms, particularly in property and legal services.
“The latest government guidance provides helpful clarity for those businesses that wanted explicit confirmation of how certified digital identity services can be used to meet Money Laundering Regulations requirements. It is a positive and pragmatic step towards modernising compliance.”
However, Bidgood stressed that further alignment is required to ensure consistent supervisory interpretation and interoperability across sectors, saying: “Clear recognition of certified digital identity services reduces uncertainty and gives firms greater confidence to invest in technology.”
Jon Parish, compliance manager, Credas, agrees. “The Data (Use and Access) Act placed the Digital Identity and Attributes Trust Framework on a statutory footing in 2025, and this guidance reinforces that by confirming certified digital verification services are the compliant route under the MLRs,” he said.
“However, while the guidance addresses which providers are suitable, it doesn’t specify which level of confidence firms should use. Without clarity, firms are left to interpret the standard themselves – creating potential compliance inconsistency.”
Neil Williams, CTO, Credas, added:
“The Trust Framework and guidance represent a significant step forward in the adoption of secure and trusted methods of digital identification that protects not only property professionals but their clients as well. But as AI-generated fraud becomes more sophisticated, we need greater specificity.
“The framework now introduces strict biometric testing standards to combat these threats, but without clarity on required Levels of Confidence, firms lack clear direction on what ‘compliant’ actually means in practice.”
