Google Maps Lead Scraper

Are scope, spend, and authority enforced while the agent runs?

One quantitative bound exists and it is a volume cap, not a governance control: the free tier is limited to 2 keywords per job, paid tiers are matched to monthly volume, and agent runs draw on the same Online credits as the web UI, so a credit balance caps how much work can be done per key at run time. Scored 1 because that is a real spend limit; held well below the top band because nothing is published about scope or authority. The agent surface scrapes third-party sites and the business websites behind each listing, and no limit on which domains it will fetch, what it will extract, or how often appears anywhere in the capture.

Counts Price point, Pricing model and Integrations, each cited below.

Is there a tamper-evident record of what it actually did?

The only record described is a "Lead list" that lets a signed-in operator reopen finished batches and re-download the CSV zips. That is a re-download convenience over the operator's own outputs, which is the artefact the 2026-10-15 determinations on mathpal and decai scored 0 on, and the testsprite determination of 2026-10-11 before them. No record of what the scraper did, no retention period, no tamper-evidence, no export for review and no party other than the operator who could review it. Scored 0 on precedent and on the rubric's own wording.

Rests on Audit trail and Tamper-evident log, recorded as undisclosed and cited below. For a 0 that absence is the finding. What a score rests on

Are compliance obligations attached per engagement?

Nothing published, and the shape of the absence is the finding. The page's own FAQ poses both "Is Google Maps Scraper legal?" and "Are you GDPR compliant?" as questions, but our capture contains the question text with no answer behind either - the accordion bodies are not in the retrieved document, so we cannot say what the vendor claims, only that we have no answer to cite. For a product whose output is public emails, phone numbers and social handles for named businesses at batch scale, with an explicit SDR and agency outreach use case, the absence of any citable compliance position is material. Scored 0 as a published absence; a recapture that expands the FAQ would change what can be said here and is worth the Researcher's time.

Rests on Compliance certifications and Regulatory alignment, recorded as undisclosed and cited below. For a 0 that absence is the finding. What a score rests on

Does payment depend on a verified result?

Credit-based: credits are consumed by scraping and enrichment whether or not a usable contact comes back. The page is candid that they often will not - "No public email means an empty cell - never invented" - and an empty cell still consumed the credit that found it. Payment therefore tracks work attempted, not verified result, which is the rubric's 0 band. No milestone, clawback or refund-on-empty term appears in the capture.

Rests on Price point and Pricing model, each cited below.

Can the deployment be insured, and is the customer indemnified?

No cover, carrier, limit, indemnity or liability cap appears anywhere in the capture. The exposure this leaves is unusually concrete: the operator takes on the whole of the data-protection and platform-terms risk of collecting and processing third parties' contact details at scale, and the page offers nothing against it - no indemnity, and no stated position on who bears a claim arising from use of the output.

Rests on Insurance available, Insurance carriers, Coverage limits and Indemnification, recorded as undisclosed and cited below. For a 0 that absence is the finding. What a score rests on