What to do when an owner asks you to vouch for SourceX

The short answer: introduce, disclose, hand off

When an owner asks "do you trust them?" or "would you do it?", the honest move is to introduce rather than vouch. Share what you can verify: how SourceX's process runs, that nothing binds the company until it signs, and that you may be paid if a deal closes. Decline to predict the price, buyer interest or privacy outcomes, then route the owner's diligence questions to SourceX and the owner's own counsel.

That keeps you useful without turning you into the guarantor of a transaction you will never see from the inside.

Why is vouching different from introducing?

An introduction connects two parties and lets each judge the other. Vouching asks the owner to rely on your judgment about the outcome. The more a client relies on you, the more responsibility you may carry if the deal disappoints, and how much depends on your profession, your engagement letter and your jurisdiction. The companion page on whether you are liable if a client's data deal goes wrong looks at that exposure in more detail.

There is a practical reason too. You will not see the buyer review, the pricing discussion or the draft agreement, so you cannot know whether the result will be good for this owner. An introduction is honest about that gap. An endorsement papers over it.

What can you say, and what should you leave out?

Stick to statements the owner can check against the published process and terms. Anything that predicts a result belongs to SourceX or nobody.

If you are unsure whether a sentence belongs in the left or right column, ask whether the owner could verify it today from a published page. If not, leave it out.

Should you tell the owner you could be paid?

Yes, and before the owner asks. A recommendation from someone with an undisclosed financial interest is a familiar trust problem in advisory work, and disclosure costs you nothing.

If you mention SourceX publicly, in a newsletter, a LinkedIn post or a conference talk, the FTC's Endorsement Guides (16 CFR 255.5) call for clear disclosure of a material connection between an endorser and the business being endorsed. FTC staff, in the Guides' question-and-answer page, say the disclosure should sit close to the recommendation and use words people understand; a plain statement that you are paid for referrals works better than a label like "affiliate link". The Guides are the FTC's reading of the FTC Act, not regulations in themselves.

A private conversation with one client is a different setting, but the same habit serves you there. Licensed professionals may also have their own written-disclosure duties; the related page on whether it is ethical to earn a referral fee on a client's data deal walks through them by profession.

This is general information, not legal, tax or financial advice. Confirm with your own counsel or professional body before acting.

The two-sentence answer

When the owner asks whether you trust SourceX, this covers it:

Two follow-ups come up often. If the owner asks "would you do it if it were your company?", say you would ask the same questions you are suggesting, and decide only after reading the agreement. If the owner asks "what's my data worth?", say you do not know, and that price is agreed with SourceX before any buyer sees the opportunity.

How do you hand diligence to the right people?

The handoff is a short sequence. Each step moves a question away from you and toward someone who can answer it with authority.

1. Send the owner the published how it works page and the program terms, so the owner reads the process in SourceX's words rather than yours.
2. Suggest the owner put direct questions to SourceX on a call you do not need to join.
3. Recommend that the owner's counsel review scope, exclusivity, redaction rules and payment terms before anything is signed.
4. Stay out of the data. Do not forward exports, screenshots or descriptions of confidential records; share only basic fit information the owner has cleared.
5. Confirm your role in a two-line email: you made an introduction, you are not advising on the transaction, and you may receive a referral reward out of SourceX's fee.

Questions worth handing the owner for that first call with SourceX:

• Who reviews our rights to the records, and what would make you decline us?
• Which document do we sign, and at what point does it become binding?
• Who sets the redaction rules, and who does the redaction work?
• When and how is the company paid, and what fee is included in the price?
• What happens if no buyer selects our data?

When the owner needs more than an introduction

Sometimes the owner wants advice, not a contact: a fractional CFO asked to model the proceeds, a lawyer asked to mark up the license, an M&A adviser asked how a license fits a sale. That can be legitimate work, but it is a separate engagement with its own scope, conflicts check and fee rules. Decide which role you are in before you answer. If you would be advising and could also receive a referral reward, get your firm's and your professional body's view first.

Sponsors facing the same question across a portfolio will find the trade-offs in how sponsors weigh reputational risk when portfolio companies license data.

Next step

If owners already ask you about data licensing, register as a partner so your introductions are credited. Partners earn 25% of the eligible platform fees SourceX actually collects from the referred company's licensing deals, capped at $100,000 per referred company; rewards become payable only after the buyer pays and SourceX receives its fee, and no reward is guaranteed. The referral earnings calculator shows the formula you can explain to an owner, and the FAQ answers the questions owners raise next.