One conviction.
One focus.

Most establishments in Europe and compliance efforts do not fail for lack of goodwill. They fail because regulatory compliance is handled at the end of a project, as a formality, rather than upstream, as what conditions market access and the ability to withstand an inspection.

Sila was founded on the conviction that compliance with the European framework (GDPR, AI Act, NIS2, DORA) cannot be separated from the legal structuring of the entity. Splitting these matters between a GDPR provider, a structuring adviser and a local firm multiplies interlocutors, fees and blind spots.

We operate at the intersection of the two, upstream of decisions and over time. One point of contact who thinks simultaneously about regulatory exposure and the structure of the entity.

Sila advises companies entering the European market and those already operating within it, in France and elsewhere in the Union. The regulatory framework is common; its operational translation depends on each organisation's sector, size and actual data processing.

Our work is to anticipate friction points and structure operations accordingly, without fragmented coordination between providers who do not communicate with each other.

The scope of a compliance engagement depends on whether and how the instrument applies to you, on the number of processing activities, systems and contracts involved, and on what already exists inside your organisation. None of that is known before we have spoken. That is why no amount and no fee schedule appears on this site.

The process starts with a scoping discussion, at no charge and without commitment, to define what the engagement will cover. A tailored quotation follows within 48 hours, setting out the scope, the deliverables and the amount.

You therefore know what you are committing to before you commit to it, and our recommendations have no interest to serve other than yours.

The first brings together companies establishing in Europe: the choice of structure (subsidiary, branch, representative office) determines future regulatory exposure, and compliance must be thought through before registration, not after.

The second brings together companies already in operation, including French ones, that need to catch up with the AI Act, NIS2 or DORA. The need changes in timing without changing in nature: assess actual exposure, map processing activities, bring the entity into structural compliance.

These two situations do not call for two firms. They call for the same method: understand exposure before acting, structure before registering, stay engaged over time.