Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Lawsuit Settled

Massachusetts job applicant alleges CVS's AI-analysed HireVue video interview was an unlawful lie detector test; court let his claim proceed, then he settled

A man who applied for a supply chain job with CVS in Massachusetts around January 2021 says CVS put him through a HireVue video interview with questions about integrity, and alleges that HireVue sent the recording to a platform called Affectiva, which analysed his facial expressions, eye contact, voice intonation and inflection with artificial intelligence and fed a score to CVS. He sued CVS in a proposed class action under the Massachusetts Lie Detector Statute, alleging the interview was a lie detector test and that the online application lacked the notice of rights the law requires. He says he did not know the interview was a lie detector test and would not have taken part had he known. In February 2024 a federal judge in Massachusetts denied CVS's motion to dismiss the notice claim, finding a concrete informational injury; CVS had not challenged the other claims at that stage. A law firm commentary says he was not hired. In July 2024 he reached an individual settlement with CVS, whose terms were not reported. The allegations about the AI analysis were not tested in court.

AI system
HireVue (reported)
Occurred
Jan 2021
Reported
16 February 2024
Event location
United States
What the AI did
Made a claim about the person
Reported harm
Professional Harm
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Work
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources
5 claims: 1 documented, 4 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: HireVue video-interview platform that, the applicant alleges, sent interview recordings to Affectiva for AI analysis of facial expressions, eye contact and voice, and gave CVS an employability or competency score for each applicant

What Happened

The interview. According to the second amended complaint, as summarised by the court, CVS screens applicants with a video interview developed by HireVue, Inc. Applicants are recorded answering questions such as what integrity means to them and what they would do if they saw someone cheating on a test. The complaint alleges that HireVue uploads the recordings to a third-party platform, Affectiva, which analyses facial expressions, eye contact, voice intonation and inflection using artificial intelligence, and that HireVue gives CVS a numerical employability score or competency-level scoring report for each applicant. It cites HireVue statements that its tools can help with lie detection and screen out embellishers. CVS administered a HireVue interview to the applicant when he applied for a supply chain position around January 2021; the online application did not carry the statutory notice that lie detector tests are unlawful in Massachusetts.

The claim. The applicant says he did not know at the time that the interview was a lie detector test and would not have taken part had he known. He sued in a proposed class action for people who applied for Massachusetts CVS positions, with a sub-class of those who took a CVS HireVue interview. CVS moved to dismiss only the notice count, arguing that the statute gives no private right of action for it and that he had no standing. On 16 February 2024 Judge Patti B. Saris denied both motions, finding that he had plausibly alleged that, as a downstream consequence of the missing notice, he took part in the interview. A law firm commentary says he was not hired.

The outcome. In July 2024 CVS and the applicant reached an individual settlement. Whether Affectiva's analysis actually ran on his interview, what score he received and whether it affected the hiring decision were never established in court.

Reported harm

The applicant alleges CVS subjected him, without the notice Massachusetts law requires, to a HireVue video interview analysed by AI that he says was a lie detector test; a law firm commentary says he was not hired. The court found a concrete informational injury pleaded.

Outcome

Resolved

On 16 February 2024 the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied CVS's motions to dismiss the notice claim, holding that the Lie Detector Statute lets aggrieved applicants sue over the missing notice and that the applicant had pleaded a concrete informational injury. In July 2024 CVS reached an individual settlement with the applicant; no class was certified and the terms were not reported.

What remains unknown

  • Whether Affectiva's AI analysis actually ran on the applicant's January 2021 interview, and what score or report HireVue gave CVS about him.
  • Whether any AI score affected CVS's decision not to hire him.
  • The terms of the July 2024 settlement.
  • CVS's and HireVue's own account of the interview: neither inspected source reports their response to the allegations about the AI analysis.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The complaint, as summarised by the court, alleges that CVS administered a HireVue video interview to the applicant, that HireVue sends interview recordings to Affectiva, which analyses facial expressions, eye contact, voice intonation and inflection using artificial intelligence, and that HireVue gives CVS a numerical score for each applicant, including assessments of honesty and integrity. The harm alleged is taking part in that assessment without the statutory notice. These are allegations accepted as true only for the motion to dismiss; no source establishes that the AI analysis ran on his interview or what it concluded.

5 claims: 1 documented, 4 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported The complaint alleges that CVS screens applicants with a HireVue video interview, that HireVue uploads the recordings to Affectiva, which analyses facial expressions, eye contact, voice intonation and inflection using artificial intelligence, and that HireVue gives CVS a numerical score for each applicant.

Causal attribution. The applicant's allegations as summarised by the court and a law firm; not tested in court.

  • govinfo.gov(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'To screen applicants, CVS administers a video-interview' ... 'platform called Affectiva, which analyzes candidates’ facial' ... 'expressions, eye contact, voice intonation, and inflection using' ... 'artificial intelligence.'
  • afslaw.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'video of their facial expressions, eye contact, voice intonation, and inflection are analyzed using artificial intelligence.'
Reported Around January 2021 CVS administered a HireVue interview to the applicant for a Massachusetts supply chain position; the online application lacked the statutory notice, and he says he did not know the interview was a lie detector test and would not have taken part had he known.

Causal attribution. The applicant's allegations accepted as true for the motion.

  • govinfo.gov(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Around January 2021, Baker applied for a supply chain position in Massachusetts with CVS.' ... 'did not include the notice of rights mandated' ... 'During Baker’s application process, CVS administered a' ... 'he would not have participated in the'
Reported According to a law firm commentary, the applicant was not hired.

Causal attribution. A law firm's summary; the court's order does not state the hiring outcome, and no source connects the decision to an AI score.

Documented On 16 February 2024 the federal court denied CVS's motions to dismiss the notice claim, holding that the statute lets aggrieved applicants sue and that the applicant had pleaded a concrete informational injury.

Causal attribution. Established by the court's own order.

Reported In July 2024 CVS reached an individual settlement with the applicant.

Causal attribution. Reported by Bloomberg Law; the terms were not reported and the settlement is not an admission.

  • news.bloomberglaw.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'CVS Health Corp. has reached an individualized settlement with a job applicant who alleged the pharmacy chain broke Massachusetts law by subjecting him to a lie detector test through AI-aided video-interview technology.'

Sources

3 sources inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English on 2026-11-02: the 16 Feb 2024 memorandum and order (PDF, GovInfo, HTTP 200). Its factual background restates the complaint's allegations, which the court accepts as true for the motion only. Applies to s1.

Read in English on 2026-11-02 (HTTP 200). A law firm's commentary on the ruling; it summarises the complaint and the ruling and adds that the applicant was not hired. Applies to s2.

Read in English on 2026-11-02 (HTTP 200): only the opening paragraphs are visible without a subscription; they report the individual settlement. Applies to s3.

Event countries: United States. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: United States.

The court says he applied for a supply chain position in Massachusetts with CVS. The court is the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. No residence is used.

Reviewed for publication 2026-11-02: Published because a federal court order records the applicant's allegation that CVS gave him a HireVue interview whose recording was analysed with AI to score applicants, and denied CVS's motion to dismiss his claim of a concrete injury from taking it without the required notice; the case later settled. The AI analysis remains an untested allegation.

People described

A job applicant for a supply chain position with CVS in Massachusetts who took a HireVue video interview and later sued

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the applicant who took the HireVue interview and sued. The proposed class of Massachusetts applicants was never certified and is not counted.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#work#hiring#ai-video-interview#lie-detector-statute#lawsuit

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Massachusetts job applicant alleges CVS's AI-analysed HireVue video interview was an unlawful lie detector test; court let his claim proceed, then he settled. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2021-massachusetts-cvs-job-applicant-alleges-hirevue-ai-video-interview-was-unlawful-lie-detector-test-court-lets-claim-proceed

BibTeX

@misc{2021_massachusetts_cvs_job_applicant_alleges_hirevue_ai_video_interview_was_unlawful_lie_detector_test_court_lets_claim_proceed,
  title = {Massachusetts job applicant alleges CVS's AI-analysed HireVue video interview was an unlawful lie detector test; court let his claim proceed, then he settled},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2021-massachusetts-cvs-job-applicant-alleges-hirevue-ai-video-interview-was-unlawful-lie-detector-test-court-lets-claim-proceed}
}

Related cases

Medium HireVue

Three MAC make-up artists say an algorithm-marked HireVue video interview led to their redundancy; Estée Lauder settled their claims

City AM and Cosmetics Business reported in March 2022, relaying the BBC Three documentary Computer Says No and the Times, that three make-up artists at MAC, an Estée Lauder Companies brand, lost their jobs in a 2020 redundancy process after being told to reapply for their roles through a video interview run by HireVue and marked by an algorithm. City AM reports that they were made redundant partly as a result of the automated judgement. The women said no one could explain how they had been scored, and one said nobody watched the video. Estée Lauder settled their claims out of court; the amount was not disclosed. The company says staff were told in advance about the HireVue skills assessment, that the process was used in tandem with human decision-making, that facial recognition made up about 0.25% of the overall assessment and performance data and qualitative feedback most of it, and that any suggestion facial recognition played a decisive role is false. HireVue said its video-analysis component had been discontinued about two years earlier. How much the HireVue score weighed in each decision is not reported.

Medium GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 5 (reported)

Massachusetts: fired teacher asks court to vacate an arbitration, saying the arbitrator improperly used AI tools to judge her AI-detector evidence

A kindergarten teacher at a public elementary school in Concord, Massachusetts, was dismissed in August 2025 after an unsatisfactory evaluation. In arbitration she argued that some of the principal's evaluations may have been produced with AI, relying on GPTZero estimates; the principal denied using AI beyond grammar checks. According to the arbitration decision as reported by The Concord Bridge, the arbitrator stated in an appendix that he used two AI tools, GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 5, to research whether GPTZero was reliable, checked some of the sources they supplied, concluded that GPTZero's results deserved no weight, and upheld the dismissal on 27 August 2026. On 28 September 2026 the teacher asked Suffolk Superior Court to vacate the decision, alleging that the AI-assisted research was an improper investigation outside the hearing record that the parties were not told about or allowed to challenge. These are allegations in a complaint; the district declined to comment and no court has ruled.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

Ninth Circuit fines and suspends two immigration lawyers over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and denials of AI use; immigration board follows

On 3 June 2026 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit fined immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds $2,500 each and suspended both from practice before the court for six months. Briefs filed in an asylum petition for review cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to opinions that do not contain them. In a motion to correct, the attorneys called the errors typographical, and at oral argument Rounds twice said AI was not used. In their response to the court's order to show cause, they conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's unlicensed brief writers and a failure to check citations. The court said the suspension was owed to their repeated failure of candour. The Board of Immigration Appeals then suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security for six months, effective 13 June 2026, and designated that decision as a precedent on 1 October 2026.

Low Andon Labs Luna agent

San Francisco: Andon Labs says its AI store-manager agent recommended firing an employee over repeated lateness, and its staff carried out the dismissal

Andon Labs, an AI research company, runs Andon Market, a store in San Francisco managed by an AI agent called Luna built on Anthropic's Claude models. The company calls the store a controlled experiment; its workers are formally employed by Andon Labs, and TIME describes them as real people with genuine employment contracts. In a blog post of 14 August 2026 the company said Luna had decided to fire one of its employees. According to the logs it published, an employee handbook Luna had written dropped out of its memory and it did not act on the employee's repeated lateness; when Andon Labs asked it to search its memory, it first proposed a verbal warning, and after a staff member said formal conversations had already taken place and asked it to think about whether this was the right fit, it wrote that it leaned toward parting ways. Andon Labs says the termination was reviewed and delivered by humans. TIME, citing Andon Labs, reports that the employee was late for 17 of 23 shifts; the company says the firing was warranted, and the employee did not reply to TIME.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents