Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity

US: two applicants sue Eightfold AI over 0-to-5 applicant scores used in hiring

Two job applicants filed a proposed class action on 20 January 2026 in California state court (removed to federal court on 2 March 2026) against Eightfold AI Inc. The complaint alleges that Eightfold's hiring tools collect applicant data and produce a 0-to-5 'Match Score' that employers use to rank candidates, without the notice, access and dispute rights the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a California statute require. One plaintiff says she applied to Microsoft in or around July 2025 and again in December 2025 and received an automated rejection two days after the first application. The other says she applied to PayPal in December 2025. Both say they were not interviewed or hired and believe Eightfold's tools played a role. Eightfold says it does not scrape social media and operates on data candidates or customers provide. The allegations are unproven and Eightfold filed a motion to dismiss (no ruling appears in the docket entries inspected).

AI system
Eightfold Match Score
Eightfold AI Inc.
Occurred
1 Jul 2025 to 17 Dec 2025
Reported
21 January 2026
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 · Privacy
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts
6 claims: 1 documented, 5 reported. 6 open questions
People reported harmed
At least 2 people

AI system as recorded: Eightfold AI talent-evaluation tools including the 'Match Score' applicant ranking model

Reported harm

The complaint alleges that two applicants were scored by Eightfold's tools, not interviewed and not hired, and that they received none of the disclosures or dispute rights the statutes require. The plaintiffs believe the tools played a role in their rejections. Eightfold's involvement in any particular rejection is not established.

What remains unknown

  • Whether Eightfold's tools produced a score for either plaintiff or influenced either employer's decision is not established. The complaint and reports rest on the plaintiffs' allegations and belief.
  • The start date of the alleged practice is not stated. The incident range covers only the plaintiffs' dated applications (July to December 2025). The complaint says one plaintiff has applied to Microsoft and other employers since 2023. Earlier applications are not described and are outside this record.
  • Whether the defendant's tools collected social media or other third-party data about the plaintiffs is disputed by Eightfold and unresolved.
  • The other plaintiff's location is not stated in the sources inspected.
  • The outcome of the pending motion to dismiss is unknown. Docket entry 46 (24 Sep 2026, a statement of recent decision) had no readable content.
  • Microsoft and PayPal are not defendants. Microsoft declined comment and no PayPal response was inspected.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The complaint alleges Eightfold's Match Score model scored and ranked the plaintiffs' applications for the employers. Eightfold's statement disputes the alleged data collection. No document showing a score for either plaintiff was inspected.

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

Reported The complaint alleges that Eightfold collects applicant information and scores applicants from 0 to 5 by predicted likelihood of success for employers, that employers use these reports to sift applications, and that Eightfold provides no notice, access or dispute rights.

Causal attribution. These are the plaintiffs' allegations as stated in a filing. The filing establishes only its own contents.

Reported The complaint says one plaintiff applied to Microsoft in or around July 2025 and again around 16 December 2025, and received an automated rejection two days after the first application without an interview.

Causal attribution. The complaint attributes the screening to Eightfold's Evaluation Tools used by the employer. No employer record or score was inspected.

Reported The complaint says the other plaintiff applied to PayPal on or around 17 December 2025 for two roles and was not asked to interview or given an offer for any position applied to.

Causal attribution. The complaint alleges Eightfold's tools were applied to this application. Reuters reports the plaintiffs believe the tools played a role. The link to any specific rejection is not established.

Reported Reuters reports the plaintiffs, who are not named by this record, filed a proposed class action in California state court on 20 January 2026 on behalf of all US job seekers evaluated with the tools, and that neither plaintiff was hired and both believe Eightfold's tools played a role.

Causal attribution. Reuters and the plaintiffs' counsel release both trace to the complaint and counsel. They are one reporting chain.

Reported An Eightfold spokesperson said the platform does not scrape social media and operates on data shared by candidates or provided by customers.

Causal attribution. Company statement to Reuters. It disputes the complaint's data-collection allegation and does not address the scoring allegation.

Documented Eightfold removed the case to the US District Court for the Northern District of California on 2 March 2026 and filed a motion to dismiss. The docket shows the hearing on that motion vacated on 24 July 2026 and no ruling in the entries inspected.

Causal attribution. Procedural facts documented by the court docket. The docket does not establish the merits.

Sources

4 sources inspected, from 2 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

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

The complaint states that one plaintiff lives in, applied from and was denied employment while living in Contra Costa County, California. The removed case is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The other plaintiff's location is not stated.

Reviewed for publication 2026-09-29: The complaint was read from the copy attached to the defendant's notice of removal, with Reuters, the plaintiffs' counsel release and the court docket. The plaintiffs are described by role and not named. All allegations are attributed and remain at reported status. The AIAAIC archive entry had no description and is not cited.

People reported harmed in this case

At least 2 people

0 AI participants · 2 other people harmed

Two plaintiffs each allege they were scored and not hired. The proposed class of all US applicants evaluated with the tools is not counted because no class has been certified and no other applicant's experience is reported.

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

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). US: two applicants sue Eightfold AI over 0-to-5 applicant scores used in hiring. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-us-eightfold-ai-match-score-applicant-screening-class-action

BibTeX

@misc{2025_us_eightfold_ai_match_score_applicant_screening_class_action,
  title = {US: two applicants sue Eightfold AI over 0-to-5 applicant scores used in hiring},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-us-eightfold-ai-match-score-applicant-screening-class-action}
}

Related cases

Medium Snapchat content-flagging system

Washington, Illinois: Snapchat flagged a student teacher's private joke to the FBI; she was arrested at her school and lost her placement

On 29 January 2025, a 22-year-old student teacher at a District 50 elementary school in Washington, Illinois, vented in a private Snapchat group chat with her boyfriend and two roommates after a third-grade student turned off her computer mid lesson-plan, asking whether she should 'shoot the child or just the whole school' (per sheriff's reports). Snapchat's systems flagged the message and warned the FBI, which notified the Tazewell County Sheriff's Office at 1:06 p.m. Deputies interviewed her at the school, confirmed she sent it as a joke, searched her phone and belongings with her consent and found no weapons, and arrested her on a disorderly conduct charge; they concluded she had spoken out of 'exasperation' with no intent to harm and no threat to the school. The district told parents she would not return to complete her educational assignment.

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 Sentinel AI (reported)

Lawsuit says a New Jersey employer dismissed a remote worker who sought exemption from AI facial-recognition webcam monitoring

NorthJersey.com reported on 5 October 2026 that a former remote employee of Sutherland Healthcare Solutions, based in Clifton, New Jersey, sued the company in New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City on 23 September 2026. According to the complaint as reported, the employer told the employee it would start monitoring her through her work laptop's webcam with software called Sentinel AI, which would use AI and facial recognition to confirm that she was the person at the desk, taking 160 still images in an eight-hour shift. The employee raised concerns in writing about the AI seeing inside her home and about whether the data would be securely stored, said the monitoring had increased her anxiety and stress and worsened a medical condition, and asked for a full or partial exemption as a reasonable accommodation. The suit says the request was denied, she was given a 24-hour ultimatum on 13 August 2026 to submit to the monitoring or resign, an offer to avoid the software by commuting to the office was rejected because it would require six hours of travel time, and her employment was terminated on 8 September 2026. The suit alleges that the employer violated New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws and retaliated against her for requesting reasonable accommodations. Sutherland did not respond to the outlet's requests for comment, and the allegations have not been tested in court.

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.

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