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 Meta internal AI systems (reported)

US: 26 Meta employees sue alleging an AI-assisted May 2026 layoff selection penalized workers on protected leave, Meta says people made the decisions

On 20 May 2026 Meta began notifying about 8,000 employees (roughly 10 percent of its workforce) that they had been selected for layoff. On 13 July 2026 twenty-six anonymous employees who had taken or requested medical, pregnancy, parental or family leave, or a disability accommodation, sued Meta in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used internal AI-assisted systems (including the Metamate assistant, keystroke and activity monitoring, AI-token-usage dashboards and algorithmic performance ranking) to score, rank and select employees, and that these inputs could not accumulate during protected leave, so plaintiffs on leave were disproportionately selected. Meta says workforce decisions were made by people, not AI, and that no selection decision was made by AI. On 17 July 2026 the court denied a temporary restraining order, recording that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in the terminations and finding serious questions on the merits but no shown likelihood of success. One plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026. The preliminary injunction motion was argued on 24 August 2026 and taken under submission. The plaintiffs are pursuing their merits claims in arbitration and the allegations are unproven.

Medium Pangram AI-text detector

US and UK: Hachette cancels the US edition of the novel Shy Girl and discontinues the UK edition after allegations it was AI-generated, with the author denying personal use of AI

On 19 March 2026 Hachette Book Group said it had cancelled the US publication of the horror novel Shy Girl by Mia Ballard (Orbit imprint) and would not continue the UK edition (Wildfire imprint, first released in November 2025). Reports say the decision followed an investigation by Hachette and came a day after the New York Times asked the publisher about online allegations that the text was largely AI-generated. The allegations came from readers on Goodreads, Reddit and YouTube and from AI-detector results, including a 78.4 percent AI-generated score on the Pangram detector that a publishing consultant says two other services confirmed. Ballard denied personally using AI in emails to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and told the New York Times that an acquaintance hired to edit the original self-published version used AI. Ballard wrote that "my name is ruined" and "my mental health is at an all time low", and said legal action was being pursued. Hachette’s public statements cite its commitment to original creative expression. The sources inspected do not report what its investigation found. Whether AI generated any of the text, and who used it, is unresolved.

Medium AI roommate kitchen monitor (reported)

India: Bengaluru-based employer says he fired his cook after a home AI kitchen monitor flagged fruit taken

On 1 March 2026 a Bengaluru-based technology professional posted on X that he had deployed a home "AI roommate" (a kitchen camera with an AI vision model, which he said was Claude Haiku 4.5) that monitored his cook while she cooked, alerted him when she took anything and sent weekly reports. The post said the system "caught her red handed", that he "caught her twice this week" and that he had "just fired" her. Screenshots quoted by Hindustan Times show the bot listing apples and a banana as gone, reporting the cook eating blueberries, and giving hand-washing and cleaning observations. All coverage derives from the employer's post: the post carries no video, the cook's account is not reported and the alleged taking is unverified.

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