{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T08:14:22.934Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"california","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":8,"coverage":{"cases":8,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":5,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":8,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-us-bank-customers-allege-pega-voice-ai-transcribed-and-analysed-customer-service-calls-without-consent","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page headers: 'Case 1:26-cv-14506-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/02/26'; para 5: 'Wiretapping Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99, and the Pennsylvania'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Four U.S. Bank account holders filed a putative class action against Pegasystems Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on 2 October 2026, claiming violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Massachusetts wiretapping statute and the Pennsylvania wiretapping act.","causal_attribution":"The filing documents that the claims were made; it does not establish them."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Para 2: 'Pega Voice AI is employed by numerous entities, including U.S. Bank'; 'to monitor voice and text-based interactions'. Para 20: 'Pega Voice AI is an artificial intelligence tool that'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that U.S. Bank uses Pegasystems' Pega Voice AI, an artificial-intelligence tool for live customer-service calls, in its contact centres.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs' allegation, which the complaint supports with Pega's own published customer material about U.S. Bank; not yet answered by Pegasystems."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Para 47: 'occasions, including in or about January 2026 from his home'. Para 8: 'was in California when he spoke to a representative from U.S. Bank over the phone from his home on multiple occasions, including in or about December 2025'. Para 9: 'was in Massachusetts when he spoke to a representative from U.S. Bank over the phone from his home on multiple occasions'. Para 10: 'was in Pennsylvania when he spoke to a representative from U.S. Bank over the phone from his home on multiple occasions, including in or about March 2026 and August 2026'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs say they called U.S. Bank's customer service line from their homes on multiple occasions: two from California (in or about December 2025 and January 2026), one from Massachusetts (in or about June 2026) and one from Pennsylvania (in or about March and August 2026).","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs' own account of their calls."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Paras 50, 57, 64, 71: 'monitored the conversation between Plaintiff'; 'conversations with U.S. Bank using natural language processing, and generated suggestions to the U.S. Bank agent'. Para 51: 'read and learned, in'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that on each plaintiff's calls Pega Voice AI monitored the conversation with the human U.S. Bank agent, transcribed it in real time, analysed it with natural language processing and generated suggestions to the agent, so that Pegasystems read and learned the contents of the conversations.","causal_attribution":"Allegation of what the AI service did on these calls; no court has found that it captured the plaintiffs' calls."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Paras 52, 59, 66, 73: 'consent, express or otherwise, to have Defendant eavesdrop on'. Para 49: 'provided personal information such as his home address his account number and his date of birth'. Para 70: 'including his account numbers, account names, account balances, and other account information'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs say neither U.S. Bank nor Pegasystems obtained their prior consent to the vendor listening in, and that on the calls they gave personal and account details, such as a home address, account number and date of birth, or account numbers and balances.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs' account of what they disclosed and of the absence of consent."}],"effects":[{"label":"bank customers say an AI service transcribed and analysed their customer-service calls, including account details, without their consent","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.307198/gov.uscourts.mad.307198.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Class action complaint, D. Mass. No. 1:26-cv-14506, filed 2 October 2026; all 40 pages read on 2026-10-21 from the CourtListener RECAP copy.","independence_group":"dmass-plaintiffs-complaint"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["privacy","finance"],"unknowns":["Whether Pega Voice AI in fact ran on the plaintiffs' calls; the complaint infers its use from Pegasystems' published material about U.S. Bank.","What, if anything, callers were told at the start of the calls about recording or analysis.","Whether Pegasystems retained transcripts or call contents after the calls.","Pegasystems' response; the CourtListener index of the docket checked on 21 October 2026 listed none."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint says each plaintiff was at home in California, Massachusetts or Pennsylvania when calling U.S. Bank (paras 7-10; para 68 says the Pennsylvania plaintiff called from his home and/or business). The court is the federal court in Massachusetts.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-10-06 privacy clarification: four named bank customers allege in a filed complaint that an AI transcription and analysis service, run by a vendor they never chose inside their bank's contact centre, captured their calls and account details without prior consent. The captures are allegations and no court has ruled.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-21"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges that Pega Voice AI itself monitored each plaintiff's call with a U.S. Bank agent, transcribed it in real time, analysed it with natural language processing and generated suggestions to the agent, so that the vendor read and learned the contents of the calls, including account details, without the caller's prior consent. That capture into an AI transcription and analysis service is the reported privacy harm.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"U.S. Bank customers allege in a class action that Pega Voice AI transcribed and analysed their customer-service calls without consent","summary":"Four U.S. Bank account holders in California, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania allege in a federal class action filed on 2 October 2026 that Pegasystems' Pega Voice AI, which they say U.S. Bank uses in its contact centres, transcribed their customer-service calls in real time, analysed them with natural language processing and generated suggestions to the agent, without their prior consent. They say they gave account numbers, a date of birth and a home address on the calls, made between about December 2025 and August 2026. The claims are allegations; The CourtListener index of the docket, checked on 21 October 2026, listed the summons as returned executed on 16 October and no response from Pegasystems.","incidentDate":"2025-12-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-02","aiSystem":"Pega Voice AI, Pegasystems' AI agent-assist service for contact centres, which the complaint says U.S. Bank uses on customer-service calls (as alleged)","aiProduct":"Pega Voice AI (reported)","aiCompany":"Pegasystems Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Four bank customers allege that an AI service they never chose transcribed and analysed their customer-service calls, including account details, without their consent; the claims are untested.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":4,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Four named plaintiffs each allege that their own calls were transcribed and analysed without consent (complaint paras 7-10 and 47-74). Proposed class members are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.307198/gov.uscourts.mad.307198.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Class action complaint against Pegasystems Inc., D. Mass. No. 1:26-cv-14506, filed 2 October 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-21T03:08:54.693563+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-21T03:08:54.693563+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["pega-voice-ai","contact-centre","call-transcription","privacy","wiretap","class-action","banking"]},{"id":"2025-illinois-fireflies-ai-meeting-assistant-voiceprint-capture-lawsuits","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"While physically present in Illinois, Plaintiff participated in a virtual meeting on November 18, 2025 ... During the meeting, Fireflies was enabled by a meeting participant using ... During the meeting, Fireflies recorded Plaintiff’s voice, analyzed her vocal characteristics to distinguish her as a unique speaker, and generated transcripts attributing statements to Plaintiff, thereby capturing Plaintiff’s voiceprint. ... Plaintiff never created a Fireflies account, never agreed to Fireflies’ Terms of Service, and never executed any written release authorizing Fireflies to collect or store her biometric data.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A complaint filed in the Central District of Illinois on 18 December 2025 alleges that, during a virtual meeting on 18 November 2025 that the plaintiff joined while in Illinois, a meeting participant enabled Fireflies, and Fireflies recorded her voice, analysed her vocal characteristics to distinguish her as a speaker and generated transcripts attributing statements to her; she says she never had a Fireflies account or gave written consent.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's own allegation in a complaint; not tested by any ruling."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In March and April 2025, while working from home for his ... The meetings were recorded by the Fireflies account of a ... characteristics to distinguish him as a unique speaker, and generated transcripts attributing ... never created a Fireflies account, never agreed to Fireflies’ Terms of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A complaint filed in the Northern District of California on 23 March 2026 by another Illinois resident alleges that in March and April 2025, while working from home, he attended virtual meetings recorded through another person's Fireflies account, and that Fireflies recorded his voice, analysed his vocal characteristics and generated transcripts attributing statements to him, without his having an account or giving written consent.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's own allegation in a complaint; not tested by any ruling."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"April 2025 and October 2025, he attended multiple virtual meetings ... on Microsoft Teams that were recorded by his boss’s Fireflies’ ... has attended several virtual meetings where Fireflies was being used. ... voice, analyzed his vocal characteristics to distinguish him as a unique speaker, and generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"A consolidated complaint filed in the Northern District of Illinois on 24 June 2026 alleges that one plaintiff attended Microsoft Teams meetings between April and October 2025 that were recorded by his boss's Fireflies account, and that a second plaintiff attended several virtual meetings where Fireflies was used, and that in each case Fireflies recorded the plaintiff's voice, analysed his vocal characteristics and generated transcripts attributing statements to him.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' allegations in a consolidated complaint; Fireflies has moved to dismiss."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Fireflies did not inform Plaintiff, in writing or otherwise, that it was collecting her ... Although Fireflies’ software can inform meeting participants that it is present on a meeting, it does not inform participants that it is collecting voiceprints or biometric data.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Fireflies did not inform Plaintiff, in writing or otherwise, that it was collecting his","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Fireflies did not inform Plaintiffs, in writing or otherwise, that it was collecting ... Although Fireflies’ software can inform meeting participants that it is present on a meeting, it does","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"All three complaints allege that Fireflies did not tell the plaintiffs it was collecting voiceprints or biometric data, although its software can tell meeting participants that it is present, and did not obtain their written consent.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs' allegations, drafted by the same plaintiffs' firm in all three complaints; the complaints say allegations about other matters rest on information and belief."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Plaintiff hereby dismisses, without prejudice, all of her claims against Defendant in the above-captioned lawsuit","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff in the Central District of Illinois case voluntarily dismissed all her claims without prejudice on 10 March 2026.","causal_attribution":"Established by the filed notice. The notice gives no reason."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"staying this case pending the resolution of Fireflies’ anticipated motion to dismiss the amended ... two nearly identical cases filed in the ... Document 25 Filed 04/24/26 ... IT IS S ... O ORD","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"In the California case the plaintiff and Fireflies jointly asked the court to stay proceedings pending Fireflies' anticipated motion to dismiss in the Illinois cases, which the stipulation calls nearly identical, and the court entered the stipulation with its order stamp on 24 April 2026.","causal_attribution":"Established by the filed joint stipulation and the court’s order stamp on it (document 25)."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"First, plaintiffs lack Article III standing to assert a claim under Section 15(a) of BIPA ... Second, the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(2) because ... By referring to “biometric data” here and elsewhere, Fireflies does not concede that it collected, possessed, stored, or used any data regarding plaintiffs that falls within the scope of BIPA.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"Fireflies has moved to dismiss the Northern District of Illinois case, arguing among other things lack of standing for one claim and lack of personal jurisdiction, and says it does not concede that it collected, stored or used any data about the plaintiffs that falls within the Illinois biometric privacy law.","causal_attribution":"Established as the content of Fireflies' filed motion; its arguments are a party's position, not a ruling."}],"effects":[{"label":"plaintiffs say an AI meeting assistant they never signed up for recorded their voices and captured voiceprints without notice or written consent","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Class action complaint, C.D. Ill. No. 3:25-cv-03399, filed 18 December 2025; read in full on 2026-10-20 from the CourtListener RECAP copy.","independence_group":"cdill-plaintiff-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340.13.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Notice of voluntary dismissal, C.D. Ill. No. 3:25-cv-03399, filed 10 March 2026; read on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"cdill-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.466340/gov.uscourts.cand.466340.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Class action complaint, N.D. Cal. No. 3:26-cv-02479, filed 23 March 2026; read in full on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"ndcal-plaintiff-complaint"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.466340/gov.uscourts.cand.466340.25.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Joint stipulation requesting a stay (dated 23 April 2026), entered as document 25 on 24 April 2026 with the court’s ‘IT IS SO ORDERED’ stamp on page 4 (the text layer renders the stamp in fragments), N.D. Cal. No. 3:26-cv-02479; read on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496785/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496785.27.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Consolidated class action complaint, N.D. Ill. No. 1:26-cv-02675, filed 24 June 2026; read in full on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"ndill-plaintiffs-complaint"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496785/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496785.31.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Fireflies.AI Corp.'s motion to dismiss, N.D. Ill. No. 1:26-cv-02675, filed 15 July 2026; read on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"fireflies-motion"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","work"],"unknowns":["Whether Fireflies in fact created voiceprints of the plaintiffs: it does not concede collecting biometric data and no court has ruled.","Whether the plaintiffs knew the meetings were being recorded or transcribed; the complaints say only that they were not told voiceprints were collected.","Why the first plaintiff dismissed her case without prejudice.","The outcome of Fireflies' motion to dismiss the consolidated Illinois case.","The fourth plaintiff's meeting dates are not stated in the consolidated complaint."],"geography":{"basis":"Each complaint says the plaintiff took part in the meetings while physically present in Illinois (C.D. Ill. and N.D. Cal. complaints; N.D. Ill. consolidated complaint). The courts are federal courts in Illinois and California.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-10-06 privacy clarification: four Illinois residents allege in filed complaints that an AI meeting assistant enabled by someone else recorded their voices, analysed them to distinguish speakers and generated transcripts attributing statements to them, capturing voiceprints without notice or written consent. The captures are allegations, Fireflies contests the suits, and one case was voluntarily dismissed. Plaintiffs, employers and the hosting organisation are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-20"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Each complaint alleges that the Fireflies AI meeting assistant, enabled by another participant's or an organisation's account, itself recorded the plaintiff's voice in a virtual meeting, analysed the plaintiff's vocal characteristics to distinguish speakers and generated transcripts attributing statements to the plaintiff, capturing a voiceprint without notice or written consent (C.D. Ill., N.D. Cal. and N.D. Ill. complaints). That capture of the plaintiffs' voices and voiceprints by an AI transcription service is the reported privacy harm. Fireflies says it does not concede that it collected any biometric data about the plaintiffs, and no court has ruled, so the capture is alleged.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"Illinois residents allege in lawsuits that Fireflies.AI's meeting assistant captured their voiceprints without notice or consent","summary":"Four Illinois residents who say they never had Fireflies accounts allege in four federal lawsuits, two of them later consolidated, that the Fireflies.AI meeting assistant, enabled by a colleague, boss or meeting organiser, recorded their voices in Zoom or Microsoft Teams meetings between March and November 2025, analysed their vocal characteristics to tell speakers apart and generated transcripts attributing statements to them, capturing voiceprints without telling them or obtaining written consent, in breach of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. One plaintiff dismissed her case without prejudice in March 2026; the California court stayed its case at both parties’ joint request in April 2026; Fireflies has moved to dismiss the consolidated Illinois case and does not concede that it collected biometric data about the plaintiffs.","incidentDate":"2025-03-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-11-18","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2025-12-18","aiSystem":"Fireflies, Fireflies.AI Corp.'s AI meeting assistant, joined to Zoom and Microsoft Teams meetings through another participant's or organisation's account (as alleged in the complaints)","aiProduct":"Fireflies.AI meeting assistant (reported)","aiCompany":"Fireflies.AI Corp.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Four Illinois residents allege that an AI meeting assistant they never signed up for recorded their voices and captured voiceprints without notice or consent; Fireflies contests the suits and no ruling has found a capture.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":4,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Four named plaintiffs each allege their own voice was recorded and voiceprint captured (C.D. Ill. complaint; N.D. Cal. complaint; N.D. Ill. consolidated complaint for two plaintiffs). Putative class members and Fireflies' stated user numbers are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Class action complaint against Fireflies.AI Corp., C.D. Ill. No. 3:25-cv-03399, filed 18 December 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-20T03:13:40.245348+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-20T03:13:40.245348+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["fireflies-ai","ai-notetaker","meeting-transcription","privacy","bipa","voiceprint","class-action","non-user"]},{"id":"2017-mobley-v-workday-ai-applicant-screening-job-rejections-discrimination-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 1: 'brings this action for employment discrimination against Workday, Inc.'; 'algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other similarly situated job applicants on the basis of race, age, and disability'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A job applicant brought an employment discrimination action against Workday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that its algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other applicants on the basis of race, age and disability.","causal_attribution":"The order establishes that the action exists and what it alleges. It does not establish that the allegations are true."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 2-3: 'Mobley has allegedly applied to over 100 positions with companies that use Workday'; 'screening tools for talent acquisition and hiring since 2017'; 'Mobley was allegedly denied employment for every one of the'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that since 2017 he applied to more than 100 positions with companies that use Workday's screening tools and was denied employment on every one.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court on a motion to dismiss. It is not a finding."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 3: 'his application was rejected less than an hour later'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that one application, submitted at 12:55 a.m., was rejected less than an hour later.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court. The plaintiffs argue that the timing indicates automated screening, and no finding has been made."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'enabling these applications to make hiring decisions'; 'employer should accept or reject an application'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that Workday's tools embed AI and machine learning and determine whether an employer should accept or reject an application.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court. Workday disputes that its tools make hiring decisions."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The motion to dismiss the disparate impact claims under Title VII, the ADEA, and the'; 'ADA is therefore denied'; 'intentionally discriminated against him based on race and age'; 'Document 80 Filed 07/12/24'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 12 July 2024 the court granted Workday's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part: the disparate-impact claims proceed and the claims of intentional discrimination were dismissed.","causal_attribution":"The court's own ruling on the pleadings. It decides whether the claims may proceed and makes no finding of discrimination."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 1: 'motion for preliminary certification of the collective is GRANTED'; 'Mobley is joined by four other plaintiffs over the age of forty'; 'Document 128'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 16 May 2025 the court granted preliminary certification of a collective on the age-discrimination claim, and four other plaintiffs over forty had joined the named plaintiff.","causal_attribution":"The court's own procedural ruling, which the order says can be revisited after discovery. It makes no finding of discrimination."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 1: 'who allege that they too have applied for hundreds of jobs via Workday and have been rejected almost every time without an interview'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The four further plaintiffs allege that they applied for hundreds of jobs via Workday and were rejected almost every time without an interview.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' allegations as recited by the court. They attribute the rejections to age discrimination in the recommendation system, which is not established."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the plaintiffs filed their class-certification request on September 14 in federal court in San Francisco'; 'Workday has denied wrongdoing, saying its AI tools evaluate job qualifications rather than protected characteristics'; 'its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed, and rejected'; 'A hearing on whether the case can proceed as a class action is scheduled for March 9, 2027'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Black Information Network, citing Reuters, reported on 24 September 2026 that the plaintiffs filed a class-certification request on 14 September, that Workday denies wrongdoing and says its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected, and that a hearing is scheduled for 9 March 2027.","causal_attribution":"A relay of Reuters reporting. The motion and the Reuters article were not read."}],"effects":[{"label":"denied employment on every one of more than 100 applications to companies using Workday's screening tools (plaintiff's allegation)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"four further plaintiffs over forty rejected almost every time without an interview (their allegation, as recited by the court)","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.80.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English: the 20-page order of 12 July 2024 as text extracted from the PDF.","independence_group":"mobley-v-workday-court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.128.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English: the 20-page order of 16 May 2025 as text extracted from the PDF.","independence_group":"mobley-v-workday-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.binnews.com/alternate/amp/2026-09-24-black-job-seekers-allege-workdays-ai-hiring-tools-discriminate-seek-class-action/","kind":"news_relay","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English. The article attributes its account to Reuters, whose article was not read.","independence_group":"reuters-workday-class-certification-2026-09"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Whether Workday's tools, the employers' own settings or human reviewers produced each rejection.","Which employers were involved beyond those named in the order, and the dates of the individual applications.","The contents of the September 2026 class-certification motion and of the Reuters article, neither of which was read.","The outcome of the case on the merits."],"geography":{"basis":"The case is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, and the 2025 order describes the proposed group as a 'nationwide collective' under US federal employment statutes, which places the applications in the United States. The plaintiffs' places of residence were not read in the passages inspected.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete, court-documented allegation that an AI applicant-screening system repeatedly rejected a named job applicant. The existence of the suit and two rulings are established by the court's orders. The rejections and the role of the tools are the plaintiffs' allegations, which Workday denies and no court has decided.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The plaintiffs allege that Workday's AI-based screening and recommendation tools decided or recommended the rejection of their applications. The court's orders recite those allegations and found the disparate-impact claims plausibly pleaded. The 2025 order quotes Workday's discovery statement that its Candidate Skills Match tool 'utilizes artificial intelligence' and that customers choose whether to turn it on. Workday says its tools evaluate qualifications and that its customers control rejections. Whether an automated tool made any particular rejection is not established.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Job applicant alleges Workday's AI applicant-screening tools rejected more than 100 of his applications on the basis of race, age and disability; a US federal court let disparate-impact claims proceed and preliminarily certified an age-discrimination collective","summary":"Derek Mobley sued Workday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the company's algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other job applicants on the basis of race, age and disability. According to the court's summary of the complaint, Mobley alleges that since 2017 he applied to more than 100 positions with companies that use Workday's screening tools and was denied employment on every one, in one instance less than an hour after applying at 12:55 a.m. On 12 July 2024 the court dismissed the claims of intentional discrimination and allowed the disparate-impact claims to proceed. On 16 May 2025 it granted preliminary certification of a collective on the age-discrimination claim, by which time four further plaintiffs over forty had joined. The Black Information Network, citing Reuters, reported on 24 September 2026 that the plaintiffs had asked the court to certify a class action and that a hearing is set for 9 March 2027. Workday denies wrongdoing and says its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected. No court has ruled on whether the tools discriminated.","incidentDate":"2017-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","aiSystem":"Workday's applicant screening tools on its job-application platform, which the court's orders describe from the complaint as 'algorithm-based applicant screening tools' (2024) and an AI-based 'applicant recommendation system' (2025). The plaintiffs allege the tools score, sort, rank or screen applicants. Workday says its AI tools evaluate job qualifications and that its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected (as relayed from Reuters). The 2025 order names two tools discussed in the certification briefing: Candidate Skills Match, which Workday said in discovery 'utilizes artificial intelligence' to compare a job posting with an application within its Workday Recruiting service and which customers can turn on or off, and Workday Assessment Connector, which is alleged to use machine learning","aiProduct":"Workday applicant screening tools","aiCompany":"Workday","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The named plaintiff alleges that he was denied employment on every one of more than 100 applications made since 2017 to companies using Workday's screening tools and that the tools discriminated by race, age and disability. Four further plaintiffs over forty allege repeated rejections without an interview. Workday denies wrongdoing, and no court has ruled on the merits.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":5,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Five plaintiffs who allege rejections: the named plaintiff and the four opt-in plaintiffs whose declarations the court's 16 May 2025 order describes ('four other plaintiffs over the age of forty'; each 'alleges that they received at least one \"automated\" rejection email'). People who may opt in to the collective are not counted. The count records people who report harm and does not establish that the tools caused it.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.128.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court, N.D. California, Mobley v. Workday, order granting preliminary collective certification, 16 May 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:19:40.629587+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:19:40.629587+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-decision-about","hiring","applicant-screening","workday","employment-discrimination","age-discrimination","lawsuit","institutional-use"]},{"id":"2026-plymouth-minnesota-flock-alpr-partial-plate-stolen-alert-journalist-couple-boxed-in-detained","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On an otherwise normal Sunday afternoon in late June'; 'four cop cars came flying out of nowhere and boxed us in'; 'He patted me down'; 'The plates on this car are stolen'; 'Eventually, after a tense hour, I did.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'after about an hour he too was let go'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On a Sunday afternoon in late June, four police cars boxed in a loaned Range Rover in a Kohl's parking lot in Plymouth, Minnesota. Officers ordered the journalist driving it and the journalist's wife out, patted the journalist down, questioned both, said the plates were stolen, and released them after about an hour.","causal_attribution":"First-person account by the journalist; no police record was read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'they’d actually been tracking me around town for days via Flock cameras'; 'opened the Flock app, and showed me two photos'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Officers told the journalist that they had tracked the vehicle around town for days through Flock cameras, set up the stop after a camera alert that morning, and showed two Flock photographs of the vehicle and its plate on a phone.","causal_attribution":"The journalist's account of what officers said and showed."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database missing the middle two digits'; 'It was asked, can you find this? And it did find that.'; 'does not equal probable cause'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A similar manufacturer plate reported stolen in California had been entered in the national crime database without its two middle digits, and Flock's system alerted on the loaned vehicle's plate as a match. Flock's chief communications officer said the system read what it was asked to find and that an alert does not equal probable cause.","causal_attribution":"The journalist's reconstruction from the officers, the vehicle's manufacturer and Flock; Flock attributes the outcome to incomplete data entry and missing human verification."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'he acknowledged his officers didn’t get it right'; 'to open a conversation about the use of Flock cameras within the city'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Plymouth police chief acknowledged to the journalist that the officers did not get it right, and the city council opened a discussion of the city's use of Flock cameras.","causal_attribution":"The journalist's paraphrase of the chief's interview and of the council's response."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'was pulled over by two officers in Scotts Bluff, Nebraska while driving his 14-year-old kid'; 'after about an hour he too was let go'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A second automotive journalist driving another loaned vehicle with a plate in the same sequence was pulled over in Scotts Bluff, Nebraska, with a 14-year-old child in the car, and was let go after about an hour.","causal_attribution":"Reported by the first journalist from the second journalist's account; a separate stop, not counted in this case."}],"effects":[{"label":"boxed in by four police cars, ordered out of a loaned press vehicle, patted down and held for about an hour after a license-plate camera alert reported the plate as stolen","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.thedrive.com/news/how-flock-cameras-wrongly-tracked-me-for-days-over-stolen-plates-and-sent-police-after-me","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-10-05 (The Drive, first-person account by the journalist who was stopped, published 8 July 2026). The account of what officers said is the author's.","independence_group":"thedrive-first-person-plymouth"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.thedrive.com/news/inside-the-flock-dragnet-how-systemic-errors-led-to-police-ambushing-me-for-no-reason","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-10-05 (The Drive, follow-up by the same author, published 17 July 2026). Carries the author's interviews with Flock Safety's chief communications officer and the Plymouth police chief. Same author and outlet as s1, so one independence group.","independence_group":"thedrive-first-person-plymouth"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The exact date of the stop.","Whether the incomplete stolen-plate entry has been corrected in the national database and in Flock's system.","Whether the Plymouth Police Department changed its verification practice or took any internal action.","Which agency's alert led to the Nebraska stop and whether a Flock camera was involved there."],"geography":{"basis":"The stop took place in a store parking lot in Plymouth, Minnesota, where the journalist says they live (The Drive). The stolen-plate report originated in California.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional-use case consistent with the held Flock rows. A journalist gives a concrete first-person account of being boxed in, patted down and held for about an hour with a spouse after a Flock camera alert matched a loaned vehicle's plate to an incomplete stolen-plate entry, and Flock's spokesperson confirms how the match occurred. Both sources are by the same author, so every claim is reported.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The journalist reports that officers said they had tracked the vehicle for days through Flock cameras and showed the Flock app with the photographs of the plate. Flock Safety's chief communications officer, interviewed for the follow-up, confirmed that the system matched the plate to an incomplete stolen-plate entry and described the matching as machine learning. The Drive describes the cameras as AI-powered.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Plymouth, Minnesota: police boxed in and detained an automotive journalist and the journalist's wife for about an hour in June 2026 after Flock cameras matched a loaned Range Rover's plate to an incomplete stolen-plate entry","summary":"An automotive journalist for The Drive wrote that on a Sunday afternoon in late June four Plymouth police cars boxed in the Range Rover press vehicle the journalist was testing, in a Kohl's parking lot. Officers ordered the journalist and the journalist's wife out, patted the journalist down, questioned both and said the plates were stolen. According to the account, officers said they had tracked the vehicle for days through Flock license-plate cameras and acted on a camera alert that morning. The couple were released after about an hour, once the manufacturer explained that a similar plate had been reported stolen in California. In a follow-up, Flock's chief communications officer said the stolen plate had been entered without its two middle digits and that the system matched what it was asked to find. The spokesperson said an alert does not equal probable cause. The police chief acknowledged that officers did not get it right. A second journalist with a similar plate was later stopped in Nebraska.","incidentDate":"2026-06-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-07-08","aiSystem":"Flock Safety automated license-plate-reader cameras used by the Plymouth Police Department, described by The Drive as AI-powered and by Flock's spokesperson as machine learning, which matched the vehicle's plate to an incomplete stolen-plate entry and alerted police","aiProduct":"Flock Safety license plate readers","aiCompany":"Flock Safety","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The journalist reports that the couple were boxed in by four police cars, ordered out, questioned and held for about an hour, and that the journalist was patted down (The Drive, first-person account).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people, the journalist and the journalist's wife, were ordered out and held at the scene (The Drive). The second journalist and a child stopped in Nebraska belong to a separate event and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.thedrive.com/news/how-flock-cameras-wrongly-tracked-me-for-days-over-stolen-plates-and-sent-police-after-me","primarySourceLabel":"The Drive, 8 July 2026: How Flock Cameras Wrongly Tracked Me for Days Over 'Stolen' Plates and Sent Police After Me","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:12:31.048274+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:12:31.048274+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["flock","alpr","license-plate-reader","partial-plate-match","stale-hotlist","wrongful-stop","minnesota","plymouth","justice","made-claim-about","first-person"]},{"id":"2021-atherton-california-flock-alpr-misread-plate-gunpoint-stop-lawsuit-settled","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'At about 5:30 a.m. on April 16, 2021, an automatic license plate reader (ALPR) had misread'; 'over and ordered him at gunpoint to throw his keys out of the window, get out of the car, and lie on his stomach to be handcuffed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'was stopped by local police at gunpoint, instructed to lie on the ground, and handcuffed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In April 2021 Atherton police stopped the driver at gunpoint, made him lie on the ground and handcuffed him.","causal_attribution":"The lawsuit as reported by The Almanac and police records as reported by Business Insider."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'caused the ALPR to read the “H’s” of the license plate as “M’s.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Police records show that the Flock camera confused an \"H\" for an \"M\"; officers noted that \"the Flock cameras misread\" the plate.'; 'The license plate in question was obstructed by dirt, causing one of the letters (H) to look like an M,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The license-plate reader misread the letter H on his dirt-obscured plate as M.","causal_attribution":"The driver's lawsuit (The Almanac) and police records and an Atherton police commander (Business Insider) agree on the misread and the dirt."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Records show that the case was settled on March 16, 2023, for $45,000.'; 'the Atherton police officers denied all allegations, as well as the injuries that'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'filed a lawsuit and settled with the town and police officers for $45,000.'; 'denies any wrongdoing and contends that it acted properly and lawfully.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"He sued three officers for unreasonable seizure and excessive force; the officers denied the allegations and the injuries claimed, and the case was settled on 16 March 2023 for $45,000, with the town denying wrongdoing.","causal_attribution":"Court records and the settlement agreement as reported by The Almanac; Business Insider reports the same settlement amount and the town's denial."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'matched them to the ones of a reported stolen vehicle.'; 'Atherton police followed the vehicle for several minutes but failed to visually verify what the ALPR had falsely captured, according to the suit.'; 'With the belief that they were pursuing a “high-risk felony stop,”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the suit, the reader matched the plate to a reported stolen vehicle, and officers followed the car for several minutes without visually verifying the plate before making what they believed was a high-risk felony stop.","causal_attribution":"The driver's lawsuit as reported by The Almanac."}],"effects":[{"label":"stopped at gunpoint, made to lie on his stomach and handcuffed after a license-plate reader misread his plate as a stolen car's","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/police/2024/02/12/atherton-officer-involved-in-the-arrest-of-m-a-student-also-named-in-lawsuit-over-unreasonable-seizure-and-use-of-excessive-force/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-04 from the Internet Archive 2026 capture (The Almanac, 12 February 2024, updated 16 February 2024); the live site returned HTTP 429. Draws on the amended complaint, the officers' answer and the settlement agreement.","independence_group":"atherton-2021-stop-lawsuit-records"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.businessinsider.com/flock-safety-alpr-cameras-misreads-2026-3","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-10-04 (Business Insider, 9 March 2026); full text present in the served page. Cites police records and an Atherton police commander.","independence_group":"business-insider-records-review"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The court and case number of the 2022 lawsuit; the complaint was not read.","The injuries he claimed; The Almanac says only that the officers denied them.","Whether The Almanac's unnamed automatic license-plate reader and Business Insider's Flock camera are the same device; Business Insider cites police records for the Flock identification."],"geography":{"basis":"The stop was made by Atherton, California, police (The Almanac; Business Insider), and the suit was brought against Atherton officers and settled with the town. The court is not named in the bodies read; US rests on the suit against a California town's officers.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional-use case consistent with the held Flock misread rows: the driver's lawsuit (The Almanac) and police records (Business Insider) describe a license-plate-reader misread that led Atherton officers to stop and handcuff him at gunpoint; the town settled for $45,000 while denying wrongdoing. He is not named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-04"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawsuit (The Almanac) says an automatic license-plate reader misread the dirt-obscured plate and matched it to a stolen vehicle; Business Insider, citing police records, identifies the camera as Flock's, reports that it confused an H for an M and that officers noted the Flock cameras misread the plate, and describes the cameras as AI cameras. The plate match against a stolen-vehicle record is the automated system's claim about his car; following without visual verification and the armed stop were officers' decisions.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Atherton, California: police stopped a driver at gunpoint in April 2021 and made him lie on his stomach to be handcuffed after a license-plate reader misread the letter H on his dirty plate as M and matched it to a stolen car; the town settled his lawsuit for $45,000 in 2023","summary":"At about 5:30 a.m. on 16 April 2021, according to a lawsuit reported by The Almanac, an automated license-plate reader in Atherton, California, misread the dirt-obscured plate of a driver's car, reading its letter H as M, and matched it to a reported stolen vehicle. Atherton police followed the car for several minutes without visually verifying the plate, then made a high-risk felony stop, ordering him at gunpoint to throw his keys out of the window, get out and lie on his stomach to be handcuffed. He sued three officers in 2022 for unreasonable seizure and excessive force; the officers denied the allegations and the injuries he claimed, and the case was settled on 16 March 2023 for $45,000. Business Insider, citing police records, reported in March 2026 that the misread came from a Flock camera and that officers noted the Flock cameras had misread the plate; an Atherton police commander said the plate was obstructed by dirt and that the town denies wrongdoing.","incidentDate":"2021-04-16","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-02-12","aiSystem":"Automated license-plate-reader camera in Atherton, California, identified by Business Insider from police records as a Flock Safety camera (which it describes as one of Flock's AI cameras), that misread the plate and matched it to a stolen-vehicle record","aiProduct":"Flock Safety license plate readers (reported)","aiCompany":"Flock Safety","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"He was stopped at gunpoint, made to lie on his stomach and handcuffed after a misread license-plate alert, and his lawsuit claimed injuries that the officers deny (The Almanac; Business Insider). The town settled for $45,000 while denying wrongdoing.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the driver, stopped at gunpoint and handcuffed (The Almanac; Business Insider). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_settled","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.almanacnews.com/police/2024/02/12/atherton-officer-involved-in-the-arrest-of-m-a-student-also-named-in-lawsuit-over-unreasonable-seizure-and-use-of-excessive-force/","primarySourceLabel":"The Almanac, 12 February 2024: Atherton officer involved in the arrest of M-A student also named in lawsuit over unreasonable seizure","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-04T03:31:59.236805+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-04T03:31:59.236805+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["flock","alpr","license-plate-reader","misread","wrongful-stop","gunpoint","california","atherton","justice","made-claim-about","settlement"]},{"id":"2026-us-meta-26-employees-sue-alleging-ai-assisted-may-layoff-selection-penalized-protected-leave","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"OAKLAND DIVISION","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Filed 07/13/26","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on July 13, 2026, bringing claims against Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A group of 26 Meta employees has sued the company, claiming it used artificial intelligence systems to select people for layoffs, disproportionately targeting those on medical, parental or family leave.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 13 July 2026 twenty-six anonymous plaintiffs (Does 1 through 26) filed a complaint against Meta Platforms, Inc. in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland division, alleging employment discrimination in the May 2026 reduction in force.","causal_attribution":"The filing of the complaint is documented by the court record. The complaint establishes only the plaintiffs’ allegations."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"artificial-intelligence-assisted systems to score, rank, and select employees for inclusion","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"algorithmic productivity scoring drawn from keystroke, screen-content, mouse,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The parties dispute whether Meta utilized AI in deciding to terminate plaintiffs’","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"They claim that Meta used a number of internal AI-assisted systems to score and rank employees on a termination list.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used a set of internal AI-assisted systems to score, rank and select employees for the termination list: the Metamate internal large-language-model assistant, employee-trained \"second brain\" agents, keystroke and other activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance ranking and calibration.","causal_attribution":"These are the plaintiffs’ allegations, pleaded on information and belief and supported by plaintiff declarations that were not inspected (they are quoted in the complaint and the order). Meta disputes them (claim c4). The news reports and the court order restate the complaint and are one reporting chain with it."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"protected-leave-takers or accommodation-seekers for individualized human review. Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On information and belief, Meta did not neutralize any of the foregoing inputs for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"result was that employees who took protected leaves were disproportionately selected for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Plaintiffs are twenty-six current and former Meta employees, each of whom Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"selected for separation in the RIF, and each of whom","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"About half the plaintiffs had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that the inputs to these systems cannot be accumulated by an employee on protected medical, family or parental leave, that Meta did not neutralise them for protected leave, and that employees who took protected leave were therefore disproportionately selected for layoff. It states that each plaintiff was selected for separation in the reduction in force and had, within the 24 months before it, taken, requested or been approved for protected leave, or requested or received a disability accommodation.","causal_attribution":"Allegation of the plaintiffs. The court found on 17 July 2026 only serious questions going to the merits and no likelihood of success on that record (claim c5). Whether any AI system affected any plaintiff’s selection is unresolved."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"selection decisions in the RIF were “made by human","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"promotion history over a defined period. There was no AI-","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"was selected based on leave status, disability, or any other protected characteristic,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"“selection decision [was] made by ‘AI.’” Id. ¶ 11.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Selection decisions were made by human business leaders","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"defined period. There was no AI-assisted “scoring” or “ranking” related to employee","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"guidance does not permit AI adoption and usage metrics to be used as negative factors in","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"performance reviews in 2025 or as selection criteria in the RIF.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Meta denies the allegations. A Meta spokesperson said workforce management and organisational decisions were made by people, not AI. In declarations filed by a Meta human-resources director, Meta states that selection decisions were made by human business leaders using documented neutral criteria, that no AI-assisted scoring or ranking of employee performance was used, that no plaintiff was selected on the basis of leave status or disability, and that no selection decision was made by AI.","causal_attribution":"Meta’s statements and declarations about its own process. They are a party account and had been tested only through briefing and court hearings (claims c5 and c7), not in discovery."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"described below, the TRO is DENIED.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The parties dispute whether Meta utilized AI in deciding to terminate plaintiffs’","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, but rather a “serious question[]”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Loss of health care, employment, protected leave, and unvested restricted stock units (“RSUs”) are","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Loss of immigration status is different. Four of the plaintiffs have employment-based,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"they were not in the rooms where it happened.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 17 July 2026 the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. The order records that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in deciding to terminate the plaintiffs, finds serious questions going to the merits but no shown likelihood of success on that record, finds that loss of health care, employment, protected leave and unvested equity can be remedied in arbitration, and treats the possible loss of immigration status for four plaintiffs with Meta-sponsored visas as a potentially irreparable harm that needed more information.","causal_attribution":"A court order establishes what the court ruled and recorded. It does not establish that AI was or was not used in the selection."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On May 20, 2026, Meta began notifying the selected employees by email, beginning with","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"finalized on or about July 22, 2026 (and on or about August 20, 2026 for New York","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"laid off on May 20, 2026.” Complaint (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1] ¶ 45 (the “mass reduction in force”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Though they have been notified of their layoffs, all 26 remain employed by Meta, with separations set to begin July 22.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"Meta in May notified nearly 8,000 employees, or about 10% of its global workforce, that they were losing their jobs","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"Laid-off workers remain on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on May 20","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Meta began notifying employees selected in the reduction in force on 20 May 2026 (about 8,000 employees, roughly 10 percent of its workforce). The complaint says the plaintiffs were notified of their selection from that date, and that separations were scheduled for about 22 July 2026 (later for some plaintiffs). Meta said in court filings that laid-off workers stayed on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on 20 May.","causal_attribution":"The notification date and the scheduled separation dates come from the complaint and Meta court filings as relayed by Reuters. The sources inspected do not report whether each separation took place on its scheduled date, although Courthouse News called the plaintiffs former employees on 24 August 2026."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction conducted via videoconference. The Court","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"summarizes tentative. Argument of counsel heard. Motion taken under submission; written order","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"I have a record I have to deal with and the record at the moment does not persuade me of the merits","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"categorical denial of any impact of AI in the termination process","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"whether what plaintiffs think happened, happened","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"The court held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion on 24 August 2026, heard argument and took the motion under submission with a written order to follow. Courthouse News reports that the judge said the record at that time did not persuade the judge of the merits, that the plaintiffs’ evidence raised some potential questions about Meta’s categorical denial of any impact of AI in the termination process, and that the case turns on whether what plaintiffs think happened, happened.","causal_attribution":"The minute entry documents that the hearing occurred and the motion was taken under submission. The judge’s remarks are reported by one news outlet and the transcript was not inspected. No written ruling on the preliminary injunction was found as of 29 September 2026."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"and only Plaintiff Doe 20, hereby voluntarily dismisses","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"remain parties and continue to prosecute this action","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"Doe 20 was voluntarily dismissed from this action on August 3, 2026 pursuant to Federal","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"is made on behalf of Doe 20, and no relief is sought on Doe 20’s behalf.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"One plaintiff (Doe 20) voluntarily dismissed all of that plaintiff’s claims without prejudice on 3 August 2026 (Dkt. 33), and the notice states that Does 1 through 19 and 21 through 26 remain parties. No reason is given in the notice.","causal_attribution":"A filing by the plaintiffs’ counsel records the dismissal. It does not say whether that plaintiff was selected in the reduction in force or why the dismissal was made."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"They recognize that their claims must be arbitrated, and they have initiated arbitration proceedings","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"with the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Here, they seek a temporary restraining order:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"while they pursue their claims in private arbitration","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"from this Court only the status-quo-preserving provisional relief that Meta’s own","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"G. Reserve to the arbitral forum all relief on the merits, including but not limited to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The 17 July 2026 order records that the plaintiffs recognize their claims must be arbitrated and that they have initiated arbitration proceedings with the American Arbitration Association. The complaint says the plaintiffs seek from the court only status-quo-preserving provisional relief pending an independent audit of the selection process and arbitration of the merits, and it reserves merits relief such as reinstatement, back pay and damages to the arbitral forum.","causal_attribution":"The order records the plaintiffs’ own statement about their arbitration filings. The arbitration itself is confidential and its progress is unknown."}],"effects":[{"label":"Employees on or after protected leave allegedly disproportionately selected for layoff by an AI-assisted process that did not account for leave (disputed by Meta)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Plaintiffs notified of selection for termination on 20 May 2026, with separations scheduled from 22 July 2026 and possible loss of health coverage, unvested equity and (for four plaintiffs) work-visa status","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.25.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.42.1_1.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-court-declarations"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.46.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.49.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/26-meta-workers-sue-ai-aided-layoffs-medical-family-leave/","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-complaint"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/17/us-judge-wont-block-meta-from-laying-off-workers-w/","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"reuters-tro-coverage"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/meta-workers-claiming-ai-fired-them-unlikely-to-see-relief/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"courthouse-news-hearing"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.31.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-court-declarations"},{"id":"s10","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.33.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","health"],"unknowns":["Whether any AI system scored, ranked or selected any plaintiff is unresolved. The complaint pleads it on information and belief. Meta denies it in declarations. No discovery had occurred in the sources inspected, and the judge said on 17 July 2026 that plaintiffs were not in the rooms where the selections happened.","The sources inspected do not show how many people beyond the plaintiffs were selected because of leave, or how many of the roughly 8,000 laid-off employees were scored by any AI-assisted system. Only the plaintiffs are counted as reported harmed.","The order on the preliminary injunction motion (argued 24 August 2026, taken under submission) had not been found by 29 September 2026. The hearing remarks were read only through one news report and the transcript was not inspected.","Whether each plaintiff’s separation took place on its scheduled date (22 July 2026 for most, later for some) is not stated in the sources inspected. Reuters and CBS/AP describe the plaintiffs as still employed in July, and Courthouse News called them former employees on 24 August 2026.","One plaintiff (Doe 20) was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026 and no reason is stated. The affected count therefore uses 25.","The complaint and declarations contain individual medical, pregnancy and immigration details. They are anonymised in the public copies and are deliberately not described here.","Reuters and WSJ pages for the initial filing could not be read (HTTP 401). Reuters coverage of the 17 July ruling was read through a Spokesman-Review copy. The Law.com article was behind a subscription wall and was not cited.","The complaint alleges that data captured by a separate Meta employee-monitoring program (the Model Capability Initiative) supplied inputs to the selection process, and Meta denies that AI was used in the selection. That program’s own privacy and security consequences are a different event, recorded as 2026-meta-mci-us-employee-keystroke-and-screen-capture-for-ai-training-then-internal-data-exposure, and are not part of this record."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint states that the plaintiffs worked in California, Illinois, Washington, New York, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania and Florida and the suit is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Meta also notified employees in other countries in the same reduction in force, but no plaintiff outside the US is described.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The complaint, the court order denying the temporary restraining order, two Meta declarations, the plaintiffs’ notice of dismissal of one plaintiff and the hearing minute entry were read from the court record (CourtListener copies), with CBS/AP, Reuters and Courthouse News reports. Every AI-related statement is attributed. The plaintiffs are anonymous in the record and are not described individually. Meta denies that AI made or informed any selection decision and the court has not resolved the dispute.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used internal AI-assisted systems (Metamate, second-brain agents, activity-monitoring scoring, AI-token-usage dashboards, algorithmic ranking and calibration) to score, rank and select employees for the 20 May 2026 termination list. Meta’s declarations say selection decisions were made by human business leaders and that there was no AI-assisted scoring or ranking related to employee performance, and the court described the declarations as saying Meta did not use AI in any way with respect to the RIF. The court recorded that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in deciding to terminate the plaintiffs and found on 17 July 2026 that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the current record. On 24 August 2026 the judge said the plaintiffs’ evidence raised some potential questions about Meta’s categorical denial. No discovery had tested Meta’s account in the sources inspected.","status":"disputed"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: 26 Meta employees sue alleging an AI-assisted May 2026 layoff selection penalized workers on protected leave, Meta says people made the decisions","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2026-05-20","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-07-14","aiSystem":"Meta internal AI-assisted systems alleged in the complaint: the Metamate internal LLM assistant, employee-trained \"second brain\" agents, keystroke and activity-monitoring productivity scoring, AI-token-usage dashboards and AI-assisted performance calibration (Meta denies AI was used in selecting employees for the layoff)","aiProduct":"Meta internal AI systems (reported)","aiCompany":"Meta Platforms, Inc.","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"disputed","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complaint alleges that 26 employees were selected for termination in Meta’s May 2026 reduction in force through an AI-assisted process that penalised protected leave, with separations scheduled from 22 July 2026 and asserted losses of employer-subsidised health coverage, unvested equity and, for four plaintiffs, work-visa status. Meta denies that AI was used in the selections. The court found the alleged harms other than immigration status remediable in arbitration and has not decided the merits.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":25,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The complaint states that each of 26 plaintiffs was selected for separation in the May 2026 reduction in force. One plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026 without a stated reason, so 25 active plaintiffs are counted as a documented minimum. The roughly 8,000 other employees notified in the reduction in force are not counted because no source ties their selection to the alleged AI process.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Complaint, Does 1 through 26 v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (N.D. Cal., filed 13 Jul 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:16:06.345461+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:57.733761+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]},{"id":"2025-us-eightfold-ai-match-score-applicant-screening-class-action","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"about unsuspecting job applicants and to score them from 0 to 5 for potential employers based on","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This results in a Match Score, which ranges from 0 through 5 in increments of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Employers then use these reports to sift through","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"But candidates who apply for jobs at companies that use those tools are not given notice and a chance to dispute errors","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In or around July 2025,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"applied online via Microsoft’s website for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Manager-Responsible AI position two days after she applied, without being invited to interview.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On or around December 16, 2025,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"received an automated rejection for the Senior Technical Program","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On or around December 17,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"applied online via Paypal’s website","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"was not asked to interview and was not given a job offer for any of the","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"is being sued in California for allegedly compiling reports used to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"On January 20, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"sued in California state court on behalf of all U.S. job seekers who applied for jobs","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Neither was hired, and both believe that Eightfold's tools played a role.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The proposed class action was filed by two women with STEM backgrounds who believe Eightfold’s AI tools hurt their careers by unfairly screening them out","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"We do not scrape social media and the like.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"said the platform operates on data shared by candidates or provided by customers.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Document 1 Filed 03/02/26","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/24/2026.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"NOTICE OF REMOVAL Eightfold AI, Inc.'s Notice of Removal from Contra Costa Superior Court.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"MOTION to Dismiss filed by Eightfold AI Inc..","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"ORDER VACATING HEARING Re: 29 MOTION to Dismiss.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"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."}],"effects":[{"label":"Applicants allegedly scored and screened by an undisclosed AI ranking without statutory notice or dispute rights, and not interviewed or hired","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465146/gov.uscourts.cand.465146.1.0_2.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ai-company-eightfold-sued-helping-181520410.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.outtengolden.com/newsroom/landmark-class-action-accuses-eightfold-ai-of-illegally-producing-hidden-credit-reports-on-job-applicants","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72351430/kistler-v-eightfold-ai-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"court-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy"],"unknowns":["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."],"geography":{"basis":"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.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"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.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"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.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: two applicants sue Eightfold AI over 0-to-5 applicant scores used in hiring","summary":"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).","incidentDate":"2025-07-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-17","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-01-21","aiSystem":"Eightfold AI talent-evaluation tools including the 'Match Score' applicant ranking model","aiProduct":"Eightfold Match Score","aiCompany":"Eightfold AI Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"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.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"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.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465146/gov.uscourts.cand.465146.1.0_2.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Notice of removal with the state-court complaint, plaintiffs v. Eightfold AI Inc. (N.D. Cal., filed 2 Mar 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:41.995961+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.000724+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2024-us-otter-notetaker-recorded-non-users-meetings-privacy-suit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'participated in a Zoom meeting in California on February'; '24, 2025, where the Otter Notetaker was used by a meeting participant to transcribe the'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in California in March 2025'; 'used Zoom to communicate with a medical professional, and'; 'Illinois on January 10, 2025 and May 19, 2025 where the Otter Notetaker was used to'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in Washington state in March'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state who'; 'participated in virtual meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their'; 'consent to record, transcribe, and store the contents of their communications.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the'; 'allegations concerning the named Plaintiff’s personal knowledge, experiences, expectations, or'","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'who alleges his privacy was \"severely invaded\" upon realizing Otter was secretly recording a confidential conversation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Seven people who were not Otter account holders allege that, on Zoom or Microsoft Teams calls (six give dates between March 2024 and May 2025), another participant used Otter Notetaker and Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations without their consent; the calls include one with a medical professional and meetings with a financial professional.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs attribute the recording to Otter's product design, which they say lets the notetaker record without every participant's consent; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'other personal information for its own commercial use, including to train its automatic speech'; 'The Illinois Plaintiffs allege that, during their virtual meetings, Otter'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter claims that before the audio of meetings is fed into its machine learning systems to help improve an AI speech recognition feature, it is \"de-identified,\"'","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter keeps their conversational data on its servers and uses it to train its speech-recognition and machine-learning models, and that it captured the Illinois plaintiffs' voiceprints; Otter's policy, as reported by NPR, says it trains on transcripts with users' permission and de-identifies audio.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'felt frustrated, embarrassed, and stressed to learn that his'; 'conversation was recorded without his consent, and his information, voice, and'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One California plaintiff alleges that he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn that his conversation had been recorded without his consent.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs as a consequence of Otter's recording."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ ECPA claim is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ BIPA claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'The motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend as to Count 2'; 'The motion is DENIED in all other respects.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 13 August 2026 the court denied Otter's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, holding that the alleged interception and retention of private conversations was a concrete injury, let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, and dismissed some other claims.","causal_attribution":"Procedural ruling on the pleadings; no finding that Otter recorded anyone unlawfully."}],"effects":[{"label":"the plaintiffs say Otter's notetaker recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations on calls they joined, without their consent, including a medical call and calls with a financial professional","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the plaintiffs say their conversations stay on Otter's servers for training its models and that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"one plaintiff says he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn he had been recorded","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.35.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 35, filed 5 December 2025; RECAP PDF (68 pages) read on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200), plaintiffs' experience sections read in full. Plaintiffs' allegations, not findings.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part, ECF 68, 13 August 2026 (Judge Eumi K. Lee); RECAP PDF read in full on 2026-09-29. Rules on the pleadings and accepts the allegations as true for that purpose; it makes no finding of fact.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.80.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Otter.ai's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 80, 17 September 2026; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29, plaintiff-experience paragraphs and responses read.","independence_group":"otter-answer"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Brewer v. Otter.ai, Inc., original Class Action Complaint, ECF 1, filed 15 August 2025; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.npr.org/2025/08/15/g-s1-83087/otter-ai-transcription-class-action-lawsuit","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"NPR, 15 August 2025, read live on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200). Reports the original complaint and summarises Otter's privacy policy; says neither side responded to requests for comment.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.79.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order, ECF 79, 16 September 2026; read on 2026-09-29. Procedural facts only.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","work","health","finance"],"unknowns":["Whether Otter's product notified the plaintiffs on their calls that the notetaker was present, and what the other participants' Otter settings were.","Whether the plaintiffs' conversations were in fact used to train Otter's models, and in what form.","The exact date of one Illinois plaintiff's meetings, which the complaint places only within the limitations period."],"geography":{"basis":"The consolidated complaint places the plaintiffs' calls in California, in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois, and in Washington state; the order describes the plaintiffs as individuals from California, Illinois and Washington state. The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a bounded series of concrete privacy harms reported by identified people in a pending federal suit: each named plaintiff describes a call on which another participant's AI notetaker recorded and transcribed them without consent. The account rests on the plaintiffs' pleadings and the court's ruling on them; Otter denies the allegations. Plaintiff names are omitted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Each plaintiff alleges that another participant's Otter account joined the Otter Notetaker, an AI transcription assistant, to a Zoom or Microsoft Teams call the plaintiff was on, and that the notetaker recorded, transcribed and stored the plaintiff's conversation on Otter's servers without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent (ECF 35, the consolidated complaint; the court's 13 August 2026 order summarises the same allegation). That alleged capture of the plaintiffs' conversations by an AI service is the reported harm. The complaint also alleges that Otter used the recordings to train its speech-recognition models and took voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs. Otter admits it offers an AI meeting assistant called Otter Notetaker but says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' calls and denies the allegations. The capture is alleged, not established, so the status is reported.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"United States: seven people who say they had no Otter account allege its AI Notetaker recorded calls without consent; a judge let core privacy claims proceed","summary":"Seven people in California, Illinois and Washington state are suing Otter.ai in a consolidated class action in the Northern District of California. Each says another meeting participant used Otter's AI Notetaker on a Zoom or Microsoft Teams call they joined, and that Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversation without their consent; six of them date their calls between March 2024 and May 2025. They say they were not Otter account holders. The calls they describe include a medical consultation, meetings with a financial professional and work discussions. They allege that Otter keeps the recordings and uses them to train its speech-recognition models, that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs, and one of them says learning of the recording left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed. On 13 August 2026 the court found that the alleged interception of private conversations was a concrete injury and let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, while dismissing some claims. Otter's answer to the consolidated complaint, filed on 17 September 2026, says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' experiences and denies the allegations.","incidentDate":"2024-03-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-19","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-08-15","aiSystem":"Otter Notetaker, Otter.ai's AI meeting assistant, joined to Zoom and Microsoft Teams calls by another participant's Otter account","aiProduct":"Otter Notetaker","aiCompany":"Otter.ai, Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter recorded, transcribed and kept their private conversations on calls they joined without their consent, including medical and financial discussions, used them to train its models and took voiceprints, and one plaintiff says learning this left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed (plaintiffs' allegations in a pending suit; Otter denies them).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":7,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The court order says 'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state' who participated in meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their consent; each describes their own call in the consolidated complaint. They were not Otter account holders (one says only that to her knowledge she did not create an account), so they are counted as other people. The proposed class members are not counted. Documented minimum 7.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Order granting motion to dismiss in part, In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, No. 5:25-cv-06911-EKL (N.D. Cal.), 13 August 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:04:08.493618+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:43.76525+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["otter-ai","ai-notetaker","meeting-transcription","privacy","wiretap","bipa","voiceprint","training-data","class-action","non-user"]}]}