{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T08:59:44.667Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"california","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":3,"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":"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"]}]}