{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-11-08T03:25:01.465Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"customer-service","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"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-genoa-labour-court-reinstates-logistics-worker-dismissed-in-reported-ai-replacement","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Quattro lavoratori dipendenti della società Maersk Italia Spa del reparto Customer Service sono stati improvvisamente licenziati'; '21 Gennaio 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'il reintegro della lavoratrice licenziata insieme ad altri tre colleghi a gennaio 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Four Customer Service employees of Maersk Italia, which is based in Genoa, were suddenly dismissed in January 2025, according to the regional transport unions.","causal_attribution":"The unions' statement, and a later news report of the ruling. Maersk's account was not found."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'L’azienda non solo ha deciso di spostare queste lavorazioni a Manila, nelle Filippine, ma ha anche sostituito parte delle mansioni finora svolte dai lavoratori della sede genovese con l’utilizzo dell’Intelligenza Artificiale'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The unions said Maersk moved the work to Manila and replaced part of the tasks done by the Genoa staff with artificial intelligence.","causal_attribution":"The unions' attribution of the dismissals to offshoring and partial AI replacement. The company's explanation was not inspected, and the AI system is not described."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Una giornata di sciopero è stata proclamata per i lavoratori di Maersk Italia'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The unions called a one-day strike over the dismissals.","causal_attribution":"Reported from the unions' strike proclamation."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'aveva deciso di fare causa all'azienda in seguito al licenziamento motivato da un piano di riorganizzazione interna. Gli altri dipendenti, invece, accettarono la buonuscita economica proposta loro come risarcimento'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"One dismissed employee sued, while the other three accepted a severance offer.","causal_attribution":"Euronews's account of the case."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'la sentenza del Tribunale del lavoro di Genova ha disposto giovedì il reintegro della lavoratrice'; 'si tratta di un \"licenziamento illegittimo\" in quanto \"non rispetta l'obbligo di repêchage\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'il licenziamento era dichiarato illegittimo, per il mancato tentativo di ricollocazione (repêchage) del lavoratore'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Genoa labour court ordered the employee reinstated, finding the dismissal unlawful because the employer had not tried to redeploy her elsewhere in the company before dismissing her.","causal_attribution":"Reports of the judgment. The judgment text was not inspected, the Domani commentary does not name the employer, and the two reports may share an underlying account, so the claim is kept as reported."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'la scelta di licenziare il lavoratore scaturiva da una riorganizzazione aziendale occasionata dall’implementazione ed evoluzione dei sistemi di intelligenza artificiale, che coinvolgeva quattro lavoratori'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"According to a legal commentary on a Genoa judgment that matches this case but does not name the employer, the dismissal arose from a company reorganisation occasioned by the implementation and development of AI systems, which involved four workers.","causal_attribution":"A commentator's summary of the judgment's facts. It describes the reorganisation as occasioned by AI systems and does not describe what any AI system did."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'La sentenza reintegra la lavoratrice con il diritto a essere risarcita per i mesi in cui è rimasta scoperta dallo stipendio'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judgment entitles the employee to compensation for the months she went without pay.","causal_attribution":"Euronews's account of the judgment."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'il reintegro della lavoratrice licenziata insieme ad altri tre colleghi a gennaio 2025 perché \"sostituita dall'Intelligenza artificiale\"'; 'in seguito al licenziamento motivato da un piano di riorganizzazione interna'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Euronews reported that the employee was dismissed in January 2025, together with three colleagues, because she had been 'replaced by artificial intelligence', a phrase it puts in quotation marks without naming who said it, and that the dismissal was motivated by an internal reorganisation plan.","causal_attribution":"Euronews's description of the reason for the dismissal. The quoted phrase is not attributed to the court, the unions or the company, and the judgment was not inspected."}],"effects":[{"label":"four Customer Service employees dismissed in a reorganisation the unions attributed partly to AI replacement","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"a dismissed employee went without pay until a court ordered her reinstatement","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://shippingitaly.it/2025/01/21/licenziamenti-e-sciopero-per-maersk-a-genova","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Read in Italian in full. Quotations and their English renderings in this record were translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed them. The article reproduces the regional unions' strike-proclamation note of January 2025.","independence_group":"genoa-unions-jan-2025-note"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://it.euronews.com/business/2026/04/30/genova-tribunale-reintegra-lavoratrice-sostituita-dallia-alla-vigilia-della-festa-del-lavo","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Read in Italian in full. Quotations and their English renderings in this record were translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed them. The live euronews.com page refused the fetcher (HTTP 406); the identical article was read in a Wayback Machine capture of the same URL.","independence_group":"genoa-ruling-news-apr-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.editorialedomani.it/giustizia/ce-un-giudice-a-pechino-no-al-licenziamento-per-la-sostituzione-del-lavoratore-con-lintelligenza-artificiale-th2yxbwr","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Read in Italian in full. Quotations and their English renderings in this record were translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed them. A legal commentary column dated 8 May 2026, mainly about a Chinese ruling, with a paragraph on a Genoa judgment that matches this case (Genoa labour court, four workers, AI reorganisation, failed redeployment) but does not name the employer; the judgment itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"domani-legal-commentary-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI system Maersk Italia adopted and which Customer Service tasks it took over.","Maersk's own explanation of the dismissals and its response to the judgment.","The exact date of the judgment (30 March 2026 in the Domani commentary; a Thursday shortly before 1 May 2026 in Euronews).","Whether the judgment was appealed.","How much of the job loss the unions attribute to AI rather than to moving the work to Manila."],"geography":{"basis":"The dismissed staff worked at Maersk Italia's office in Genoa, which the unions' note and Euronews both locate there, and the ruling was given by the Genoa labour court.","court_countries":["IT"],"event_countries":["IT"],"affected_person_countries":["IT"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete dismissal of four Customer Service employees that their unions attributed partly to AI replacement, followed by a first-instance court ruling reinstating one of them. The AI attribution is the unions' and a commentator's, and the record states that no source describes the AI system.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the employer's dismissal of staff in response to its own adoption of AI. The regional unions said in January 2025 that Maersk Italia replaced part of the Genoa Customer Service tasks with artificial intelligence while moving the work to Manila, Euronews reported that the claimant was dismissed because she had been 'replaced by artificial intelligence', a phrase it quotes without naming who said it, and a legal commentary on a Genoa judgment that matches this case but does not name the employer says the reorganisation behind that dismissal was occasioned by the implementation of AI systems. No source says an AI system produced any output about the dismissed employees, so the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Genoa court reinstates a Maersk Italia worker whose January 2025 dismissal unions linked to AI replacing customer service tasks","summary":"In January 2025 Maersk Italia, the Genoa-based Italian arm of the Danish logistics group, dismissed four employees of its Customer Service department without warning, according to the regional transport unions Filt Cgil, Fit Cisl and Uiltrasporti, who called a one-day strike. The unions said the company had moved the work to Manila and had also replaced part of the tasks done by the Genoa staff with artificial intelligence. One of the four, a woman, sued, while the other three accepted a severance offer. Euronews reported on 30 April 2026 that the Genoa labour court had ordered her reinstatement with compensation for the months she went unpaid, finding the dismissal unlawful because the employer had not tried to redeploy her within the company. A legal commentary in Domani gives the judgment's date as 30 March 2026, while Euronews says the decision came on Thursday, the eve of 1 May. The unions that backed the case described it as the first Italian case in which judges ruled on a dismissal linked to AI, although the Domani commentary also cites a Rome ruling of November 2025 on an AI-related dismissal. The Domani commentary does not name the employer. No source describes the AI system or what it did, and Maersk's account of the dismissals was not found.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-01-21","aiSystem":"An AI system that, according to the regional unions, took over part of the Customer Service tasks of Maersk Italia's Genoa staff; no source names or describes it","aiProduct":"Unidentified customer-service AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Four employees lost their jobs in a reorganisation that their unions said partly replaced their tasks with AI; one went unpaid until a court ordered her reinstatement (union statement and news reports of the ruling).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":4,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Four employees dismissed: the unions' note names four Customer Service employees, and Euronews says the claimant was dismissed together with three colleagues. Counted under other people harmed because the AI was the employer's tool. The count does not establish that AI caused each dismissal.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IT","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://it.euronews.com/business/2026/04/30/genova-tribunale-reintegra-lavoratrice-sostituita-dallia-alla-vigilia-della-festa-del-lavo","primarySourceLabel":"Euronews Italia, 30 April 2026: Genova, tribunale reintegra lavoratrice sostituita dall'IA","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-11T03:34:40.235932+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T03:34:40.235932+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["dismissal","workplace-ai","logistics","labour-court","reinstatement","italy","consequential-response"]}]}