{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-02T17:26:22.509Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"dismissed","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2026","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":2,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"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":"2026-brooklyn-center-border-patrol-facial-recognition-citizen-detention","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Paras 85-86, pages 30-31: 'and a U.S. citizen. ECF'; 'On January 9, 2026, Mr.'; 'was working at a house in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota'; 'Two immigration agents with “border patrol” on their vests drove past the house, made a U-turn'; 'license and REAL ID paperwork, but the agents asserted that the REAL ID papers were'; 'fake and that the driver’s license proved nothing, and they handcuffed him'. Caption: 'FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW'; 'Dated: March 9, 2026'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In findings of fact filed on 9 March 2026 in Hussen v. Noem, a proposed class action over immigration stops during Operation Metro Surge, a federal judge in Minnesota found that a U.S. citizen was working at a house in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on 9 January 2026 when two immigration agents with 'border patrol' on their vests drove past, made a U-turn and asked where he was born; when he showed his driver's licence and REAL ID paperwork, they said the papers were fake and the licence proved nothing, and handcuffed him.","causal_attribution":"Findings of the court, made on the declarant's sworn account; the government's declarations did not address this stop."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Footnote 11, page 30: 'One of the agents who stopped him conducted a facial recognition scan and told'; 'was born in Mexico City'; 'At least one agent, then, believed that'; 'to be of Mexican descent'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court's findings state that one of the agents who stopped him conducted a facial recognition scan and told him he was born in Mexico City; the judge cited this to infer that at least one agent believed he appeared to be of Mexican descent.","causal_attribution":"The court's restatement of the declaration (Id. para 12); the order does not say what the scan returned beyond what the agent then told him, and does not say whether the birthplace was wrong."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Para 87, page 31: 'around for about thirty minutes, the agents met up with a different agent, who used a facial recognition scan to determine that'; 'was a U.S. citizen. Id.'; 'After that, the officers released'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The judge found that the agents drove him around for about thirty minutes and then met a different agent, who used a facial recognition scan to determine that he was a U.S. citizen, after which the officers released him.","causal_attribution":"Findings of the court on the declarant's account."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Para 88, page 31: 'stopped and detained based solely on his race or ethnicity. Without more, the assertions that'; 'are unsupported, pretextual justifications for prolonging the detention'; page 4: 'are not binding at trial on the merits'; page 80 (conclusions para 29): 'were encountered at construction worksites that'; 'traditionally indicate illegal aliens'; 'His declaration states he works in cleaning and property removal and does not mention construction'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The judge found that he was stopped and detained based solely on his race or ethnicity, and that the agents' assertions that his papers were fake or proved nothing were unsupported, pretextual justifications for prolonging the detention; in its conclusions it rejected the government's argument that he was encountered at a construction worksite, because his declaration describes cleaning and property removal work and does not mention construction.","causal_attribution":"Judicial finding made on the preliminary-injunction record, which the court notes 'are not binding at trial on the merits'; it attributes the stop and detention to race or ethnicity, not to the facial recognition scan."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Paras 10-15: 'They put me in one of the SUVs.'; 'seemed to take a picture of my face with his phone. I believe he was using facial recognition software. He told me I was not a US citizen and that I was born in Mexico City. He told me I was under arrest. They put handcuffs on me.'; 'Instead, they just took my phone without letting me show the picture.'; 'They drove me around for probably 30 mins until a different agent met up with them. He used facial recognition with another system and it confirmed I was a citizen.'; 'They then let me go.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In his sworn declaration, the man says that after he was put in an SUV a man in the front seat seemed to photograph his face with a phone, which he believed was facial recognition software, then told him he was not a U.S. citizen, that he was born in Mexico City and that he was under arrest, and he was handcuffed; agents took his phone when he tried to show a picture of his passport, drove him around for probably 30 minutes until a different agent used facial recognition 'with another system' that confirmed he was a citizen, and then let him go.","causal_attribution":"The declarant's sworn first-person account; the identification of the first phone photo as facial recognition is his belief."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 3, 7 (para 12) and 111: 'Defendants cross-examined Plaintiffs’ witnesses but offered no witness testimony'; 'Defendants submitted declarations disputing four accounts'; 'No. 84 (disputing account of Plaintiff Mubashir Hussen)'; 'provides brief accounts of the stops of Santiago Doe, Julio Doe,'; 'Plaintiffs’ motions will be denied.'; 'Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants likely maintained unconstitutional policies'; 'Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 25] is DENIED.'; 'Plaintiffs’ Motion for Provisional Class Certification and Appointment of'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court recorded that the government's declarations disputed four declarants' accounts, none of them this one, and that the government offered no witness testimony at the evidentiary hearing; it nonetheless denied the preliminary injunction and provisional class certification, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown a certainly impending future injury, while finding that the government likely maintained unconstitutional policies.","causal_attribution":"The court's own record of the evidence and its ruling."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs'; 'Date Terminated:'; 'Order Dismissing Case'; entries 199 (Jun 11, 2026) and 200 (Jun 18, 2026).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"CourtListener's docket lists a notice of voluntary dismissal by all plaintiffs on 11 June 2026 and an order dismissing the case on 18 June 2026.","causal_attribution":"Docket index entries; the dismissal notice and order were not read."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Para 157(f), page 57: 'was working at a house in Brooklyn Center on January 9, 2026 when two Border Patrol agents'; 'ran a facial recognition scan that told him he had been born in Mexico City'; 'drove him around for about thirty minutes until a second scan confirmed his citizenship'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A federal complaint filed on 1 October 2026 over the killing of Renee Good (Ganger v. Ross) restates the episode among the Hussen court's findings, describing the first scan as one 'that told him he had been born in Mexico City' and saying a second scan confirmed his citizenship.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' restatement of the Hussen findings; the complaint's wording that the scan itself 'told him' the birthplace goes further than the order, which says the agent conducted a scan and told him."}],"effects":[{"label":"a U.S. citizen was handcuffed and detained by immigration agents in Border Patrol vests; a federal judge found the stop and detention were based solely on his race or ethnicity","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"after a facial recognition scan an agent told him he was born in Mexico City","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"he says the agent who seemed to photograph his face also told him he was not a U.S. citizen and was under arrest, and he was held for about thirty minutes until another agent's facial recognition scan confirmed his citizenship","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230424/gov.uscourts.mnd.230424.191.0_1.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-02 from the RECAP PDF (111 pages, text layer): Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Hussen v. Noem, D. Minn. No. 26-cv-324 (ECT/ECW), Doc. 191, filed 9 March 2026, Judge Eric C. Tostrud. Read in full for this episode (paras 85-88 and footnotes 11-12), the evidentiary posture (paras 11-12), the introduction and the order. The findings on this episode rest on the declarant's sworn declaration (s2), so the two are one evidentiary chain.","independence_group":"hussen-v-noem-declarant-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230424/gov.uscourts.mnd.230424.39.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full on 2026-10-02 (3 pages): the detained man's sworn declaration under 28 U.S.C. 1746, signed 15 January 2026 and filed 16 January 2026 as Doc. 39 in support of the preliminary-injunction motion. It gives the event date as 'January 9, 2025'; the court treats 2025 as a typographical error.","independence_group":"hussen-v-noem-declarant-account"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.236480/gov.uscourts.mnd.236480.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-02 (text layer, 149 pages; para 157(f) on page 57): complaint in Ganger v. Ross, D. Minn. No. 0:26-cv-04231, filed 1 October 2026, which concerns the killing of Renee Good and restates the Hussen court's findings on this episode. It derives from s1 and adds no independent account.","independence_group":"hussen-v-noem-declarant-account"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72146903/hussen-v-mullin/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-02: CourtListener docket page for Hussen v. Mullin (the caption CourtListener now shows), 0:26-cv-00324, last updated 13 September 2026; used only for the case's later procedural history.","independence_group":"courtlistener-hussen-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which facial recognition application each agent used; the declarant says the second agent used 'another system'.","What the first scan actually returned, and whether the birthplace the agent stated was wrong; the record establishes his U.S. citizenship but not his birthplace.","Whether the man has brought any claim of his own; he was a declarant, not a party, in Hussen v. Noem.","Any psychological, work or financial consequences beyond the detention itself; the declaration does not describe them."],"geography":{"basis":"The stop happened at a house in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota; the court found the man is a U.S. citizen who lives in Minnesota; the findings were made by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (s1).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case from a federal court's findings of fact, made after an evidentiary hearing on a sworn declaration that the government's declarations did not dispute: a U.S. citizen was handcuffed and driven around by immigration agents with 'border patrol' on their vests, an agent told him after a facial recognition scan that he was born in Mexico City, and a second facial recognition scan established his citizenship before release. In findings on the preliminary-injunction record, the court found the stop and detention were based solely on race or ethnicity. The man is a private person and is not named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-02"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's findings state that an agent conducted a facial recognition scan and then told the man he was born in Mexico City, and that a different agent later used a facial recognition scan to determine that he was a U.S. citizen, after which he was released. Both findings rest on his sworn declaration. For the first scan he says the agent 'seemed' to photograph his face and that he believed facial recognition software was used, and he says the agents had already arrested him and put him in an SUV before that photo. No source read names either application or says what the first scan returned; the record shows only that the agent made the Mexico City statement after it. The recorded AI output is the second scan's: the court says it was used to determine his citizenship and the declaration says 'it confirmed I was a citizen', after which the officers released him. The court attributes the stop and detention to race or ethnicity, so no scan is established as the reason he was detained.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: immigration agents in Border Patrol vests handcuffed a U.S. citizen who was working at a house in January 2026 and an agent told him after a facial recognition scan that he was born in Mexico City; a federal judge found he was detained solely because of his race or ethnicity, and a second scan confirmed his citizenship before release","summary":"In findings of fact filed on 9 March 2026 in Hussen v. Noem, a proposed class action over immigration stops during Operation Metro Surge, Judge Eric C. Tostrud of the U.S. District Court in Minnesota found that a U.S. citizen working at a house in Brooklyn Center on 9 January 2026 was stopped and detained based solely on his race or ethnicity. Two agents with 'border patrol' on their vests asked where he was born, said his REAL ID papers were fake and his driver's licence proved nothing, and handcuffed him. According to the findings, one agent conducted a facial recognition scan and told him he was born in Mexico City; in his sworn declaration the man says the agent also told him he was not a U.S. citizen and was under arrest. After about thirty minutes of driving, a different agent used a facial recognition scan that determined he was a citizen, and he was released. The government's declarations did not dispute his account. The judge denied a preliminary injunction for lack of a certainly impending future injury, and the plaintiffs later dismissed the suit. No source read names the facial recognition application. A complaint filed on 1 October 2026 over the killing of Renee Good restates the episode.","incidentDate":"2026-01-09","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-01-16","aiSystem":"Facial recognition scans run by immigration agents during the stop: per the court's findings, one agent conducted a facial recognition scan and then told the man he was born in Mexico City, and a different agent later used a facial recognition scan that determined he was a U.S. citizen (the declarant says the second agent used 'another system'). No source read names either application.","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A federal judge found the man, a U.S. citizen, was handcuffed and detained for about thirty minutes by immigration agents in Border Patrol vests, based solely on his race or ethnicity; he says an agent told him after a face scan that he was not a citizen and was under arrest.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"unclear","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the detained U.S. citizen (court findings paras 85-88; declaration). No one else is reported harmed in this stop.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230424/gov.uscourts.mnd.230424.191.0_1.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Hussen v. Noem, D. Minn. No. 26-cv-324, findings of fact and conclusions of law, 9 March 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-02T03:17:51.628942+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-02T03:17:51.628942+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","immigration-enforcement","operation-metro-surge","minnesota","border-patrol","wrongful-detention","racial-profiling","justice","made-claim-about"]},{"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":"2026-bengaluru-based-employer-reports-firing-cook-after-home-ai-kitchen-monitor-flagged-fruit-taken","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"it monitors the kitchen when she's cooking and pings me the moment she takes anything. sends me weekly report.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"fn, using claude haiku 4.5 as the vision model.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"btw i run face detection locally and blur it before hitting llm","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"9:53 AM · Mar 1, 2026","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the blurred video is fed into a vision AI model (currently Claude Haiku 4.5","relation":"context","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"a surveillance camera placed on top of a cupboard.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In an X post dated 1 March 2026 the employer said he had deployed an \"AI roommate\" in his kitchen: a camera feeding an AI vision model (Claude Haiku 4.5 according to the post, with faces detected and blurred locally first) that monitors the kitchen while the cook works, alerts him when she takes anything and sends weekly reports.","causal_attribution":"The employer describes his own system. No independent source inspected the setup and the post carries no video of the alleged taking."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"3 apples gone, banana from Tuesday missing, caught her eating your blueberries on Thursday — 6-7 of them, standing at the fridge","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A screenshot of his exchange with the AI chatbot shows that it not only kept track of the fruits she took for herself but also how often she washed her hands before cooking, how thoroughly she cleaned the kitchen, and how long she took to cook.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"It tracked how frequently she washed her hands before preparing meals, assessed how thoroughly she cleaned surfaces, and recorded the duration of her cooking sessions.","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Screenshots of the bot's chat quoted by Hindustan Times show it reporting a weekly tally of apples and a banana as gone, the cook eating blueberries at the fridge, and observations on hand-washing and cleaning.","causal_attribution":"The screenshots are the employer's. Whether the bot's log was accurate (for example whether the fruit was taken without permission) is not independently verified."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"and it caught her red handed","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I caught her twice this week. just fired her","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"“I caught her twice this week. Just fired her,” he said","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"stated that he dismissed the cook after reviewing the footage gathered by the system","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"the Bengaluru techie said he had fired his cook for stealing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The employer said the system caught the cook red handed taking fruit, that he caught her twice that week, and that he had just fired her.","causal_attribution":"The employer attributes the dismissal to what the monitor logged. The dismissal is reported only on the employer's own account and the cook's account is not reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"“I confronted her twice before setting this up. After two weeks, she was back to the same thing. I’m okay with her taking food with my permission, but stealing is a no.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"“I put this up a couple of weeks ago.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"In replies the employer said he had confronted the cook twice before setting up the system and would accept her taking food with his permission.","causal_attribution":"The employer's own explanation of his decision, quoted by India Today."}],"effects":[{"label":"Domestic cook dismissed by the employer after the home AI kitchen monitor's alerts, on the employer's own account","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://x.com/the2ndfloorguy/status/2028045991832690828","kind":"first_person_account","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"employer-x-post-2026-03-01"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/bengaluru-techie-uses-ai-to-monitor-cook-fires-her-for-stealing-fruit-caught-her-red-handed-101772419493861.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"employer-x-post-2026-03-01"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/bengaluru-techie-fires-his-cook-after-his-ai-roommate-caught-her-stealing-fruits-from-fridge-netizens-react-its-not-the-brag-/articleshow/128958235.cms","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"employer-x-post-2026-03-01"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.indiatoday.in/trending-news/story/bengaluru-techie-pankaj-ai-roommate-helps-him-catch-cook-stealing-fruits-red-handed-2876429-2026-03-02","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"employer-x-post-2026-03-01"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy"],"unknowns":["The cook's account, and whether she disputes the alleged taking, is not reported by any inspected source.","Whether the cook knew of or agreed to the camera is not stated. The employer's replies imply she could see it and initially behaved carefully, which is unverified.","The exact day of the dismissal is not stated. The employer posted on 1 March 2026 that he had just fired her.","Whether the bot's log was accurate, or whether the fruit was taken without permission, is unverified. The post carries no video of the alleged taking.","The cook's pay appears only in the bot's own weekly summary as shown in a screenshot and is not independently sourced, so it is not recorded as a fact.","The Financial Express article listed by AIAAIC returned HTTP 403 and no archive copy was found, so it was not read. Hindustan Times said it had asked the employer for comment and no response was inspected.","No source reports later developments (re-employment, a complaint by the cook, or a labour-authority response) after 3 March 2026."],"geography":{"basis":"Hindustan Times, Economic Times and India Today describe the employer as Bengaluru-based. The sources do not separately state where the kitchen is.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":["IN"]},"publication":{"basis":"The employer's X post (as displayed on the post page) and the Hindustan Times, Economic Times and India Today coverage were read. All four derive from the employer's post and screenshots and are one independence group. The dismissal and the bot's role are the employer's own account and stay at reported. The cook is not named and the employer is described by role only. The employer's handle and first name appear only inside source URLs (the X post and India Today).","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The employer's post says an AI system built on Claude Haiku 4.5 as the vision model monitored his kitchen, flagged fruit taken and produced weekly reports, and that he fired the cook after it caught her. Hindustan Times quotes screenshots of the bot's output. According to the employer the dismissal followed the bot's alerts, and the decision was the employer's. No independent source verified the bot's logs or the alleged taking, and the employer's account is the only source for the dismissal.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"India: Bengaluru-based employer says he fired his cook after a home AI kitchen monitor flagged fruit taken","summary":"On 1 March 2026 a Bengaluru-based technology professional posted on X that he had deployed a home \"AI roommate\" (a kitchen camera with an AI vision model, which he said was Claude Haiku 4.5) that monitored his cook while she cooked, alerted him when she took anything and sent weekly reports. The post said the system \"caught her red handed\", that he \"caught her twice this week\" and that he had \"just fired\" her. Screenshots quoted by Hindustan Times show the bot listing apples and a banana as gone, reporting the cook eating blueberries, and giving hand-washing and cleaning observations. All coverage derives from the employer's post: the post carries no video, the cook's account is not reported and the alleged taking is unverified.","incidentDate":"2026-03-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-01","aiSystem":"Home kitchen monitoring bot ('AI roommate') built by the employer: kitchen camera, local face blurring and Claude Haiku 4.5 as the vision model (per the employer)","aiProduct":"AI roommate kitchen monitor (reported)","aiCompany":"Anthropic (model provider, per the employer). The employer built the system.","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The employer said in his own post that he fired the cook after the AI monitor flagged her taking fruit. The cook's account, the terms of the dismissal and any financial effect are not reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The employer's post and the coverage refer to one cook who was dismissed and name no other affected person. The count rests on the employer's own account.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://x.com/the2ndfloorguy/status/2028045991832690828","primarySourceLabel":"Employer's X post (1 Mar 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:15:59.571694+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:26.637589+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]}]}