{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-12T10:03:35.103Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"employee","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2026","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":1,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"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-japan-health-guidance-contractor-employee-uploaded-insured-members-health-data-to-unauthorised-ai-service","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'令和８年８月 20 日、委託先におけるデータ抽出業務において、委託先担当者が個人情報を含む'; 'データを、委託先が利用を許可していない AI サービスに入力等を行ったことが判明しました。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'RIZAPの特定保健指導運営事務局で、従業員がデータ抽出業務を行う際、2024年度、2025年度、2026年度にRIZAPの特定保健指導を利用した210名分の個人情報を生成AIへ参照させたことが、当該従業員の自己申告で判明したとしています。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'個人で利用している外部の生成AIサービスへ、要配慮個人情報を含む顧客情報を誤ってアップロードしていたという事象です。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"RIZAP reported to its client insurers that it came to light on 20 August 2026 that, in data-extraction work, one of its staff had entered data containing members' personal information into an external generative AI service the company had not authorised.","causal_attribution":"All three accounts rest on RIZAP's own report of its employee's action, relayed by each insurer and by RIZAP's release; the transfer to the AI service is admitted by the company."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'対象者は 726 名で、対象支部は 14 支部'; '疾患情報（高血圧症、糖尿病、脂質異常症のいずれかに該当する方）'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The mutual aid association says 726 of its members across 14 branches are covered, and that the data included membership numbers, email addresses, names, dates of birth and sex, some addresses and phone numbers, the type of health guidance and disease information on high blood pressure, diabetes or dyslipidaemia.","causal_attribution":"The association's count of its own members, from its notice."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'対象は2024年度、2025年度、2026年度にRIZAPの特定保健指導を利用した210名です。'; '当該従業員の自己申告で判明したとしています。'; '9月1日、OpenAIから「当該データはモデルの学習に利用されていない」との回答を得ています。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The IHI group health insurance society reported 210 of its members, said the matter was found through the employee's self-report, and said OpenAI answered on 1 September that the data had not been used for model training.","causal_attribution":"Relayed from the society's notice by a security news site; the notice itself was not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'ビスに入力等を行ったデータについて、AI サービス提供事業者による閲覧・アクセスの有無に関し'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'一方、IHIグループ健康保険組合は、現時点で第三者への情報漏えい等の事実は確認されていないとする一方、OpenAIによる閲覧の有無については確認を継続しています。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'当該生成AIサービスの運営事業者以外の第三者に閲覧された可能性と、生成AIの学習に利用された可能性はないことを確認したとしています。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The IHI society said no third-party leak had been confirmed, and both insurers said that whether the AI provider viewed or accessed the data was still being checked; RIZAP's release says it confirmed no possibility of viewing by third parties other than the operator and no training use.","causal_attribution":"Statements by the insurers and RIZAP about the limits of the exposure; not independently verified."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'漏えいの可能性のある対象者に対しては、委託先から令和８年９月４日１０時に電子メールによりご'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"RIZAP notified affected members by email on 4 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"The association's statement of the notification."}],"effects":[{"label":"insured members' identifying details and disease information entered into an external generative AI service without their knowledge (insurers' notices)","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.chikyosai.or.jp/info/pdf/info_260904.pdf","kind":"official_record","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read in Japanese on 2026-10-12; quoted passages were translated into English by the research agent (an AI), not by a human translator. Text extracted from the PDF with pdftotext; the notice relays what RIZAP reported to the association.","independence_group":"chikyosai-notice"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://rocket-boys.co.jp/security-measures-lab/ihi-rizap-openai-210-incident/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read in Japanese on 2026-10-12; quoted passages were translated into English by the research agent (an AI), not by a human translator. A security news site's report of the IHI group health insurance society's 2 September notice; the society's own page was not read.","independence_group":"ihi-kenpo-notice"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://monoist.itmedia.co.jp/mn/spv/2609/18/news007.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read in Japanese on 2026-10-12; quoted passages were translated into English by the research agent (an AI), not by a human translator. A columnist's description of RIZAP group's release; the release page itself rendered no text to the fetcher and was not read directly. The page was decoded from Shift_JIS.","independence_group":"rizap-group-release"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["health","work","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether 20 August 2026 is the date the data was entered or the date it was discovered.","The total number of people across all of RIZAP's client insurers, and whether the 726 and 210 counts overlap.","Which OpenAI product and account type the employee used; RIZAP's release does not name the service.","Whether the provider's staff viewed or accessed the data.","Whether the Personal Information Protection Commission has taken any action."],"geography":{"basis":"The affected members belong to Japanese insurers; the mutual aid association lists them by Japanese prefectural branches (Iwate, Akita, Osaka and others). The notices do not state where the employee did the data-extraction work, so no event country is recorded. No court is involved.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["JP"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-10-06 private-information ruling: two insurers' notices describe their contractor's employee actually entering members' identifying and disease information into an external generative AI service the contractor had not authorised, without the members' knowledge. The account rests on RIZAP's own admission as relayed by its clients and its release; the provider's answer on training and the open question of provider access are recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The insurers' notices state that a contractor's staff member entered data containing members' personal information, including disease information, into an external generative AI service the contractor had not permitted, and that the data was deleted from the service afterwards; the provider was asked to delete stored copies. The privacy harm is that transfer of members' health-guidance data to an AI service without their knowledge. The notices record transmission and a provider answer that the data was not used for training; whether provider staff viewed it was unresolved, and no generated output about the members is reported.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"Health-guidance contractor says an employee entered insured members' names and disease information into an unauthorised external generative AI service","summary":"A local-government employees' mutual aid association said in a notice dated 4 September 2026 that RIZAP, the company it contracts for specific health guidance, had reported that on 20 August 2026 it emerged that a RIZAP staff member, during data-extraction work, had entered data containing personal information into an external generative AI service that RIZAP did not permit. The association says 726 of its members across 14 branches are covered and lists the data as membership numbers, email addresses, names, dates of birth, sex, some addresses and phone numbers, the type of health guidance and, for members with them, high blood pressure, diabetes or dyslipidaemia. The IHI group health insurance society reported 210 of its members in a 2 September notice that, according to a security news site, names OpenAI as the provider, says the matter came to light through the employee's own report, and says OpenAI answered on 1 September that the data had not been used for model training. RIZAP's own release, as described in an ITmedia column, says the information was uploaded by mistake to a generative AI service the employee used privately, and that the company confirmed no possibility of viewing by third parties other than the service operator or of use in training. Whether the provider's staff could view the data was still being checked when the insurers published.","incidentDate":"2026-08-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-02","aiSystem":"An external generative AI service that the contractor had not authorised for work; RIZAP's own release calls it an external generative AI service used privately by the employee, and the IHI group health insurance society's notice, as relayed by a security news site, names OpenAI as the provider","aiProduct":"Unidentified OpenAI generative AI service (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to notices from two client insurers, an employee of their health-guidance contractor RIZAP entered personal data on insured members, including names, birth dates, insurance numbers, contact details and, for some, high blood pressure, diabetes or dyslipidaemia, into an external generative AI service that the company had not authorised; one insurer counts 726 affected members and another 210.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":726,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One insurer's notice (a local-government employees' mutual aid association) states that 726 of its members were covered by the data entered into the AI service, across 14 branches; that is the counted minimum. A second client, the IHI group health insurance society, separately reported 210 of its members, as relayed by a security news site; these people are additional but the two lists are not shown to be disjoint, so they are left in the unquantified remainder. RIZAP's own release, as described in an ITmedia column, gives no total. The employee who entered the data is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"JP","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.chikyosai.or.jp/info/pdf/info_260904.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Local-government employees' mutual aid association (Chikyosai), notice of 4 September 2026 on its contractor's AI-service data entry","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:35:18.489537+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:35:18.489537+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["privacy","health-data","generative-ai","unauthorised-ai-use","contractor","insurance","japan","openai"]},{"id":"2026-texas-health-plan-employee-uploaded-members-personal-and-prescription-data-to-chatgpt","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On the evening of April 29, 2026, a Community First employee uploaded a file containing personal information of some Community First members to ChatGPT from a home computer network'; 'Community First does not utilize ChatGPT, and our systems immediately detected the violation and notified our IT department.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The health plan says that on the evening of 29 April 2026 an employee uploaded a file containing personal information of some members to ChatGPT from a home computer network, circumventing its firewall safeguards and violating its policy, and that its systems detected the violation.","causal_attribution":"The plan's own account of its employee's action; no independent account was inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'name, address, date of birth, member identification number, and prescription drug information'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plan says the affected information may have included members' names, addresses, dates of birth, member identification numbers and prescription drug information.","causal_attribution":"The plan's description of the file's contents."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'directed and verified that the employee had deleted all personal information from their ChatGPT account'; 'contacted OpenAI, LLC (the operator of ChatGPT) to demand deletion of any related data'; 'promptly ended with its relationship with the employee'; 'complimentary identity monitoring services for twelve (12) months'; 'Community First is not aware of any impacted information having been misused'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plan says it had the employee delete the data from their ChatGPT account, asked OpenAI to delete related data, ended its relationship with the employee, notified agencies and members, offered identity monitoring and is not aware of any misuse.","causal_attribution":"The plan's statement of its response; OpenAI's reply, if any, is not reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"health-plan members' personal and prescription information uploaded to ChatGPT without their knowledge (plan's release)","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://communityfirsthealthplans.com/press-release/community-first-health-plans-announces-data-security-incident/","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-12 from the plan's own press-release page; no translation needed. The research agent (an AI) read the text directly.","independence_group":"community-first-release"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["health","work","privacy"],"unknowns":["How many members' information was in the uploaded file.","What the employee was using ChatGPT for and which account type was used.","Whether OpenAI replied or confirmed deletion, and whether the data was retained or used for training.","Where the employee's home network was located.","Whether any regulator has acted on the notification."],"geography":{"basis":"The affected people are members of a nonprofit health plan that the release places in San Antonio, Texas and the Bexar service area. The release says the upload was made from a home computer network without saying where, so no event country is recorded. No court is involved.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-10-06 private-information ruling: the health plan's own release describes an employee actually uploading a file of members' personal and prescription information to ChatGPT, without the members' knowledge and against the plan's policy. All facts are attributed to that release; the number of members and OpenAI's response are unknown.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The health plan states that its employee uploaded a file of members' personal information, including prescription drug information, to ChatGPT from a home network in breach of policy, that its systems detected the upload, and that it had the data deleted from the employee's ChatGPT account and asked OpenAI to delete related data. The privacy harm is that transfer of members' information into an AI service without their knowledge. The release reports the transmission; it does not report any ChatGPT output about the members, any retention finding or any use in training.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"Texas health plan says an employee uploaded a file of members' personal and prescription data to ChatGPT from a home network, against its policy","summary":"Community First Health Plans, a nonprofit health plan in San Antonio, Texas, said in a 29 June 2026 release that on the evening of 29 April 2026 one of its employees uploaded a file containing personal information of some members to ChatGPT from a home computer network, circumventing the plan's firewall safeguards and violating its policy. The plan says it does not use ChatGPT and that its systems detected the violation and alerted its IT department. According to the release, the file may have included members' names, addresses, dates of birth, member identification numbers and prescription drug information. The next morning the plan revoked the employee's access, directed and verified deletion of the data from the employee's ChatGPT account, asked OpenAI to delete any related data, and ended its relationship with the employee. It notified affected members and federal and state agencies, offered 12 months of identity monitoring and says it is not aware of any misuse. The release gives no number of affected members.","incidentDate":"2026-04-29","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-06-29","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used by an employee from a home computer network in breach of the health plan's policy; the plan says it does not use ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the health plan, an employee uploaded a file containing some members' names, addresses, dates of birth, member identification numbers and prescription drug information to ChatGPT on 29 April 2026, in breach of its policy; the plan notified members, offered identity monitoring and says it knows of no misuse.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"unquantified","affectedCountEvidence":"The plan's release refers to 'some Community First members' and 'affected Members' but gives no number, so no count is recorded (numeric zero placeholders). The employee who uploaded the file is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://communityfirsthealthplans.com/press-release/community-first-health-plans-announces-data-security-incident/","primarySourceLabel":"Community First Health Plans press release, 29 June 2026: data security incident","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:35:10.75316+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:35:10.75316+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["privacy","health-data","chatgpt","unauthorised-ai-use","health-plan","employee"]},{"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"]}]}