{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-02T17:26:17.098Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"hiring","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-us-eightfold-ai-match-score-applicant-screening-class-action","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"about unsuspecting job applicants and to score them from 0 to 5 for potential employers based on","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This results in a Match Score, which ranges from 0 through 5 in increments of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Employers then use these reports to sift through","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"But candidates who apply for jobs at companies that use those tools are not given notice and a chance to dispute errors","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that Eightfold collects applicant information and scores applicants from 0 to 5 by predicted likelihood of success for employers, that employers use these reports to sift applications, and that Eightfold provides no notice, access or dispute rights.","causal_attribution":"These are the plaintiffs' allegations as stated in a filing. The filing establishes only its own contents."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In or around July 2025,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"applied online via Microsoft’s website for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Manager-Responsible AI position two days after she applied, without being invited to interview.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On or around December 16, 2025,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"received an automated rejection for the Senior Technical Program","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint says one plaintiff applied to Microsoft in or around July 2025 and again around 16 December 2025, and received an automated rejection two days after the first application without an interview.","causal_attribution":"The complaint attributes the screening to Eightfold's Evaluation Tools used by the employer. No employer record or score was inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On or around December 17,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"applied online via Paypal’s website","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"was not asked to interview and was not given a job offer for any of the","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint says the other plaintiff applied to PayPal on or around 17 December 2025 for two roles and was not asked to interview or given an offer for any position applied to.","causal_attribution":"The complaint alleges Eightfold's tools were applied to this application. Reuters reports the plaintiffs believe the tools played a role. The link to any specific rejection is not established."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"is being sued in California for allegedly compiling reports used to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"On January 20, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"sued in California state court on behalf of all U.S. job seekers who applied for jobs","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Neither was hired, and both believe that Eightfold's tools played a role.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The proposed class action was filed by two women with STEM backgrounds who believe Eightfold’s AI tools hurt their careers by unfairly screening them out","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Reuters reports the plaintiffs, who are not named by this record, filed a proposed class action in California state court on 20 January 2026 on behalf of all US job seekers evaluated with the tools, and that neither plaintiff was hired and both believe Eightfold's tools played a role.","causal_attribution":"Reuters and the plaintiffs' counsel release both trace to the complaint and counsel. They are one reporting chain."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"We do not scrape social media and the like.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"said the platform operates on data shared by candidates or provided by customers.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"An Eightfold spokesperson said the platform does not scrape social media and operates on data shared by candidates or provided by customers.","causal_attribution":"Company statement to Reuters. It disputes the complaint's data-collection allegation and does not address the scoring allegation."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Document 1 Filed 03/02/26","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/24/2026.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"NOTICE OF REMOVAL Eightfold AI, Inc.'s Notice of Removal from Contra Costa Superior Court.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"MOTION to Dismiss filed by Eightfold AI Inc..","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"ORDER VACATING HEARING Re: 29 MOTION to Dismiss.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Eightfold removed the case to the US District Court for the Northern District of California on 2 March 2026 and filed a motion to dismiss. The docket shows the hearing on that motion vacated on 24 July 2026 and no ruling in the entries inspected.","causal_attribution":"Procedural facts documented by the court docket. The docket does not establish the merits."}],"effects":[{"label":"Applicants allegedly scored and screened by an undisclosed AI ranking without statutory notice or dispute rights, and not interviewed or hired","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465146/gov.uscourts.cand.465146.1.0_2.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ai-company-eightfold-sued-helping-181520410.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.outtengolden.com/newsroom/landmark-class-action-accuses-eightfold-ai-of-illegally-producing-hidden-credit-reports-on-job-applicants","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72351430/kistler-v-eightfold-ai-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"court-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether Eightfold's tools produced a score for either plaintiff or influenced either employer's decision is not established. The complaint and reports rest on the plaintiffs' allegations and belief.","The start date of the alleged practice is not stated. The incident range covers only the plaintiffs' dated applications (July to December 2025). The complaint says one plaintiff has applied to Microsoft and other employers since 2023. Earlier applications are not described and are outside this record.","Whether the defendant's tools collected social media or other third-party data about the plaintiffs is disputed by Eightfold and unresolved.","The other plaintiff's location is not stated in the sources inspected.","The outcome of the pending motion to dismiss is unknown. Docket entry 46 (24 Sep 2026, a statement of recent decision) had no readable content.","Microsoft and PayPal are not defendants. Microsoft declined comment and no PayPal response was inspected."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint states that one plaintiff lives in, applied from and was denied employment while living in Contra Costa County, California. The removed case is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The other plaintiff's location is not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The complaint was read from the copy attached to the defendant's notice of removal, with Reuters, the plaintiffs' counsel release and the court docket. The plaintiffs are described by role and not named. All allegations are attributed and remain at reported status. The AIAAIC archive entry had no description and is not cited.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges Eightfold's Match Score model scored and ranked the plaintiffs' applications for the employers. Eightfold's statement disputes the alleged data collection. No document showing a score for either plaintiff was inspected.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: two applicants sue Eightfold AI over 0-to-5 applicant scores used in hiring","summary":"Two job applicants filed a proposed class action on 20 January 2026 in California state court (removed to federal court on 2 March 2026) against Eightfold AI Inc. The complaint alleges that Eightfold's hiring tools collect applicant data and produce a 0-to-5 'Match Score' that employers use to rank candidates, without the notice, access and dispute rights the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a California statute require. One plaintiff says she applied to Microsoft in or around July 2025 and again in December 2025 and received an automated rejection two days after the first application. The other says she applied to PayPal in December 2025. Both say they were not interviewed or hired and believe Eightfold's tools played a role. Eightfold says it does not scrape social media and operates on data candidates or customers provide. The allegations are unproven and Eightfold filed a motion to dismiss (no ruling appears in the docket entries inspected).","incidentDate":"2025-07-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-17","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-01-21","aiSystem":"Eightfold AI talent-evaluation tools including the 'Match Score' applicant ranking model","aiProduct":"Eightfold Match Score","aiCompany":"Eightfold AI Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complaint alleges that two applicants were scored by Eightfold's tools, not interviewed and not hired, and that they received none of the disclosures or dispute rights the statutes require. The plaintiffs believe the tools played a role in their rejections. Eightfold's involvement in any particular rejection is not established.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Two plaintiffs each allege they were scored and not hired. The proposed class of all US applicants evaluated with the tools is not counted because no class has been certified and no other applicant's experience is reported.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465146/gov.uscourts.cand.465146.1.0_2.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Notice of removal with the state-court complaint, plaintiffs v. Eightfold AI Inc. (N.D. Cal., filed 2 Mar 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:41.995961+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.000724+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-new-york-union-square-facial-recognition-false-arrest-two-days-jail","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"After his mug shot was generated as a possible match to the offender in an indecent exposure case, he was arrested and spent two days in jail in April before the charges against him were dropped in July.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"was falsely arrested and jailed for two days despite not matching the physical description given by the victim of a sex crime.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Prosecutors dismissed the case last month after ... public defenders, the Legal Aid Society, were able to prove he was falsely identified.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"An indecent exposure suspect search produced a possible facial recognition match to the affected man, who was arrested in April 2025, jailed for two days and charged. Prosecutors dismissed the case in July 2025.","causal_attribution":"The reporting attributes the arrest to the facial recognition possible match followed by police decisions (a photo lineup and the arrest). The inspected sources do not establish what other evidence the police relied on."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"The man they were looking for, he was eight inches shorter than me and 70 pounds lighter.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Location data from his cell phone showed that ... was miles away from the crime, the New York Times first reported.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The man reports that the suspect was eight inches shorter and 70 pounds lighter than him, and reports say location data from his phone placed him miles from the crime.","causal_attribution":"Physical and location discrepancies are the man's account and a relayed New York Times report. The New York Times article was not readable and the phone data was not inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"for NYPD investigators to make the decision to place him in a photo lineup, which was then shown to the victim, who misidentified him.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A victim was shown a photo lineup that included the man and misidentified him.","causal_attribution":"Hell Gate summarises the New York Times account. Its chain traces to the same original reporting as the New York Times article that was not readable here."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"I was in the process of becoming a correctional officer at Rikers Island,\" he told Eyewitness News.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"But after his arrest, he says \"they kind of froze the hiring process.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The man says he was in the process of becoming a correctional officer and that after his arrest they \"kind of froze the hiring process.\"","causal_attribution":"Single first-person account relayed by one outlet. No employer statement was inspected and the current hiring status is unknown."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"even if there is a possible match, the NYPD cannot and will never make an arrest solely using facial recognition technology.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The NYPD stated that even with a possible facial recognition match it cannot and will never make an arrest solely using facial recognition technology.","causal_attribution":"Police statement relayed by ABC7. It bears on how the match was used and does not address this arrest specifically."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On Monday, the Legal Aid Society sent a letter to the City's Department of Investigation urging the agency to open a probe into the NYPD's use of facial recognition technology","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"who was wrongfully arrested  based on a false facial recognition match","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Legal Aid Society wrote to the city Department of Investigation asking it to investigate NYPD facial recognition use after this and other false arrests.","causal_attribution":"Advocacy response. Legal Aid statements are the organisation's allegations."}],"effects":[{"label":"Arrest and two days in jail after a facial recognition possible match, case later dismissed","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://abc7ny.com/post/man-falsely-jailed-nypds-facial-recognition-surveillance-tech-failed/17664671/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"abc7-interview"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://hellgatenyc.com/legal-aid-investigation-nypd-facial-recognition/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-original-account"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://legalaidnyc.org/news/demands-ban-nypd-facial-recognition-technology/","kind":"advocacy_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"legal-aid"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/nyregion/nypd-facial-recognition-dismissed-case.html","kind":"news","access":"unavailable","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-original-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The New York Times article could not be read, so details attributed to it are relayed second-hand.","The facial recognition product, the source of the comparison photo and the match score are unknown.","The Hell Gate article is behind a subscriber paywall after its opening paragraphs; only the visible text was inspected.","The date of the facial recognition search and match (between the 10 February offense and the April arrest) is not stated in the inspected sources; the incident date is the reported arrest month.","The exact arrest day, the court and the dismissal date are not stated in the inspected sources.","Whether the correctional officer hiring process resumed is unknown.","Which evidence besides the possible match supported the arrest and lineup is unknown."],"geography":{"basis":"ABC7 places the offense in Manhattan's Union Square and the arrest by the NYPD. The man's residence and the court are not stated in the inspected sources.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"ABC7 New York and a Legal Aid Society release were read in full. Hell Gate was read only as far as its subscriber paywall allows. The New York Times original was blocked (HTTP 403 and reader relays) and is cited unread. Claims are attributed and left at reported status. The affected person is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Hell Gate and ABC7 report the arrest followed a facial recognition possible match. The system, the search image and the match output were not produced, and the New York Times original was not readable.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"New York: man misidentified through facial recognition in an indecent exposure case arrested and jailed two days","summary":"Reporting from August 2025 says an NYPD facial recognition search of images from a February 2025 indecent exposure in Manhattan's Union Square produced a possible match to a man who did not fit the described suspect. The man was placed in a photo lineup, arrested in April 2025 and jailed for two days. Prosecutors dismissed the case in July 2025 after his public defenders showed he was misidentified. The man says the process of becoming a correctional officer 'kind of' froze after the arrest. The NYPD says it never arrests solely on a facial recognition match.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-08-26","aiSystem":"NYPD facial recognition system (product and vendor not identified in the inspected sources)","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"ABC7 and Hell Gate report the man was arrested and jailed for two days before prosecutors dismissed the case, and the man says a correctional officer hiring process 'kind of' froze after the arrest.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One man reported arrested and jailed. The offense victim and other people are not counted as harmed by the AI.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://abc7ny.com/post/man-falsely-jailed-nypds-facial-recognition-surveillance-tech-failed/17664671/","primarySourceLabel":"ABC7 New York (27 Aug 2025)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T12:42:09.552414+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:11.583854+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]}]}