{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-11-14T10:48:33.586Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"judge","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2020","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"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":"2020-amsterdam-university-student-says-proctorio-face-check-repeatedly-failed-to-detect-her-rights-body-finds-no-discrimination","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Voor bepaalde tentamens was het verplicht dat studenten op hun computer de proctoringsoftware (‘antispieksoftware’) van Proctorio installeerden'; 'De software maakt, in ieder geval tijdens het verificatieproces, gebruik van gezichtsdetectiealgoritmes om te beoordelen of een student in beeld is.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In 2020/21 VU Amsterdam required students to run Proctorio proctoring software for some online exams; according to the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights the software used face-detection algorithms, at least during the verification process, to judge whether a student was in view.","causal_attribution":"The Institute's findings of fact about the software's use and function."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'de software had moeite om haar tijdens het verificatieproces te herkennen. Zij kreeg regelmatig de melding ‘face not found’ of ‘room too dark’.'; 'Deze gebeurtenissen leverden haar veel stress en een gevoel van onveiligheid op.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Het programma herkende haar gezicht niet en vroeg haar in \"een goed belichte ruimte\" te gaan zitten'; 'door met een lamp recht in haar gezicht te schijnen.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Ze kreeg dan meldingen zoals ‘face not found’ of ‘room too dark’.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The student says the software had trouble recognising her during the verification process, that she regularly received 'face not found' or 'room too dark' messages, lost a lot of time, shone a bright lamp into her face while taking exams, and that these events caused her much stress and a feeling of insecurity.","causal_attribution":"The student's own account, recited in the ruling as her position and given in interviews; the Institute did not accept that the problems exceeded other students' or were linked to her skin colour (c5)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Enkel bij het tentamen op 31 maart 2021 ging de setup bij verzoekster langzamer dan gemiddeld; zij had 3 minuten en 27 seconden nodig, terwijl de studenten gemiddeld 2 minuten en 22 seconden nodig hadden.'; 'dat de helpdesk verzoekster heeft geadviseerd om haar bril af te zetten. Nadat verzoekster dit advies heeft opgevolgd, komt zij binnen 8 seconden door de webcamcheck.'; 'De mogelijkheid dat een bril problemen geeft bij de webcamcheck, is een bekend probleem bij Proctorio'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At an exam on 31 March 2021 the student's Proctorio setup took 3 minutes 27 seconds against an average of 2 minutes 22 seconds; after three attempts at the webcam check she was offered helpdesk chat, was advised to remove her glasses, and then passed the webcam check within eight seconds. The Institute described glasses causing webcam-check problems as a known Proctorio problem unrelated to her skin colour.","causal_attribution":"Findings of the Institute from log data and a chat transcript submitted by the university."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Het College heeft in het tussenoordeel van 7 december 2022 (oordeel 2022-146) vastgesteld dat er voldoende aanwijzingen zijn voor het vermoeden dat de VU de student gediscrimineerd heeft op grond van haar huidskleur.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'De universiteit krijgt tien weken de tijd om aan te tonen dat de software niet discrimineert.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In an interim ruling of 7 December 2022 the Institute found sufficient indications for a presumption that the university had discriminated against the student on grounds of her skin colour by using Proctorio, and gave the university the opportunity to rebut it.","causal_attribution":"The Institute's interim ruling as recited in its final ruling and reported by AT5."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'De VU heeft kunnen aantonen dat de student tijdens haar tentamens niet meer problemen heeft ondervonden dan andere studenten.'; 'niet veroorzaakt kan zijn door de proctoringsoftware, maar – zeer waarschijnlijk – wel door een instabiele internetverbinding.'; 'acht aannemelijk dat er geen noodzaak was voor verzoekster om langdurig een lamp op hinderlijke wijze in haar gezicht te laten schijnen'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In its final ruling of 17 October 2023 the Institute found that the university had proved it did not discriminate against the student by using Proctorio: she had no more login, verification or restart problems than other students, a restart during the 31 March 2021 exam was very likely caused by an unstable internet connection, and it was plausible that she had no need to keep a lamp shining in her face for long periods.","causal_attribution":"The Institute's final findings; they dispute the student's account of the cause and extent of her problems."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'verboden onderscheid op grond van ras gemaakt bij de klachtbehandeling.'; 'Uiteindelijk heeft het tot 11 mei 2022 geduurd voordat de klacht van de student door één van die instanties in behandeling genomen is.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Institute found that the university had discriminated in handling the student's complaint: she first linked the software's poor functioning to her skin colour in a complaint of 1 October 2021, and it was 11 May 2022 before one of the bodies she was referred to took it up.","causal_attribution":"The Institute's ruling on complaint handling."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'rekenen we het onszelf zeer aan dat de student zich onvoldoende gehoord heeft gevoeld in haar ervaring. Hiervoor bieden we onze excuses aan.'; 'Met de kennis van vandaag zullen wij opnieuw evalueren of, en zo ja hoe, het toetsen op afstand verantwoord kan worden ingezet.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"After the ruling the university apologised that the student had not felt sufficiently heard and said it would review its complaint procedures and re-evaluate whether remote proctoring can be used responsibly.","causal_attribution":"The university's own published statement."}],"effects":[{"label":"student reports stress, lost time and a lamp in her face after Proctorio's face check repeatedly failed to detect her","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://oordelen.mensenrechten.nl/oordeel/2023-111","kind":"official_decision","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch on 2026-10-28; the research agent (an AI) translated the passages for this record; quotations are kept in Dutch.","independence_group":"crm-ruling-2023-111"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://nos.nl/artikel/2436872-studente-dient-klacht-in-over-discriminerende-antispieksoftware","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch on 2026-10-28; the research agent (an AI) translated the passages for this record; quotations are kept in Dutch.","independence_group":"student-interview-volkskrant-2022"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.at5.nl/artikelen/218108/mensenrechtencollege-geeft-vu-student-gelijk-vermoeden-discriminatie-antispieksoftware-terecht","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch on 2026-10-28; the research agent (an AI) translated the passages for this record; quotations are kept in Dutch.","independence_group":"at5-2022-12-09"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://vu.nl/nl/nieuws/2023/uitspraak-college-voor-de-rechten-van-de-mens","kind":"institution_statement","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch on 2026-10-28; the research agent (an AI) translated the passages for this record; quotations are kept in Dutch.","independence_group":"vu-statement-2023-10-17"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education","accessibility"],"unknowns":["How many of the student's eight Proctorio-monitored exams produced face-detection failures, and how long each took; the university's log data for four exams before February 2021 do not separate Proctorio's setup time.","Whether the face-detection model performed worse for the student because of her skin colour; Proctorio's audit was not submitted to the Institute.","Proctorio's own response to the student's account."],"geography":{"basis":"The exams were VU Amsterdam's online exams, and the complaint was decided by the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights in Utrecht. The ruling redacts where the student lived and does not say where she sat the exams, so her country is left unknown.","court_countries":["NL"],"event_countries":["NL"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as an institution's use of an automated face-detection check on a student: the Institute's ruling documents that the check failed her three times on one exam, and she reports repeated failures, lost time and stress. The ruling rejected her discrimination claim and found that the university mishandled her complaint; both are recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-28"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Institute's ruling says Proctorio used face-detection algorithms in the pre-exam verification check to judge whether a student was in view, and documents that on 31 March 2021 the check failed the student three times and passed her within eight seconds once she removed her glasses. The student says the check repeatedly reported 'face not found' or 'room too dark', which cost her time and caused stress. The Institute found the failures were not linked to her skin colour and not more frequent than other students' failures, so the extent of the system's failures and their cause remain disputed.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Amsterdam student says Proctorio exam software repeatedly failed to detect her face; rights body found no discrimination but faulted complaint handling","summary":"During the 2020/21 academic year, when exams at VU Amsterdam were held online because of the pandemic, some exams required students to run Proctorio proctoring software, which according to the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights used face-detection algorithms during a pre-exam webcam check to judge whether the student was in view. A master's student says the software had trouble recognising her, that she regularly received 'face not found' or 'room too dark' messages, lost time, shone a bright lamp into her face while taking exams, and experienced stress and a feeling of insecurity; she suspected the failures were linked to her dark skin and complained to the Institute in July 2022. In an interim ruling of 7 December 2022 the Institute found sufficient indications for a presumption of discrimination. In its final ruling of 17 October 2023 it found that the university had proved it had not discriminated against her by using Proctorio: on the exam where her setup took longer than average (31 March 2021), the webcam check failed three times and she passed within eight seconds after the helpdesk advised her to remove her glasses, a known Proctorio problem the Institute treated as unrelated to skin colour; a restart during that exam was very likely caused by an unstable internet connection; and it considered it plausible that she had no need to keep a lamp shining in her face for long periods. It found that the university had discriminated in handling her complaint, which took from 1 October 2021 to 11 May 2022 to be taken up. The university apologised that she had not felt heard.","incidentDate":"2020-01-01","incidentEndDate":"2021-05-26","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2022-07-15","aiSystem":"Proctorio online proctoring software used for some VU Amsterdam exams in 2020/21; according to the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights it used face-detection algorithms, at least during the pre-exam verification process, to judge whether a student was in view","aiProduct":"Proctorio","aiCompany":"Proctorio","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The student says repeated face-detection failures at the exam webcam check cost her time, led her to shine a lamp into her face during exams and caused her stress and a feeling of insecurity. The Institute documented one exam where three failed checks delayed her start by about a minute against the average, but found she had no more problems than other students and that the problems were not linked to her skin colour.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One student, the complainant, who used the software herself. The Racism and Technology Center's fear, reported by NOS, that thousands of students with dark skin had problems is not a count.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"NL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://oordelen.mensenrechten.nl/oordeel/2023-111","primarySourceLabel":"Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, ruling 2023-111 on VU Amsterdam's use of Proctorio, 17 October 2023","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-28T03:05:48.901494+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-28T03:05:48.901494+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["proctorio","online-proctoring","face-detection","exam","university","netherlands","equality-body","complaint-handling"]},{"id":"2020-us-voice-actors-allege-lovo-sold-ai-clones-of-voices-recorded-for-research-court-lets-claims-proceed","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In May 2020 an anonymous Fiverr user'; 'later identified by Lovo’s counsel'; 'These are test scripts for radio ads. They will not be disclosed externally'; 'Lehrman was paid $1,200 for his work.'; 'Lovo paid her $400 for her work'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Lehrman was allegedly told his voice would be used only for a “research project” while Sage was told her voice would be used only for “test scripts for radio ads”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Lovo representatives on Fiverr hired Sage in October 2019 and Lehrman in May 2020 for voice recordings, telling Lehrman they were for research purposes only and Sage that they were test scripts for radio ads that would not be disclosed externally; he was paid $1,200 and she $400.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs’ allegations as recounted by the court and relayed by the press; not tested at trial."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'alleging that Lovo used artificial intelligence'; 'as part of its subscription service under the stage name'; 'Sage discovered that Lovo had created a clone of her voice named'; 'the Berkeley SkyDeck Demo Day Spring 2020'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The actors later found Lovo was offering AI-generated versions of their voices for sale as'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs allege that Lovo used the recordings with its AI software to create clones of their voices, marketed Lehrman's as \"Kyle Snow\" and offered Sage's as \"Sally Coleman\" to subscribers, and used a side-by-side comparison of Sage's real and cloned voice in a 2020 investor pitch.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs’ allegations; the AI generation is the core harm alleged."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'listened to an episode of the Deadline Strike Talk podcast narrated'; 'a paid subscription to Lovo.'; 'was virtually identical to Mr. Lehrman'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs say they learned of the use when they heard a podcast episode narrated in part by a Lovo-generated voice, which the podcast's MIT partner confirmed was made with a paid Lovo subscription and which they and people who heard it say was virtually identical to Lehrman's voice.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs’ allegations, including what MIT and listeners told them."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On August 18, 2023, counsel for Plaintiffs sent a cease-and-desist letter to Lovo'; 'fictitious characters'; 'had been created using the voice recordings obtained from Lehrman and Sage through Fiverr in 2020 and'; 'fully permissioned'; 'Plaintiffs dispute this'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the complaint, Lovo replied to an 18 August 2023 cease-and-desist letter that the characters had been created using the recordings obtained through Fiverr, that its use was fully permissioned, and that it had removed the characters; the plaintiffs dispute the removal.","causal_attribution":"Lovo’s letter as quoted in the complaint and recounted by the court; Lovo contests that the use was unauthorised."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'OPINION AND ORDER re: 27 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Lovo, Inc.'; 'based on the use of her original voice recording, and as to Plaintiffs'; 'contract claims, New York Civil Rights Law claims, and New York General Business Law claims'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'claims for misappropriation of a voice, like the ones here, may be properly asserted under Sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In his July 10 decision, SDNY Judge Paul Oetken granted in part and denied in part Lovo’s motion to dismiss'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"On 10 July 2025 the court granted Lovo's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, letting the New York Civil Rights Law, General Business Law and contract claims, and Sage's copyright claim over her original recording, proceed, and dismissing the training-based copyright claims with leave to amend.","causal_attribution":"The court’s own order; it decides legal sufficiency, not the truth of the allegations."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY upon the record as to defendant Lovo, Inc.'; 'In light of the bankruptcy filing noted at ECF 65, this case is hereby stayed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Lovo filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on 27 May 2026 and the court stayed the case on 28 May 2026.","causal_attribution":"Docket entries."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Lovo Inc., which was built to do just that, has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"TheStreet reports that Lovo's bankruptcy filing is a Chapter 7 case.","causal_attribution":"A news report of the bankruptcy chapter; the bankruptcy court record was not inspected."}],"effects":[{"label":"voice actors allege their voices were cloned with AI from recordings made for promised internal use and sold without consent","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.621575/gov.uscourts.nysd.621575.45.0_2.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200). Opinion and Order of 10 July 2025; the background section recounts the amended complaint, presumed true for the motion.","independence_group":"lehrman-v-lovo-litigation"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68535780/lehrman-v-lovo-inc/","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200). Docket entries as listed on CourtListener (RECAP), latest entry 30 July 2026.","independence_group":"lehrman-v-lovo-litigation"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.silicon.co.uk/e-regulation/legal/actor-ai-lawsuit-621581","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200). Report of the 10 July 2025 ruling relaying the complaint and the plaintiffs’ lawyer.","independence_group":"lehrman-v-lovo-litigation"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.thefashionlaw.com/a-lawsuit-over-cloned-voices-poses-first-of-its-kind-legal-questions-over-ai/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200). Legal-news analysis of the 10 July 2025 ruling.","independence_group":"lehrman-v-lovo-litigation"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/general/ai-voice-cloning-firm-lovo-inc-collapses-in-chapter-7-bankruptcy/ar-AA260icJ","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 by verifier mix12 (an AI agent) from MSN's syndicated copy of the TheStreet article (assets.msn.com content API, HTTP 200; the thestreet.com page returned HTTP 403). It dates the stay to 11 June 2026, which differs from the docket's 28 May 2026 entry; the docket date is used.","independence_group":"thestreet-lovo-bankruptcy"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["When the plaintiffs first heard the podcast and when Lovo first offered each clone to subscribers.","How many productions used the cloned voices; the plaintiffs' estimate rests on Lovo's YouTube material.","Whether the voices remained available after Lovo said it removed them.","Lovo's own factual account in its briefs, which were not inspected.","The outcome of the pending motion on the training-based copyright claim and of Lovo's bankruptcy."],"geography":{"basis":"The alleged uses described include an investor pitch at the Berkeley SkyDeck Demo Day and a podcast produced with MIT, both in the United States, so the event is placed in the US. The opinion says the plaintiffs live and work in New York, recorded as the affected persons' country. The court is the Southern District of New York.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): two named voice actors allege, in a suit whose voice-misappropriation and contract claims a federal court let proceed on 10 July 2025, that Lovo used AI to clone their voices from recordings made for promised internal use and sold the clones. One source chain, the litigation record, read in the opinion, the docket and two reports; all facts are attributed allegations.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint, as recounted by the court, says Lovo's AI text-to-speech software produced clones of the two actors' voices from their recordings and that Lovo sold them as \"Kyle Snow\" and \"Sally Coleman\"; Lovo's reply to the cease-and-desist letter, as quoted there, says the characters were created using those recordings, and the podcast's MIT partner is said to have confirmed that the narration was generated with Lovo. The generated voices imitated the actors (depicted_or_impersonated), and the harm alleged is that use without their consent. These are allegations the court presumed true; Lovo disputes that the use was unauthorised.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Voice actors allege AI voice firm Lovo sold clones of voices they recorded for research use; US court lets publicity, contract and consumer claims proceed","summary":"Voice-over actors Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage allege in a proposed class action in the Southern District of New York that Lovo, a text-to-speech company, hired them through Fiverr in 2019 and 2020 for recordings it said were for internal research or test scripts, then used its AI software to make and sell clones of their voices under the names \"Kyle Snow\" and \"Sally Coleman\". According to the complaint as recounted by the court, they learned of it when they heard a podcast narrated in part by a Lovo-generated voice that they say was identical to Lehrman's, and Lovo answered their cease-and-desist letter by saying the characters were created from those recordings and that its use was \"fully permissioned\". On 10 July 2025 Judge J. Paul Oetken dismissed most federal trademark and copyright claims but let their New York Civil Rights Law, consumer-protection and contract claims, and Sage's copyright claim over her original recording, proceed. The case was stayed on 28 May 2026 after Lovo filed a suggestion of bankruptcy. The allegations have not been tested at trial.","incidentDate":"2020-01-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2024-05-16","aiSystem":"Lovo's AI text-to-speech subscription software, which the complaint (as recounted by the court) says Lovo calls \"Generator\" or \"Genny\" and markets as able to clone real voices; the voices at issue were sold as \"Kyle Snow\" and \"Sally Coleman\"","aiProduct":"Lovo Genny (reported)","aiCompany":"Lovo, Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Two voice actors allege that Lovo turned recordings they made for promised internal use into AI clones of their voices that it sold and used commercially without their consent; a federal court let their voice-misappropriation, consumer and contract claims proceed.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people, the named plaintiffs whose voices the complaint says were cloned (court opinion). The proposed voice-actor class is not counted because no other member is identified. Exact 2.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.621575/gov.uscourts.nysd.621575.45.0_2.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc., S.D.N.Y. Opinion and Order, 10 July 2025 (ECF 45)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:10:32.11919+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:10:32.11919+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["voice-cloning","text-to-speech","voice-actors","right-of-publicity","lawsuit","new-york","depicted-or-impersonated"]},{"id":"2020-mac-make-up-artists-say-hirevue-algorithm-marked-video-interview-led-to-redundancy-estee-lauder-settled","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The make-up artists lost their jobs after they were told to reapply for their posts via an automated video interview.; The software is made by the recruitment company HireVue, and the process dates back to 2020, following the furlough scheme.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The former MAC retail workers were told by its parent that redundancies were being made, and that they would have to reapply for their roles.; As part of that process, a video interview took place, which was run by US tech company HireVue, and was marked by an algorithm.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In a 2020 redundancy process, three MAC make-up artists were told to reapply for their roles and to complete a video interview run by HireVue and marked by an algorithm.","causal_attribution":"Both outlets relay the BBC Three documentary Computer Says No and the Times; the company confirms that a HireVue skills assessment was part of the consultation process."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Following the interview, they were informed they were being made redundant, partly as a result of the automated judgement by the computer.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"All three women lost their jobs following the interview.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"All three lost their jobs following the interview; City AM reports that they were made redundant partly as a result of the automated judgement.","causal_attribution":"The women's account relayed by both outlets; the company says performance data and qualitative feedback made up most of the assessment and denies that facial recognition played a decisive role."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Nobody saw the video, it was all algorithms.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The three women also said that no one could explain how they were scored in the HireVue interview.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The women say no one could explain how they were scored in the HireVue interview, and one said nobody watched the video.","causal_attribution":"The women's statements in the BBC Three documentary, relayed by both outlets."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Three former Estée Lauder staff have won a settlement against the cosmetics giant","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"has settled out of court with three make-up artists; All three women were unable to discuss the value of the agreement reached with ELC in the documentary.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Estée Lauder Companies settled the three women's claims out of court; the value was not disclosed.","causal_attribution":"Reported by both outlets from the documentary and the Times; no settlement terms or admission are reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"using the HireVue process in tandem with human decision-making produces fairer outcomes and we stand by it; facial recognition accounted for well under 1% (0.25%) of employees’ overall assessment.; which accounted for the majority of the employment assessment, to make decisions on employment.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"All interviewees were told in advance the consultation process would involve HireVue skills assessment and the role that technology would play in the process.; any suggestion that facial recognition technology played a decisive role in any employment-related decision","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Estée Lauder says interviewees were told in advance about the HireVue skills assessment, that the HireVue process used in tandem with human decision-making produces fairer outcomes, that facial recognition was about 0.25% of the overall assessment, that performance data and qualitative feedback made up most of it, and that any suggestion facial recognition played a decisive role is false.","causal_attribution":"The company's statements to City AM, Cosmetics Business and the Times."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"said that the video analysis component of HireVue’s algorithm was “voluntarily discontinued nearly two years ago”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"HireVue's chief executive said the video-analysis component of its algorithm had been voluntarily discontinued nearly two years before the March 2022 reports.","causal_attribution":"HireVue's statement relayed by Cosmetics Business; it does not say whether the component was used in the women's interviews."}],"effects":[{"label":"job loss following an algorithm-marked video interview in redundancy selection","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.cityam.com/estee-lauder-settles-with-former-staff-over-algorithm-redundancies/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English article of 17 March 2022 read in full on 2026-10-22 by the research agent (an AI) (HTTP 200); no translation required. It relays the BBC Three documentary and the Times and carries a company statement given to City AM.","independence_group":"bbc-three-computer-says-no-and-company-statements"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.cosmeticsbusiness.com/est-e-lauder-settles-out-of-court-with-staff-who-were-sacked-by-algorithm--199624","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English article published 21 March 2022 read in full on 2026-10-22 by the research agent (an AI) (HTTP 200); no translation required. It relays the BBC Three documentary and carries statements from the company and HireVue; it depends on the same documentary as s1.","independence_group":"bbc-three-computer-says-no-and-company-statements"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["How much each woman's HireVue score weighed against performance data and qualitative feedback in her selection.","Whether HireVue's video-analysis component was used in these interviews; HireVue said it had been discontinued about two years before March 2022.","The settlement terms and whether any claim reached a tribunal hearing.","Where the women worked within MAC UK & Ireland."],"geography":{"basis":"The sources name the employer unit as MAC UK & Ireland and mention the furlough scheme and BBC Three, but do not state where the women worked or where they brought their claims, so no country is recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a workplace adverse experience: an algorithm marked the women's HireVue video interviews in a redundancy process, the employer confirms it used that assessment alongside human decisions, and the three lost their jobs and settled their claims. The weight of the algorithm's marking is disputed by the employer and is recorded as such.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Both outlets report that the women's video interviews were run by HireVue and marked by an algorithm, and Estée Lauder confirms that a HireVue skills assessment was part of the consultation and was used in tandem with human decision-making. City AM reports the women were made redundant partly as a result of that automated judgement. The company disputes its weight: it says facial recognition was about 0.25% of the assessment and performance data and qualitative feedback the majority, so the AI involvement is confirmed by the employer and how far the algorithm's marking decided each outcome is disputed.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Three MAC make-up artists say an algorithm-marked HireVue video interview led to their redundancy; Estée Lauder settled their claims","summary":"City AM and Cosmetics Business reported in March 2022, relaying the BBC Three documentary Computer Says No and the Times, that three make-up artists at MAC, an Estée Lauder Companies brand, lost their jobs in a 2020 redundancy process after being told to reapply for their roles through a video interview run by HireVue and marked by an algorithm. City AM reports that they were made redundant partly as a result of the automated judgement. The women said no one could explain how they had been scored, and one said nobody watched the video. Estée Lauder settled their claims out of court; the amount was not disclosed. The company says staff were told in advance about the HireVue skills assessment, that the process was used in tandem with human decision-making, that facial recognition made up about 0.25% of the overall assessment and performance data and qualitative feedback most of it, and that any suggestion facial recognition played a decisive role is false. HireVue said its video-analysis component had been discontinued about two years earlier. How much the HireVue score weighed in each decision is not reported.","incidentDate":"2020-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2022-03-17","aiSystem":"HireVue video interview and skills assessment, marked by an algorithm, used by Estée Lauder Companies in a 2020 redundancy process at MAC","aiProduct":"HireVue","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Three make-up artists lost their jobs in a 2020 redundancy process after a HireVue video interview marked by an algorithm; City AM reports the automated judgement was part of the reason, and the company disputes that facial recognition was decisive (women's account and company statements relayed by two outlets).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Three former make-up artists: 'All three women lost their jobs following the interview' (Cosmetics Business) and 'Three former Estée Lauder staff have won a settlement' (City AM). They were assessed by the system, not its users.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.cityam.com/estee-lauder-settles-with-former-staff-over-algorithm-redundancies/","primarySourceLabel":"City AM, 17 March 2022: Estée Lauder settles with former staff over algorithm redundancies","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T03:08:12.444441+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T03:08:12.444441+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-hiring-assessment","redundancy","workplace-ai","video-interview"]}]}