{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-24T03:56:17.397Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"pennsylvania","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":1,"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":"2019-us-rite-aid-facial-recognition-false-matches-led-staff-to-search-and-eject-shoppers-ftc-says","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The technology generated alerts sent to Rite Aid’s employees, including by email or mobile phone application notifications (“match alerts”), indicating that individuals who had entered Rite Aid stores were matches for entries in Rite Aid’s watchlist database.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Rite Aid used facial recognition in its stores to send employees match alerts saying that people entering were matches for its watchlist database, and employees acted on the alerts.","causal_attribution":"FTC allegation; Rite Aid neither admits nor denies."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In numerous instances, the match alerts that led to these actions were false positives' and 'Rite Aid employees recorded thousands of false positive match alerts between December 2019 and July 2020.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The FTC alleges that in numerous instances the alerts that led employees to watch, eject, accuse, search or report customers to police were false positives, and that employees recorded thousands of false-positive alerts between December 2019 and July 2020.","causal_attribution":"FTC allegation from Rite Aid records; not adjudicated."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Rite Aid employees stopped and searched an 11-year-old girl on the basis of a false- positive facial recognition match. The girl’s mother told Rite Aid that she had missed work because her daughter was so distraught by the incident.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Employees stopped and searched an 11-year-old girl on a false-positive match; her mother told Rite Aid she missed work because her daughter was so distraught.","causal_attribution":"FTC allegation based on a complaint to Rite Aid."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'an alert indicating that a consumer—' and 'specifically a Black woman—was a match for an enrollment image that Rite Aid employees' and 'described as depicting “a white lady with blonde hair.” In response to the alert, Rite Aid' and 'employees called the police and asked the woman to leave the store before realizing the alert was'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The system matched a Black woman to an enrollment image employees described as a white woman with blonde hair; employees called the police and asked her to leave before realising the alert was false.","causal_attribution":"FTC allegation drawn from Rite Aid's internal investigation."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Consumers complained to Rite Aid that they had experienced humiliation and feelings of stigmatization as a result of being confronted' and '[E]very black man is not [a] thief nor should they be made to feel like one' and 'I feel different from this experience when I walk into a store now it’s weird.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Customers complained of humiliation and stigmatisation from false-positive stops; one wrote of feeling different entering stores afterwards and of being made to feel like a thief.","causal_attribution":"Consumer complaints as quoted by the FTC."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'are prohibited for five (5) years from the effective date of this Order from deploying or using, or assisting in the deployment or use of, any Facial Recognition or Analysis System' and 'Defendants neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the Complaint'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Rite Aid agreed to a proposed stipulated order prohibiting it for five years from using facial recognition or analysis systems in retail stores, while neither admitting nor denying the complaint's allegations.","causal_attribution":"Terms of the filed proposed order; its entry by the court was not inspected."}],"effects":[{"label":"girl stopped and searched on a false facial-recognition match","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"police called and customer asked to leave on a false match","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"humiliation and stigmatisation from false-positive stops","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023190_riteaid_complaint_filed.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-22 from the Internet Archive capture (ftc.gov direct returned 404); no translation needed. FTC complaint, E.D. Pa. 2:23-cv-05023, Document 1, filed 19 Dec 2023; the text of page 1 was not extractable.","independence_group":"ftc-v-rite-aid-2023-filings"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023190_riteaid_stipulated_order_filed.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-22 from the Internet Archive capture (ftc.gov direct returned 404); no translation needed. Proposed stipulated order and attached decision and order, Document 2-2, filed 19 Dec 2023.","independence_group":"ftc-v-rite-aid-2023-filings"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","privacy"],"unknowns":["When and where the girl was searched and the police were called on the woman.","Which vendors supplied the technology (the complaint does not name them in the text read).","Whether and when the court entered the proposed order.","How many customers were stopped, searched or ejected on false matches."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint places Rite Aid's facial recognition use in its US stores (New York City, Los Angeles and other US cities); it was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The described customers' countries are not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case (made_claim_about, informed_decision_about): the FTC alleges Rite Aid's facial recognition wrongly matched customers to a watchlist and staff acted on the false alerts by searching an 11-year-old girl and calling police on a woman; Rite Aid agreed to a five-year ban without admitting the allegations.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The FTC complaint says Rite Aid's facial recognition system compared customers' faces with a watchlist and sent employees match alerts, that the alerts were in numerous instances false positives (the system wrongly identified a person as someone in the database), and that employees acted on those false alerts by searching an 11-year-old girl, calling police on a Black woman and asking customers to leave. The system's own wrong matches are the alleged error; Rite Aid neither admits nor denies.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"US: FTC says Rite Aid's facial recognition falsely matched shoppers to a watchlist, leading staff to search an 11-year-old girl and call police on a woman","summary":"In a complaint filed in federal court in Pennsylvania on 19 December 2023, the US Federal Trade Commission alleged that the pharmacy chain Rite Aid used facial recognition in its stores to match customers against a database of people it suspected of shoplifting or other wrongdoing, and that staff acted on the match alerts by following, searching, ejecting and publicly accusing customers and by calling the police. The FTC says many alerts were false positives: employees recorded thousands of false-positive alerts between December 2019 and July 2020, staff stopped and searched an 11-year-old girl on a false match, and employees called the police on a Black woman matched to an image of a white woman with blonde hair. Rite Aid agreed to a proposed order barring it from using facial recognition in retail stores for five years, without admitting or denying the allegations.","incidentDate":"2019-12-01","incidentEndDate":"2020-07-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2023-12-19","aiSystem":"Facial recognition technology from two vendors (not named in the complaint) that Rite Aid deployed in its stores to compare customers' faces with a watchlist database and send match alerts to employees","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm","other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The FTC alleges that false facial-recognition matches led Rite Aid staff to search, eject, publicly accuse and call police on customers, including an 11-year-old girl who was searched and a Black woman on whom police were called; customers described humiliation and stigmatisation.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Three people described individually in the complaint: the 11-year-old girl searched on a false match, the Black woman on whom police were called, and the customer who wrote about being treated as a thief. The complaint's thousands of recorded false-positive alerts are alerts, not counted people, so others remain unquantified.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023190_riteaid_complaint_filed.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"FTC v. Rite Aid Corp., E.D. Pa. 2:23-cv-05023, complaint filed 19 Dec 2023","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T03:13:38.451275+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T03:13:38.451275+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial_recognition","retail","alleged_false_match","ftc"]},{"id":"2025-us-bank-customers-allege-pega-voice-ai-transcribed-and-analysed-customer-service-calls-without-consent","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page headers: 'Case 1:26-cv-14506-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/02/26'; para 5: 'Wiretapping Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99, and the Pennsylvania'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Four U.S. Bank account holders filed a putative class action against Pegasystems Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on 2 October 2026, claiming violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Massachusetts wiretapping statute and the Pennsylvania wiretapping act.","causal_attribution":"The filing documents that the claims were made; it does not establish them."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Para 2: 'Pega Voice AI is employed by numerous entities, including U.S. Bank'; 'to monitor voice and text-based interactions'. Para 20: 'Pega Voice AI is an artificial intelligence tool that'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that U.S. Bank uses Pegasystems' Pega Voice AI, an artificial-intelligence tool for live customer-service calls, in its contact centres.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs' allegation, which the complaint supports with Pega's own published customer material about U.S. Bank; not yet answered by Pegasystems."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Para 47: 'occasions, including in or about January 2026 from his home'. Para 8: 'was in California when he spoke to a representative from U.S. Bank over the phone from his home on multiple occasions, including in or about December 2025'. Para 9: 'was in Massachusetts when he spoke to a representative from U.S. Bank over the phone from his home on multiple occasions'. Para 10: 'was in Pennsylvania when he spoke to a representative from U.S. Bank over the phone from his home on multiple occasions, including in or about March 2026 and August 2026'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs say they called U.S. Bank's customer service line from their homes on multiple occasions: two from California (in or about December 2025 and January 2026), one from Massachusetts (in or about June 2026) and one from Pennsylvania (in or about March and August 2026).","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs' own account of their calls."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Paras 50, 57, 64, 71: 'monitored the conversation between Plaintiff'; 'conversations with U.S. Bank using natural language processing, and generated suggestions to the U.S. Bank agent'. Para 51: 'read and learned, in'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that on each plaintiff's calls Pega Voice AI monitored the conversation with the human U.S. Bank agent, transcribed it in real time, analysed it with natural language processing and generated suggestions to the agent, so that Pegasystems read and learned the contents of the conversations.","causal_attribution":"Allegation of what the AI service did on these calls; no court has found that it captured the plaintiffs' calls."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Paras 52, 59, 66, 73: 'consent, express or otherwise, to have Defendant eavesdrop on'. Para 49: 'provided personal information such as his home address his account number and his date of birth'. Para 70: 'including his account numbers, account names, account balances, and other account information'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs say neither U.S. Bank nor Pegasystems obtained their prior consent to the vendor listening in, and that on the calls they gave personal and account details, such as a home address, account number and date of birth, or account numbers and balances.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs' account of what they disclosed and of the absence of consent."}],"effects":[{"label":"bank customers say an AI service transcribed and analysed their customer-service calls, including account details, without their consent","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.307198/gov.uscourts.mad.307198.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Class action complaint, D. Mass. No. 1:26-cv-14506, filed 2 October 2026; all 40 pages read on 2026-10-21 from the CourtListener RECAP copy.","independence_group":"dmass-plaintiffs-complaint"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["privacy","finance"],"unknowns":["Whether Pega Voice AI in fact ran on the plaintiffs' calls; the complaint infers its use from Pegasystems' published material about U.S. Bank.","What, if anything, callers were told at the start of the calls about recording or analysis.","Whether Pegasystems retained transcripts or call contents after the calls.","Pegasystems' response; the CourtListener index of the docket checked on 21 October 2026 listed none."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint says each plaintiff was at home in California, Massachusetts or Pennsylvania when calling U.S. Bank (paras 7-10; para 68 says the Pennsylvania plaintiff called from his home and/or business). The court is the federal court in Massachusetts.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-10-06 privacy clarification: four named bank customers allege in a filed complaint that an AI transcription and analysis service, run by a vendor they never chose inside their bank's contact centre, captured their calls and account details without prior consent. The captures are allegations and no court has ruled.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-21"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges that Pega Voice AI itself monitored each plaintiff's call with a U.S. Bank agent, transcribed it in real time, analysed it with natural language processing and generated suggestions to the agent, so that the vendor read and learned the contents of the calls, including account details, without the caller's prior consent. That capture into an AI transcription and analysis service is the reported privacy harm.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"U.S. Bank customers allege in a class action that Pega Voice AI transcribed and analysed their customer-service calls without consent","summary":"Four U.S. Bank account holders in California, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania allege in a federal class action filed on 2 October 2026 that Pegasystems' Pega Voice AI, which they say U.S. Bank uses in its contact centres, transcribed their customer-service calls in real time, analysed them with natural language processing and generated suggestions to the agent, without their prior consent. They say they gave account numbers, a date of birth and a home address on the calls, made between about December 2025 and August 2026. The claims are allegations; The CourtListener index of the docket, checked on 21 October 2026, listed the summons as returned executed on 16 October and no response from Pegasystems.","incidentDate":"2025-12-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-02","aiSystem":"Pega Voice AI, Pegasystems' AI agent-assist service for contact centres, which the complaint says U.S. Bank uses on customer-service calls (as alleged)","aiProduct":"Pega Voice AI (reported)","aiCompany":"Pegasystems Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Four bank customers allege that an AI service they never chose transcribed and analysed their customer-service calls, including account details, without their consent; the claims are untested.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":4,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Four named plaintiffs each allege that their own calls were transcribed and analysed without consent (complaint paras 7-10 and 47-74). Proposed class members are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.307198/gov.uscourts.mad.307198.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Class action complaint against Pegasystems Inc., D. Mass. No. 1:26-cv-14506, filed 2 October 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-21T03:08:54.693563+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-21T03:08:54.693563+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["pega-voice-ai","contact-centre","call-transcription","privacy","wiretap","class-action","banking"]},{"id":"2026-evans-santos-v-draftkings-ai-personalization-gambling-addiction","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"EVANS VS DRAFTKINGS INC. ETAL\"; \"Filing Date: Friday , July 24th, 2026\"; \"Case ID: 260702927\"; \"Case 2:26-cv-07168 Document 1-3 Filed 09/16/26\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"docketNumber \"2:26-cv-07168\", court \"paed\", dateFiled \"2026-09-16\", \"NOTICE OF REMOVAL by CROWN PA GAMING, INC., DRAFTKINGS INC.\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Christopher Evans filed a product-liability complaint against DraftKings Inc. and Crown PA Gaming in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on 24 July 2026 (Case ID 260702927); the defendants removed it to the E.D. Pa. on 16 September 2026 as 2:26-cv-07168.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court record (state docket report and federal removal filing)."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHESTER COUNTY\"; \"29 Jul 2026 03:54 PM\"; \"MICHAEL SANTOS,\"; \"2026-07200-TT\"; \"Case 2:26-cv-07176 Document 1-3 Filed 09/16/26\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"docketNumber \"2:26-cv-07176\", court \"paed\", dateFiled \"2026-09-16\", \"NOTICE OF REMOVAL by FANDUEL INC., FLUTTER ENTERTAINMENT, PLC, BETFAIR INTERACTIVE US LLC, FANDUEL GROUP PARENT LLC, FANDUEL PA LLC\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Michael Santos filed a complaint against DraftKings, Crown PA Gaming, FanDuel Inc. and FanDuel's affiliates in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas on 29 July 2026 (2026-07200-TT); the FanDuel defendants removed it to the E.D. Pa. on 16 September 2026 as 2:26-cv-07176.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court record."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"He began using the DraftKings applications in or around August 2017\"; \"Plaintiff has wagered over $2,100,000.00 with net losses of approximately $81,000.00\"; \"constantly received targeted promotions, personalized push notifications, and incentives like prop bets and free credits intended to repetitively lure him back into the gambling applications\"; \"also had a VIP account manager, who would send him promotional offers, bonuses, and perks\"; \"He soon began suffering from depression and anxiety and stopped going outside altogether in favor of gambling all day\"; \"creating financial strain that has placed him into debt and resulted in the repossession of his vehicle\"; \"resulted in his wife separating from him\"; \"was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Evans pleads that since about August 2017 he wagered over US$2,100,000 on DraftKings' apps with net losses of about US$81,000, constantly received targeted promotions and personalised push notifications and had a VIP account manager, developed depression and anxiety and was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020, stopped going outside, fell into debt, had his vehicle repossessed and separated from his wife.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegations in a pending complaint; untested."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"has wagered over $1,164,000.00 with net losses of approximately $58,000.00\"; \"has wagered nearly $7,000 on FanDuel with losses of nearly $1,500\"; \"constantly received targeted advertisements, personalized push notifications, and incentive-based emails from DraftKings intended to repetitively lure him back into the gambling app\"; \"despite Plaintiff expressly stating he did not want to continue gambling\"; \"max out multiple credit cards and accrue debt so significant that it forced him to sell his house\"; \"has received formal diagnoses of depression and anxiety\"; \"drove Plaintiff MICHAEL SANTOS to suicidal ideation\"; \"voluntarily placed himself on a self-exclusion list with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Santos pleads that he wagered over US$1,164,000 on DraftKings with net losses of about US$58,000 and nearly US$7,000 on FanDuel with losses of nearly US$1,500, received targeted advertisements, personalised push notifications and incentive emails, had a VIP manager who kept offering bonus bets after he said he wanted to stop, maxed out multiple credit cards and was forced to sell his house, received diagnoses of depression and anxiety, experienced suicidal ideation, and self-excluded with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegations in a pending complaint; untested."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"Defendants utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users and continuously lure them back to their sports gambling apps\"; \"data science and machine learning to help optimize conversion\"; \"recommendation engines\"; \"Defendants operate sophisticated AI-powered engagement platforms that, on information and belief, employ the precise personalization mechanisms the study identifies as risk-generating\"; \"Limit or eliminating artificial intelligence to track individual\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"\"Defendants utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users\"; \"Limiting or eliminating artificial intelligence to track individual\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Both complaints allege that the defendants combine artificial intelligence with tracking of personalised user data to addict users and lure them back, that DraftKings' 10-K discloses machine-learning recommendation engines, and, on information and belief, that the defendants operate AI-powered engagement platforms; both ask the court to limit or eliminate the use of artificial intelligence to track individual users.","causal_attribution":"The contents of the pleadings are established by the record; the truth of the AI allegations is not."}],"effects":[{"label":"two plaintiffs plead gambling addiction, six-figure wagering with net losses of about US$81,000 and US$58,000, debt, family breakdown, depression and suicidal ideation, attributed to AI-driven personalization","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662095/gov.uscourts.paed.662095.1.3.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-17 and 2026-09-19: Exhibit A to the notice of removal in Evans v. DraftKings Inc., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07168 (47 pages: the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas docket report and the complaint of 24 July 2026), from the CourtListener RECAP archive.","independence_group":"evans-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662118/gov.uscourts.paed.662118.1.3.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-19: Exhibit A to the notice of removal in Santos v. DraftKings Inc., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07176 (53 pages: the complaint filed and attested in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas on 29 July 2026), from the CourtListener RECAP archive.","independence_group":"santos-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74801358/evans-v-draftkings-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket metadata read on 2026-09-19 through the CourtListener v4 search API (saved as cl-evans.json): case name, docket number 2:26-cv-07168, court E.D. Pa., filed 2026-09-16, cause 28:1332 diversity product liability, removal notice by Crown PA Gaming and DraftKings.","independence_group":"courtlistener-evans-docket"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74803784/santos-v-draftkings-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket metadata read on 2026-09-19 through the CourtListener v4 search API (saved as cl-santos3.json): docket number 2:26-cv-07176, court E.D. Pa., filed 2026-09-16, removal notice by FanDuel Inc., Flutter Entertainment, Betfair Interactive US, FanDuel Group Parent and FanDuel PA.","independence_group":"courtlistener-santos-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","health","relationships","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether AI or machine-learning systems, rather than human account managers and conventional marketing, generated the promotions and notifications the plaintiffs describe; the 'AI-powered engagement platforms' allegation is pleaded on information and belief.","The defendants' responses; no answer, motion or ruling is recorded as of 2026-09-19.","When Santos began gambling on the apps and his current financial position.","Whether the plaintiffs also gambled on other operators' products."],"geography":{"basis":"Both plaintiffs are Pennsylvania residents (Philadelphia; Coatesville, Chester County) per the complaints; suits filed in Pennsylvania state courts and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case: two pending complaints, read in full from the court record, allege that an operator's AI-driven personalization and engagement systems fostered gambling addiction with quantified losses, debt, family breakdown, psychiatric diagnoses and suicidal ideation. Filing facts are documented; the harms and the AI involvement are the plaintiffs' allegations and are recorded as such. Plaintiffs are identified only by the public case captions.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaints allege that the defendants' AI and machine-learning personalization systems tracked the plaintiffs' play and targeted them with promotions and notifications, and quote DraftKings' 10-K on machine-learning recommendation engines; the 'AI-powered engagement platforms' allegation is pleaded on information and belief. Nothing in the record yet establishes that AI systems made the targeting decisions about these two users, so the relation (a system making decisions about the person) is recorded as alleged.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Pennsylvania: two men sued DraftKings (one also FanDuel) alleging that AI-driven personalization, targeted promotions and VIP handling fostered gambling addiction; they plead net losses of about US$81,000 and US$58,000, debt, family breakdown, depression and, in one case, suicidal ideation","summary":"Christopher Evans (Philadelphia; complaint filed 24 July 2026 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas) and Michael Santos (Coatesville, Chester County; complaint filed 29 July 2026 in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas) sued DraftKings and its Pennsylvania affiliate; Santos also sued FanDuel and its parents. Both product-liability complaints, filed by the same law firm, allege that the defendants' sports-betting, daily-fantasy and casino apps are designed to addict, and that the companies 'utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users', operating 'AI-powered engagement platforms' (pleaded on information and belief) and, per DraftKings' 10-K as quoted, 'data science and machine learning' recommendation engines. Evans pleads that since about August 2017 he wagered over US$2.1 million with net losses of about US$81,000, received constant targeted promotions and personalised push notifications and a VIP account manager, developed depression and anxiety and was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020, stopped going outside, fell into debt, had his vehicle repossessed and separated from his wife. Santos pleads over US$1.164 million wagered on DraftKings with net losses of about US$58,000 plus small FanDuel losses, targeted advertising and a VIP manager who kept offering bonus bets after he said he wanted to stop, maxed-out credit cards, the forced sale of his house, diagnoses of depression and anxiety, suicidal ideation, and self-exclusion with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023. Both cases were removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 16 September 2026 (2:26-cv-07168 and 2:26-cv-07176). The allegations are untested.","incidentDate":"2017-08-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-07-24","aiSystem":"DraftKings' and FanDuel's sportsbook, daily-fantasy and online-casino apps and their alleged AI and machine-learning personalization, recommendation and engagement systems (as pleaded; the complaints quote DraftKings' 10-K on 'data science and machine learning' and 'recommendation engines')","aiProduct":"DraftKings and FanDuel apps","aiCompany":"DraftKings Inc. (and Crown PA Gaming); FanDuel Inc. and affiliates (Flutter Entertainment) in the Santos suit","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","psychiatric_deterioration","relationship_disruption","property_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"As pleaded: gambling addiction with net losses of about US$81,000 (Evans) and about US$58,000 plus small FanDuel losses (Santos), debt, a repossessed vehicle and marital separation (Evans), maxed-out credit cards, a forced house sale, diagnosed depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation (Santos), attributed by the plaintiffs to the defendants' AI-driven personalization and engagement design.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":2,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two named plaintiffs, each pleading his own gambling addiction and losses as a user of the apps. Exact count of two; family members mentioned in the complaints are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662095/gov.uscourts.paed.662095.1.3.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Evans v. DraftKings Inc. et al., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07168, Notice of Removal Exhibit A (Philadelphia CCP complaint filed 24 July 2026), via CourtListener RECAP","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-20T03:19:52.470392+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:36.906135+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["gambling","sports-betting","algorithmic-personalization","engagement-design","product-liability","lawsuit","united-states","pennsylvania","draftkings","fanduel","institutional-use"]}]}