{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-16T07:29:16.441Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"recording","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2026","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":1,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":3,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-ray-ban-meta-glasses-owner-says-meta-ai-stored-conversation-recordings-without-wake-word-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'My glasses appear to capture conversations even when I am simply talking to another person and have not said'; 'setting is already turned OFF'; 'I first noticed this behavior after a recent firmware update'; 'I have observed the same behavior on THREE different pairs of Ray-Ban Meta glasses, including 2nd- and 3rd-generation models'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The owner says their glasses captured conversations with another person although they had not said \"Hey Meta\" and the setting to respond without it was off, first after a recent firmware update and on three pairs including second- and third-generation models.","causal_attribution":"Owner's own account; the trigger for the activations is not established."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Meta AI app saves audio recordings and text transcripts of these conversations in my conversation history'; image attached to the post: 'See, listen to and delete stored recordings and transcripts of stored voice activity'; 'October 12 at 1:14 PM'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The owner says the Meta AI app stored audio recordings and text transcripts of these conversations in their history; a screenshot attached to the post shows the app's voice activity log with stored entries dated 12 October.","causal_attribution":"Owner's account and screenshot; the screenshot does not show how each entry was triggered, and transmission to Meta's servers is not established."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Their response was to recommend disabling microphone and camera permissions, turning off Wear Detection, deleting voice history, and disabling automatic updates'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The owner says Meta Support recommended turning off microphone and camera permissions and Wear Detection, deleting voice history and turning off automatic updates.","causal_attribution":"Owner's account of the support exchange; Meta Support's own record is not public."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Everything off - still recording!'; 'consider joining the class action lawsuit'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Later on 13 October the owner replied that recording continued with everything turned off, and urged others to consider joining an existing class action over Meta's AI glasses.","causal_attribution":"Owner's replies in the thread; the class action is a separate, earlier proceeding and is not described here."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'a Meta spokesperson told Android Authority that the issue'; 'has been resolved'; 'People can manage, review and delete voice logs of their interactions with Meta AI via settings at any time'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'메타 대변인은 안드로이드 오소리티 측에'; '문제가 해결됐다'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A Meta spokesperson told Android Authority that the issue had been resolved and that people can manage, review and delete voice logs of their interactions with Meta AI in settings.","causal_attribution":"Meta statement relayed by two outlets from one Android Authority report; what was resolved is not stated."}],"effects":[{"label":"conversations with other people captured without the wake word and stored as recordings and transcripts in the Meta AI app (owner's account)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/RaybanMeta/comments/1x4n96n/warning_my_rayban_meta_glasses_are_recording/","kind":"social_media_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16: the post text, its attached screenshot and the author's replies in the same thread, retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API (HTTP 200) because reddit.com returned HTTP 403; no translation and no human reviewer. The author's username is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-ray-ban-meta-owner-wake-word-recording"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://futurism.com/robots-and-machines/meta-glasses-ray-ban-recording-privacy","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 (HTTP 200); no translation. Futurism relays Android Authority's report, which carries the Meta statement, and quotes the Reddit post; Android Authority itself returned HTTP 403.","independence_group":"android-authority-meta-glasses-report-relays"},{"id":"s3","url":"http://www.ainet.link/29357","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ko","translation_note":"Read in Korean by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 (HTTP 200); passages translated by the research agent, no human translator. AI넷 relays the same Android Authority report and Meta statement, so it shares Futurism's source group.","independence_group":"android-authority-meta-glasses-report-relays"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["privacy","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Whether the recordings and transcripts were transmitted to or retained on Meta's servers.","What triggered the activations and what Meta says it fixed, and whether a fix reached the owner's glasses.","Who the other people in the recorded conversations were and whether they were told.","The country, the firmware version and the full period over which recordings were stored."],"geography":{"basis":"The post and the owner's replies name no country or place; a reply labelling a settings screenshot as the US iOS app describes the app version and does not locate the events. No country is inferred.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-10-06 privacy rule and the public-forum rule as a first-person account, with a screenshot, of private conversations recorded into an AI assistant's history without the owner activating it. Claims are attributed to the owner; Meta's statement that the issue was resolved is recorded, and server transmission is not established.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The owner says the glasses' AI assistant captured their conversations with another person without the wake word and with the respond-without-wake-word setting off, and that the Meta AI app stored audio recordings and text transcripts of those conversations in its history; the attached screenshot shows the app's voice activity log with stored entries dated 12 October. The recording of private conversations into the AI assistant without the owner's intent is the reported privacy harm. Whether the recordings were transmitted to Meta's servers, and what triggered the activations, are not established.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"Ray-Ban Meta glasses owner says Meta AI stored recordings and transcripts of conversations captured without the wake word; Meta says the issue is resolved","summary":"In a Reddit post on 13 October 2026, an owner of Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses says the glasses captured conversations they were having with another person although they had not said the wake word \"Hey Meta\" and the setting for responding without it was turned off. The owner says the Meta AI app saved audio recordings and text transcripts of these conversations in their history, that Meta AI never answered, and that they saw the same behaviour on three pairs (second and third generation) after a recent firmware update. A screenshot attached to the post shows the app's voice activity log with stored entries dated 12 October. The owner says Meta Support advised turning off microphone and camera permissions, Wear Detection and automatic updates and deleting voice history, and later replied that recording continued with everything turned off. A Meta spokesperson told Android Authority, as relayed by Futurism, that the issue had been resolved. The owner says they cannot establish whether the recordings were sent to Meta's servers.","incidentDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-13","aiSystem":"Meta AI assistant on Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses (second- and third-generation pairs, per the owner), with recordings and transcripts stored in the Meta AI app's voice activity log","aiProduct":"Meta AI (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"An owner of Ray-Ban Meta glasses says their conversations with other people were captured without the wake word and stored as recordings and transcripts in the Meta AI app (first-person account; Meta says the issue was resolved; transmission to Meta's servers not established).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the owner whose Meta AI app stored the recordings and transcripts (own use). The people the owner was talking to were also recorded by the owner's account but are not described or counted. Commenters' similar reports are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/RaybanMeta/comments/1x4n96n/warning_my_rayban_meta_glasses_are_recording/","primarySourceLabel":"Reddit r/RaybanMeta post and replies by the glasses owner, 13 Oct 2026: recordings stored without saying Hey Meta","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:04:08.907004+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:04:08.907004+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","smart-glasses","voice-assistant","privacy","recording"]},{"id":"2026-patient-reports-chatgpt-recording-at-clinic-without-consent","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"recording","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Do you mind if I have AI take notes today?","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"When I expressed that I don't want it","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"queued up to ChatGPT and already recording","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The patient reports that the nurse’s phone showed ChatGPT already recording when the patient declined AI note-taking.","causal_attribution":"The recording and product identification are the patient’s account. No device evidence or independent confirmation was inspected."},{"id":"objection","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"having something recording in the clinic without notice","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"told me she doesn't understand why some people make such a big deal of it","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The patient says there had been no notice of the recording and the nurse dismissed their objection.","causal_attribution":"The described adverse experience is loss of control over recording and consent; no legal finding or onward data transfer is inferred."},{"id":"clarification","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Her phone was on the counter with chrome open to chatgpt.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"She had already been recording from the moment she entered the room","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"I had to insist that it be disabled and I don't think she would have, had I not insisted.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In replies to the same thread, the patient says the phone displayed ChatGPT in Chrome, that recording had already begun when the nurse entered, before asking consent, and that the recording was disabled only after the patient insisted.","causal_attribution":"The same author adds these observations. Their illustrative introduction with name/reason placeholders is not treated as an actual consultation transcript. Server transmission and later handling remain unknown."}],"effects":[{"label":"The patient reports that the nurse’s phone showed ChatGPT already recording when the patient declined AI note-taking.","claim_id":"recording","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1ww4yn4/today_i_was_radicalized/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Original English post body read directly and through its Arctic Shift capture. The archive gives created_utc 1790974521 (2 October 2026, 20:55 UTC). The author says the appointment was today; timezone is unknown, so only October is recorded for the event. Replies by the same author remain one reporting chain.","independence_group":"reddit-original-patient-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1ww4yn4/comment/pdhsn3l/","kind":"forum_comment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Original English author reply inspected in the Arctic Shift thread capture. The reply author matches the original poster. It adds detail, not independent corroboration.","independence_group":"reddit-original-patient-account"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1ww4yn4/comment/pdhtd2k/","kind":"forum_comment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Original English author reply inspected in the Arctic Shift thread capture. The reply author matches the original poster. It adds detail, not independent corroboration.","independence_group":"reddit-original-patient-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["health","privacy"],"unknowns":["Exact local event day and clinic location; the archived post timestamp is 2 October 2026 UTC.","Independent confirmation of the account and the clinic’s response.","What information was captured, the recording duration and whether it was deleted.","Whether information was transmitted, retained or used for training.","The software configuration, account type and any legal finding."],"geography":{"basis":"The original account gives no event location. References to a privacy law and the language do not establish a country.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Reviewed first-person account of an actual recording reportedly occurring in an identified AI service before consent. Published with attribution and explicit limits under the approved input-privacy boundary; no independent corroboration or finding of illegality is claimed.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The patient identifies ChatGPT as already recording at the appointment when they objected to AI note-taking. Under the approved input-privacy boundary, the reported capture itself supplies the relation and consent harm. This does not establish transmission to a server, retention, training, specific captured content, the account type or illegality. The author’s own replies specify that the phone displayed ChatGPT in Chrome, that recording had already begun when the nurse entered, before consent was requested, and that it was disabled only after the author insisted.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"Patient reports a nurse was already recording with ChatGPT when they declined AI notes","summary":"In a public Reddit account, a patient says a nurse asked whether AI could take notes at a medical appointment. After the patient objected, the nurse picked up a phone that the patient described as showing ChatGPT already recording. The patient describes the recording as occurring without prior notice and says their objection was dismissed. In replies, the author says the phone had Chrome open to ChatGPT, that recording had started when the nurse entered the room, before she asked consent, and that the recording was disabled only after the author insisted. This is an uncorroborated first-person account. It does not establish what was captured, whether anything was sent to a server, retained or used for training, or whether a law was broken. The clinic’s location, account type and response are unknown.","incidentDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-02","aiSystem":"ChatGPT on a nurse’s phone, identified by the patient in a public first-person account as already recording at a medical appointment.","aiProduct":"ChatGPT (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_autonomy"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The patient reports loss of control over recording of their medical appointment: the phone was allegedly already recording before consent, their objection was dismissed, and the recording was disabled only after they insisted. No server disclosure or clinical harm is established.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One patient reports their own consent and privacy experience. No other patients, staff or commenters are counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1ww4yn4/today_i_was_radicalized/","primarySourceLabel":"Reddit, 2 October 2026: patient’s account of recording at a medical appointment","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:59.923465+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:43:42.087573+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["privacy","consent","clinical-notes","first-person-account"]},{"id":"2026-us-meta-26-employees-sue-alleging-ai-assisted-may-layoff-selection-penalized-protected-leave","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"OAKLAND DIVISION","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Filed 07/13/26","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on July 13, 2026, bringing claims against Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A group of 26 Meta employees has sued the company, claiming it used artificial intelligence systems to select people for layoffs, disproportionately targeting those on medical, parental or family leave.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 13 July 2026 twenty-six anonymous plaintiffs (Does 1 through 26) filed a complaint against Meta Platforms, Inc. in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland division, alleging employment discrimination in the May 2026 reduction in force.","causal_attribution":"The filing of the complaint is documented by the court record. The complaint establishes only the plaintiffs’ allegations."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"artificial-intelligence-assisted systems to score, rank, and select employees for inclusion","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"algorithmic productivity scoring drawn from keystroke, screen-content, mouse,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The parties dispute whether Meta utilized AI in deciding to terminate plaintiffs’","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"They claim that Meta used a number of internal AI-assisted systems to score and rank employees on a termination list.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used a set of internal AI-assisted systems to score, rank and select employees for the termination list: the Metamate internal large-language-model assistant, employee-trained \"second brain\" agents, keystroke and other activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance ranking and calibration.","causal_attribution":"These are the plaintiffs’ allegations, pleaded on information and belief and supported by plaintiff declarations that were not inspected (they are quoted in the complaint and the order). Meta disputes them (claim c4). The news reports and the court order restate the complaint and are one reporting chain with it."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"protected-leave-takers or accommodation-seekers for individualized human review. Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On information and belief, Meta did not neutralize any of the foregoing inputs for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"result was that employees who took protected leaves were disproportionately selected for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Plaintiffs are twenty-six current and former Meta employees, each of whom Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"selected for separation in the RIF, and each of whom","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"About half the plaintiffs had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that the inputs to these systems cannot be accumulated by an employee on protected medical, family or parental leave, that Meta did not neutralise them for protected leave, and that employees who took protected leave were therefore disproportionately selected for layoff. It states that each plaintiff was selected for separation in the reduction in force and had, within the 24 months before it, taken, requested or been approved for protected leave, or requested or received a disability accommodation.","causal_attribution":"Allegation of the plaintiffs. The court found on 17 July 2026 only serious questions going to the merits and no likelihood of success on that record (claim c5). Whether any AI system affected any plaintiff’s selection is unresolved."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"selection decisions in the RIF were “made by human","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"promotion history over a defined period. There was no AI-","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"was selected based on leave status, disability, or any other protected characteristic,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"“selection decision [was] made by ‘AI.’” Id. ¶ 11.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Selection decisions were made by human business leaders","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"defined period. There was no AI-assisted “scoring” or “ranking” related to employee","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"guidance does not permit AI adoption and usage metrics to be used as negative factors in","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"performance reviews in 2025 or as selection criteria in the RIF.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Meta denies the allegations. A Meta spokesperson said workforce management and organisational decisions were made by people, not AI. In declarations filed by a Meta human-resources director, Meta states that selection decisions were made by human business leaders using documented neutral criteria, that no AI-assisted scoring or ranking of employee performance was used, that no plaintiff was selected on the basis of leave status or disability, and that no selection decision was made by AI.","causal_attribution":"Meta’s statements and declarations about its own process. They are a party account and had been tested only through briefing and court hearings (claims c5 and c7), not in discovery."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"described below, the TRO is DENIED.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The parties dispute whether Meta utilized AI in deciding to terminate plaintiffs’","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, but rather a “serious question[]”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Loss of health care, employment, protected leave, and unvested restricted stock units (“RSUs”) are","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Loss of immigration status is different. Four of the plaintiffs have employment-based,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"they were not in the rooms where it happened.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 17 July 2026 the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. The order records that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in deciding to terminate the plaintiffs, finds serious questions going to the merits but no shown likelihood of success on that record, finds that loss of health care, employment, protected leave and unvested equity can be remedied in arbitration, and treats the possible loss of immigration status for four plaintiffs with Meta-sponsored visas as a potentially irreparable harm that needed more information.","causal_attribution":"A court order establishes what the court ruled and recorded. It does not establish that AI was or was not used in the selection."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On May 20, 2026, Meta began notifying the selected employees by email, beginning with","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"finalized on or about July 22, 2026 (and on or about August 20, 2026 for New York","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"laid off on May 20, 2026.” Complaint (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1] ¶ 45 (the “mass reduction in force”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Though they have been notified of their layoffs, all 26 remain employed by Meta, with separations set to begin July 22.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"Meta in May notified nearly 8,000 employees, or about 10% of its global workforce, that they were losing their jobs","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"Laid-off workers remain on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on May 20","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Meta began notifying employees selected in the reduction in force on 20 May 2026 (about 8,000 employees, roughly 10 percent of its workforce). The complaint says the plaintiffs were notified of their selection from that date, and that separations were scheduled for about 22 July 2026 (later for some plaintiffs). Meta said in court filings that laid-off workers stayed on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on 20 May.","causal_attribution":"The notification date and the scheduled separation dates come from the complaint and Meta court filings as relayed by Reuters. The sources inspected do not report whether each separation took place on its scheduled date, although Courthouse News called the plaintiffs former employees on 24 August 2026."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction conducted via videoconference. The Court","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"summarizes tentative. Argument of counsel heard. Motion taken under submission; written order","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"I have a record I have to deal with and the record at the moment does not persuade me of the merits","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"categorical denial of any impact of AI in the termination process","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"whether what plaintiffs think happened, happened","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"The court held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion on 24 August 2026, heard argument and took the motion under submission with a written order to follow. Courthouse News reports that the judge said the record at that time did not persuade the judge of the merits, that the plaintiffs’ evidence raised some potential questions about Meta’s categorical denial of any impact of AI in the termination process, and that the case turns on whether what plaintiffs think happened, happened.","causal_attribution":"The minute entry documents that the hearing occurred and the motion was taken under submission. The judge’s remarks are reported by one news outlet and the transcript was not inspected. No written ruling on the preliminary injunction was found as of 29 September 2026."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"and only Plaintiff Doe 20, hereby voluntarily dismisses","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"remain parties and continue to prosecute this action","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"Doe 20 was voluntarily dismissed from this action on August 3, 2026 pursuant to Federal","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"is made on behalf of Doe 20, and no relief is sought on Doe 20’s behalf.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"One plaintiff (Doe 20) voluntarily dismissed all of that plaintiff’s claims without prejudice on 3 August 2026 (Dkt. 33), and the notice states that Does 1 through 19 and 21 through 26 remain parties. No reason is given in the notice.","causal_attribution":"A filing by the plaintiffs’ counsel records the dismissal. It does not say whether that plaintiff was selected in the reduction in force or why the dismissal was made."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"They recognize that their claims must be arbitrated, and they have initiated arbitration proceedings","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"with the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Here, they seek a temporary restraining order:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"while they pursue their claims in private arbitration","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"from this Court only the status-quo-preserving provisional relief that Meta’s own","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"G. Reserve to the arbitral forum all relief on the merits, including but not limited to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The 17 July 2026 order records that the plaintiffs recognize their claims must be arbitrated and that they have initiated arbitration proceedings with the American Arbitration Association. The complaint says the plaintiffs seek from the court only status-quo-preserving provisional relief pending an independent audit of the selection process and arbitration of the merits, and it reserves merits relief such as reinstatement, back pay and damages to the arbitral forum.","causal_attribution":"The order records the plaintiffs’ own statement about their arbitration filings. The arbitration itself is confidential and its progress is unknown."}],"effects":[{"label":"Employees on or after protected leave allegedly disproportionately selected for layoff by an AI-assisted process that did not account for leave (disputed by Meta)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Plaintiffs notified of selection for termination on 20 May 2026, with separations scheduled from 22 July 2026 and possible loss of health coverage, unvested equity and (for four plaintiffs) work-visa status","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.25.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.42.1_1.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-court-declarations"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.46.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.49.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/26-meta-workers-sue-ai-aided-layoffs-medical-family-leave/","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-complaint"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/17/us-judge-wont-block-meta-from-laying-off-workers-w/","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"reuters-tro-coverage"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/meta-workers-claiming-ai-fired-them-unlikely-to-see-relief/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"courthouse-news-hearing"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.31.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-court-declarations"},{"id":"s10","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.33.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","health"],"unknowns":["Whether any AI system scored, ranked or selected any plaintiff is unresolved. The complaint pleads it on information and belief. Meta denies it in declarations. No discovery had occurred in the sources inspected, and the judge said on 17 July 2026 that plaintiffs were not in the rooms where the selections happened.","The sources inspected do not show how many people beyond the plaintiffs were selected because of leave, or how many of the roughly 8,000 laid-off employees were scored by any AI-assisted system. Only the plaintiffs are counted as reported harmed.","The order on the preliminary injunction motion (argued 24 August 2026, taken under submission) had not been found by 29 September 2026. The hearing remarks were read only through one news report and the transcript was not inspected.","Whether each plaintiff’s separation took place on its scheduled date (22 July 2026 for most, later for some) is not stated in the sources inspected. Reuters and CBS/AP describe the plaintiffs as still employed in July, and Courthouse News called them former employees on 24 August 2026.","One plaintiff (Doe 20) was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026 and no reason is stated. The affected count therefore uses 25.","The complaint and declarations contain individual medical, pregnancy and immigration details. They are anonymised in the public copies and are deliberately not described here.","Reuters and WSJ pages for the initial filing could not be read (HTTP 401). Reuters coverage of the 17 July ruling was read through a Spokesman-Review copy. The Law.com article was behind a subscription wall and was not cited.","The complaint alleges that data captured by a separate Meta employee-monitoring program (the Model Capability Initiative) supplied inputs to the selection process, and Meta denies that AI was used in the selection. That program’s own privacy and security consequences are a different event, recorded as 2026-meta-mci-us-employee-keystroke-and-screen-capture-for-ai-training-then-internal-data-exposure, and are not part of this record."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint states that the plaintiffs worked in California, Illinois, Washington, New York, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania and Florida and the suit is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Meta also notified employees in other countries in the same reduction in force, but no plaintiff outside the US is described.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The complaint, the court order denying the temporary restraining order, two Meta declarations, the plaintiffs’ notice of dismissal of one plaintiff and the hearing minute entry were read from the court record (CourtListener copies), with CBS/AP, Reuters and Courthouse News reports. Every AI-related statement is attributed. The plaintiffs are anonymous in the record and are not described individually. Meta denies that AI made or informed any selection decision and the court has not resolved the dispute.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used internal AI-assisted systems (Metamate, second-brain agents, activity-monitoring scoring, AI-token-usage dashboards, algorithmic ranking and calibration) to score, rank and select employees for the 20 May 2026 termination list. Meta’s declarations say selection decisions were made by human business leaders and that there was no AI-assisted scoring or ranking related to employee performance, and the court described the declarations as saying Meta did not use AI in any way with respect to the RIF. The court recorded that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in deciding to terminate the plaintiffs and found on 17 July 2026 that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the current record. On 24 August 2026 the judge said the plaintiffs’ evidence raised some potential questions about Meta’s categorical denial. No discovery had tested Meta’s account in the sources inspected.","status":"disputed"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: 26 Meta employees sue alleging an AI-assisted May 2026 layoff selection penalized workers on protected leave, Meta says people made the decisions","summary":"On 20 May 2026 Meta began notifying about 8,000 employees (roughly 10 percent of its workforce) that they had been selected for layoff. On 13 July 2026 twenty-six anonymous employees who had taken or requested medical, pregnancy, parental or family leave, or a disability accommodation, sued Meta in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used internal AI-assisted systems (including the Metamate assistant, keystroke and activity monitoring, AI-token-usage dashboards and algorithmic performance ranking) to score, rank and select employees, and that these inputs could not accumulate during protected leave, so plaintiffs on leave were disproportionately selected. Meta says workforce decisions were made by people, not AI, and that no selection decision was made by AI. On 17 July 2026 the court denied a temporary restraining order, recording that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in the terminations and finding serious questions on the merits but no shown likelihood of success. One plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026. The preliminary injunction motion was argued on 24 August 2026 and taken under submission. The plaintiffs are pursuing their merits claims in arbitration and the allegations are unproven.","incidentDate":"2026-05-20","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-07-14","aiSystem":"Meta internal AI-assisted systems alleged in the complaint: the Metamate internal LLM assistant, employee-trained \"second brain\" agents, keystroke and activity-monitoring productivity scoring, AI-token-usage dashboards and AI-assisted performance calibration (Meta denies AI was used in selecting employees for the layoff)","aiProduct":"Meta internal AI systems (reported)","aiCompany":"Meta Platforms, Inc.","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"disputed","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complaint alleges that 26 employees were selected for termination in Meta’s May 2026 reduction in force through an AI-assisted process that penalised protected leave, with separations scheduled from 22 July 2026 and asserted losses of employer-subsidised health coverage, unvested equity and, for four plaintiffs, work-visa status. Meta denies that AI was used in the selections. The court found the alleged harms other than immigration status remediable in arbitration and has not decided the merits.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":25,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The complaint states that each of 26 plaintiffs was selected for separation in the May 2026 reduction in force. One plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026 without a stated reason, so 25 active plaintiffs are counted as a documented minimum. The roughly 8,000 other employees notified in the reduction in force are not counted because no source ties their selection to the alleged AI process.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Complaint, Does 1 through 26 v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (N.D. Cal., filed 13 Jul 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:16:06.345461+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:57.733761+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]}]}