N.D. Cal. (Judge Rita F. Lin) · No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL
Mobley v. Workday, Inc.
A federal collective action testing whether an AI screening vendor can be liable as an agent of employers under Title VII, the ADEA, and disability law. A nationwide ADEA collective was preliminarily certified for notice purposes on May 16, 2025, and the court ordered the acquired HiredScore tool included.
Preliminarily certified nationwide ADEA collective for notice purposes; docket open and active with filings through August 14, 2026 · Verified August 27, 2026
Verification scope. The public RECAP index checked August 27, 2026 showed 489 entries through August 14. The latest entry concerns administrative sealing; the current motion posture is outside this account. Correction, August 11: the May 16, 2025 order granted preliminary ADEA collective certification for notice purposes under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), not final certification.
E.D.N.Y. (Judge Pamela K. Chen) · No. 1:22-cv-02565-PKC-PK
EEOC v. iTutorGroup, Inc.
An age discrimination suit resolved by consent decree over tutor application software programmed to reject applicants above fixed ages. Widely described as the first AI hiring discrimination settlement, though the agency never called it that and the mechanism was a hard-coded rule rather than a learned model.
Filed May 5, 2022; amended August 3, 2022. Consent decree so-ordered September 8, 2023. The filed proposed decree at ECF 24-1 runs five years from the effective date or three years from any resumption of United States tutor hiring, whichever is later; the agency's release confirms monitoring for at least five years, or longer if hiring resumes. The decree terms described here follow the filed proposed decree and the EEOC's account. · Verified August 11, 2026
Verification scope. Based on the amended complaint, filed proposed decree at ECF 24-1, and EEOC announcements and FY2023 performance report, reviewed August 11, 2026. Decree terms follow the proposed text and agency account; this record does not independently describe the decree as entered at ECF 25-1. Neither the pleadings nor the proposed decree uses the terms artificial intelligence, AI, or algorithm.
E.D. Mich. (Judge Terrence G. Berg) · No. 2:25-cv-12403
Harper v. Sirius XM Radio, LLC
A pleaded class action alleging that an applicant tracking system screened African-American applicants out through variables correlated with race. The defendant denies using automated screening at all, making this a test of how a disparate-impact claim is proved when no discriminatory rule can be pointed to.
Filed August 4, 2025; answer filed January 6, 2026. A motion for judgment filed the same day was briefed through a reply on March 12, 2026 and remains pending, and no class certification motion has been filed. · Verified August 21, 2026Unverified
Verification scope. Based on the complaint and answer reviewed August 11, 2026, and the public RECAP docket checked August 21. That index showed 24 entries, the latest dated March 12, 2026. The procedural basis of the motion at ECF 14 remains unverified and is outside this account. The EEOC's May 6, 2025 right-to-sue notice made no merits determination.
N.D. Cal. · No. 4:24-cv-04722-YGR
Musk v. Altman
The court adopted an advisory limitations verdict without reaching the Phase I merits. It did not certify the ruling for immediate appeal, and Phase II claims remained under pending dismissal motions and mediation.
Phase I trial claims held time-barred May 20, 2026; Rule 54(b) request not certified; Phase II dismissal motions pending and claims referred to mediation · Verified August 20, 2026
Verification scope. Verified August 20, 2026 against ECF Nos. 390, 497, 572, 577–580, 600-1, 602, 606, 607, and 609 and CourtListener's live public index. Musk requested Rule 54(b) entry of judgment, OpenAI opposed, Microsoft joined, and ECF No. 580 did not certify the ruling or direct entry of judgment. The latest indexed entries were four attorney-withdrawal notices filed August 11. No later filing, final or Rule 54(b) judgment, notice of appeal, or settlement appeared in that public mirror through August 20. RECAP is not represented as a complete substitute for PACER.
S.D. Cal. (Couture); N.D. Cal. (Lim) · No. 3:26-cv-03000-H-GC; No. 3:26-cv-04063
Couture v. OpenAI Global, LLC (with Lim)
Parallel privacy class actions alleging that ChatGPT.com embedded Meta Pixel and Google Analytics trackers that transmitted users' queries and identifiers without consent, pleading federal wiretapping (ECPA), California Invasion of Privacy Act, and California constitutional claims.
Filed May 13 and May 5, 2026; OpenAI response and possible consolidation pending · Verified July 28, 2026
Verification scope. Based on both complaints reviewed in July 2026. Correction: the claims concern communications privacy, replacing an earlier product-liability classification. Later docket developments fall outside this record.
N.D. Cal. · Nos. 3:26-cv-03701 through 3:26-cv-03707
Stacey v. Altman (Tumbler Ridge failure-to-warn cluster)
Seven related suits by families of the Tumbler Ridge mass-shooting victims allege that OpenAI's systems flagged the shooter's gun-violence planning, that safety staff urged notifying the RCMP, and that leadership instead deactivated an account the shooter re-registered within minutes. The complaints plead negligence, design defect, failure to warn, UCL violations, wrongful death, and survival claims. All allegations are pleaded, not found.
Seven related suits filed April 29, 2026, all before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on a coordinated schedule; the initial case management conference was continued to October 14, 2026, with a joint statement due October 7 · Verified August 10, 2026
Verification scope. The lead Stacey complaint was read to primary in the July 2026 verification pass and the six parallel suits track it. The docket was reread on August 10, 2026 through the August 3 entry; the scheduling facts above come from that read.
S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:25-cr-00503-JSR
United States v. Heppner
A February 17, 2026 ruling that 31 documents a criminal defendant generated with a public AI assistant were protected by neither attorney-client privilege nor the work-product doctrine, because counsel had not directed the work and the service's privacy policy defeated the asserted confidentiality.
Privilege and work-product claims denied February 17, 2026; verdict returned May 7, 2026; sentencing set for October 7, 2026 per the US Attorney's Office case page · Verified July 28, 2026
Verification scope. Based on the February 17, 2026 opinion and the U.S. Attorney's Office case update. The verdict and sentencing-date account follows that agency update; later docket developments fall outside this record.
E.D. Mich. · No. 2:24-cv-12333-GAD-APP
Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc.
A February 10, 2026 discovery order denying access to a civil plaintiff's third-party AI use, holding the material protected work product prepared in anticipation of litigation and that using ChatGPT did not itself waive the protection.
Work-product order entered February 10, 2026; summary judgment fully briefed and pending, with all scheduling deadlines cancelled May 4, 2026 until it is decided · Verified July 30, 2026
