07 Your privacy
Plain versionBack to the room
The exhibit is still arriving. It will wake when all of it is here.
1 of 7 The rope
“The velvet rope is the terms of service.”
2 of 7 The label
07
Your privacy
The Panopticon How AI Watches You While You Watch It
You are part of the observation.
The record begins:
Reported In its July 13, 2026 ruling on a Clearview AI class settlement, a federal appeals court described the company: it operates “a search engine for faces.” It “scrapes photographs of individuals from public websites, including social media accounts,” and turns them into “facial vectors.”
The fine print
7.01 Reported Opinion, In re: Clearview AI, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation (7th Cir.), No. 25-1673, Part I U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · July 13, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Three questions. The record answers in its own words.
Asked?
Decided consent first: “a written release”
Settled alleged: “without consent”
Alleged alleged: no disclosures, no consent
The fine print
Since October 3, 2008, Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act has barred private entities, including companies, from collecting a person’s “biometric identifier,” such as a voiceprint or a scan of face geometry, unless they first tell the person in writing, say why and for how long, and get “a written release.”
7.02 Decided Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/10 and 14/15(b) Illinois General Assembly (Illinois Compiled Statutes) · August 2, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
In May 2020 the ACLU and other groups sued Clearview AI in Illinois, alleging that it broke the biometric privacy law “by collecting facial geometry without consent.” Clearview “denies and disputes the claims.” The case was settled “without any admission as to fault, liability, or wrongdoing.”
7.03 Settled Settlement Agreement & Release, ACLU v. Clearview AI, Inc., No. 2020 CH 04353 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Ill.), recitals (Exhibit 2 to the joint motion for entry of the consent order) The parties (ACLU and others; Clearview AI, Inc.), filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (copy published by the ACLU) · May 4, 2022 · as of October 16, 2026
A class action alleges that HireVue took voice and face scans in its Illinois video interviews without the disclosures and consent the law requires. HireVue “contests these claims, denies that it collected or possessed biometrics or any other information subject to BIPA, and denies that it violated BIPA.”
7.04 Alleged Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement, the class action against HireVue, Inc., No. 2026LA00000141 (Cir. Ct. Lake County, Illinois), "What is this lawsuit about?" Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois (copy on the court-approved settlement website, administered by Simpluris) · July 30, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Biometric identifier: in Illinois law, “a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry.” The law expressly leaves out, among other things, photographs, written signatures and physical descriptions such as height or eye color.
7.05 Decided Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/10 (Definitions) Illinois General Assembly (Illinois Compiled Statutes) · August 2, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
A person who sues under that law and wins may recover, per violation, the greater of $1,000 or actual damages if the company was negligent, or of $5,000 if it was intentional or reckless, plus lawyers’ fees. Since August 2, 2024, repeat collection from the same person by the same method is one violation.
7.06 Decided Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/20 (as amended by Public Act 103-769) Illinois General Assembly (Illinois Compiled Statutes) · August 2, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
Paid?
Settled $50,000 for ads; $250,000 for lawyers
Decided federal settlement: approval vacated
The fine print
Clearview’s settlement with the ACLU and other groups, which had sued for an injunction, requires “a one-time total payment of $50,000” for internet ads publicizing the Illinois opt-out program, and $250,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs to the groups’ lawyers, paid in four installments over a year.
$250,000 ÷ $50,000 = 57.07 Settled Settlement Agreement & Release, ACLU v. Clearview AI, Inc., No. 2020 CH 04353 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Ill.), paragraphs 7 and 9 The parties (ACLU and others; Clearview AI, Inc.), filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (copy published by the ACLU) · May 4, 2022 · as of October 16, 2026
A separate federal class settlement would give the class a 23% stake in Clearview; the trial court accepted an estimate putting it at about $51.75 million as of January 2024. On July 13, 2026, the appeals court vacated the settlement’s approval over “a key procedural problem” and sent the case back.
23 × $225 million ÷ 100 = $51.75 million7.08 Decided Opinion, In re: Clearview AI, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation (7th Cir.), No. 25-1673 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · July 13, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Told?
Decided credit denied: entitled to “the specific reasons”
Decided a missed score is “insufficient” as a reason
Withdrawn 2022 guidance on algorithms: withdrawn, 2025
The fine print
Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, an applicant facing “adverse action,” such as a denial of credit, “shall be entitled to a statement of reasons,” and a statement counts “only if it contains the specific reasons for the adverse action taken.”
7.09 Decided 15 U.S.C. § 1691(d)(2), (3) and (6) (Equal Credit Opportunity Act) U.S. Code, 2024 edition (U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov) · July 21, 2010 · as of October 16, 2026
Regulation B, which carries out that law, says the reasons must be specific, and that a statement that the applicant “failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor’s credit scoring system” is “insufficient.”
7.10 Decided 12 CFR 1002.9(b)(2) (Regulation B, Equal Credit Opportunity Act) Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR), Office of the Federal Register · October 16, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
On May 12, 2025, the CFPB withdrew Circular 2022-03, “Adverse action notification requirements in connection with credit decisions based on complex algorithms,” among “many guidance documents.” It said the withdrawal “is not necessarily final.”
7.11 Withdrawn Interpretive Rules, Policy Statements, and Advisory Opinions; Withdrawal, 90 FR 20084 (Federal Register Doc. 2025-08286) Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in the Federal Register (copy on govinfo.gov) · May 12, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026
In May 2022 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Circular 2022-03 said the credit law and its regulation “do not permit creditors to use complex algorithms when doing so means they cannot provide the specific and accurate reasons for adverse actions.”
7.12 Reported Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2022-03: Adverse action notification requirements in connection with credit decisions based on complex algorithms Consumer Financial Protection Bureau · May 26, 2022 · as of October 16, 2026
Adverse action: in U.S. credit law, “a denial or revocation of credit, a change in the terms of an existing credit arrangement, or a refusal to grant credit in substantially the amount or on substantially the terms requested.”
7.13 Decided 15 U.S.C. § 1691(d)(6) (Equal Credit Opportunity Act) U.S. Code, 2024 edition (U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov) · July 21, 2010 · as of October 16, 2026
3 of 7 The number
New York City has a law on automated hiring tools. In 2024 state auditors made 12 test calls to the city’s 311 line asking to file a complaint about an employer’s use of one. How many were transferred to the city agency that enforces the law? Guess first.
You guessed
Reported 3 of 12 test calls transferred to the agency
Reported the city: 311 now takes electronic requests
Reported bias audits: city, 1 potential issue; state, at least 17
Reported the city: the issues are “more complex than described”
The fine print
New York State’s Comptroller found the city agency’s complaint process “ineffective in ensuring that all complaints” about the law reach it. Of 12 test calls auditors made to the 311 line in August and September 2024, only three were transferred to the agency; nine, or 75%, were not.
9 of 12 calls: 9 ÷ 12 × 100 = 75 percent7.14 Reported Department of Consumer and Worker Protection: Enforcement of Local Law 144 - Automated Employment Decision Tools, Report 2024-N-6, Key Findings and Figure 2 Office of the New York State Comptroller, Division of State Government Accountability · December 2, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026
In its reply of September 26, 2025, the city agency “acknowledges” the report’s “possible issues in 311’s routing” of these complaints. It said 311 “is now able to accept electronic service requests” for them, “systemically routed” to it, and that 311’s call staff were sent “a refresher training” in July 2025.
7.50 Reported DCWP Response to Draft Audit Report, 2024-N-6, printed in Report 2024-N-6, "Agency Comments and State Comptroller's Comments" Office of the New York State Comptroller, Division of State Government Accountability · December 2, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026
New York State’s Comptroller, December 2025: in 22 employers’ bias audits the city found one potential issue; state auditors, “at least 17 instances of potential non-compliance.” Separately, four had not posted audits clearly by the city’s check, eight by the auditors’ later one; sites or tool use may have changed.
auditors: 3 + 5 + 9 = 17DCWP: 1 + 0 + 0 = 17.15 Reported Department of Consumer and Worker Protection: Enforcement of Local Law 144 - Automated Employment Decision Tools, Report 2024-N-6 (audit period July 2023 to June 2025) Office of the New York State Comptroller, Division of State Government Accountability · December 2, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
On the bias audits, the city agency replied that the issues the auditors flagged are “more complex than described” and “would require an in-depth analysis of the bias audits and investigation of the companies relying upon them to reach a conclusion.”
7.51 Reported DCWP Response to Draft Audit Report, 2024-N-6, printed in Report 2024-N-6, "Agency Comments and State Comptroller's Comments" Office of the New York State Comptroller, Division of State Government Accountability · December 2, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026
The same law makes employers tell each candidate or employee who lives in the city, at least ten business days before use, that such a tool will be used and which job qualifications and characteristics it will assess, and the notice must “allow a candidate to request an alternative selection process or accommodation.”
7.16 Decided Local Law 144 of 2021, New York City Administrative Code § 20-871(b) New York City Council (Legistar) · December 13, 2021 · as of October 16, 2026
New York City’s Local Law 144 of 2021 makes it unlawful for an employer to use an automated employment decision tool unless the tool had a bias audit no more than one year before its use and a summary of the results has been made public on the employer’s website.
7.17 Decided Local Law 144 of 2021 (Int. No. 1894-A of 2020), New York City Administrative Code § 20-871(a) New York City Council (Legistar) · December 13, 2021 · as of October 16, 2026
The city’s rule for the law says the notice must explain how to ask for an alternative selection process or a reasonable accommodation “if available,” and adds: “Nothing in this subchapter requires an employer or employment agency to provide an alternative selection process.”
7.18 Decided Notice of Adoption of Final Rule (Use of Automated Employment Decision Tools), 6 RCNY § 5-304(a) New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (Rules of the City of New York) · April 6, 2023 · as of October 16, 2026
Automated employment decision tool: in city law, a process “derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence” whose score or other simple output substantially aids or replaces hiring or promotion decisions. Bias audit: “an impartial evaluation by an independent auditor.”
7.19 Decided Local Law 144 of 2021, New York City Administrative Code § 20-870 (Definitions) New York City Council (Legistar) · December 13, 2021 · as of October 16, 2026
4 of 7 Their side
In their own words: four companies and the city agency, and one ruling that went a company’s way.
Reported “does not change Clearview’s current business”
The fine print
In its announcement of May 12, 2022, Clearview said the settlement “does not change Clearview’s current business of providing access to its search engine to government agencies for the purpose of investigating crimes and enhancing national security.” It “did not admit any liability” and “will pay no damages to anyone.”
7.20 Reported Clearview AI Settles ACLU Illinois Lawsuit Confirming Continuity of Business Supporting Public Safety (press release) Clearview AI, Inc., distributed by Business Wire (copy in the Internet Archive) · May 12, 2022 · as of October 16, 2026
Reported Rite Aid: “we fundamentally disagree”
Alleged alleged: “falsely flagged”
The fine print
Rite Aid, December 2023: “we fundamentally disagree with the facial recognition allegations.” They concern, it said, “a facial recognition technology pilot program” in “a limited number of stores,” stopped “more than three years ago, before the FTC’s investigation regarding the Company’s use of the technology began.”
7.21 Reported Rite Aid Reaches Settlement with FTC (press release) Rite Aid Corporation, distributed by Business Wire (copy in the Internet Archive) · December 19, 2023 · as of October 17, 2026
In December 2023 the Federal Trade Commission alleged that from 2012 to 2020 Rite Aid used AI facial recognition in hundreds of stores to identify customers who may have engaged in “shoplifting or other problematic behavior,” that it “falsely flagged” people and “failed to take reasonable measures to prevent harm.”
7.33 Alleged Rite Aid Banned from Using AI Facial Recognition After FTC Says Retailer Deployed Technology without Reasonable Safeguards (press release) Federal Trade Commission (copy in the Internet Archive) · December 19, 2023 · as of October 16, 2026
Decided one claim dismissed, the rest went on
The fine print
Where a court sided with HireVue: on February 26, 2024, a federal judge dismissed the claims that it profited from people’s biometric data, under section 15(c) of the Illinois law, while “the motion is denied as to all other claims.”
7.22 Decided Memorandum Opinion and Order, the class action against HireVue, Inc., No. 22 CV 1284 (N.D. Ill.) (Dkt. 56) U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · February 26, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
Reported “denies that Workday is a covered entity”
The fine print
In its July 15, 2026 answer to the latest complaint, Workday “denies that Workday is a covered entity” under the anti-discrimination laws cited, because it “is not an entity to which the statutes” cited apply.
7.23 Reported Defendant Workday, Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint, the case against Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 397), paragraphs 1 and 2 Workday, Inc. (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP), filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · July 15, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Settled “SafeRent denies that it engaged in any wrongdoing”
The fine print
In the signed agreement, “SafeRent denies that it engaged in any wrongdoing or that the claims asserted in the Complaint or Amended Complaint have merit.” Both sides settled, it says, “to avoid the uncertainty and expense of litigation.”
7.24 Settled Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release, the class action against SafeRent Solutions, LLC and others, No. 1:22-cv-10800 (D. Mass.), recitals The parties (class representatives; SafeRent Solutions, LLC), filed in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts as Dkt. 116-1 (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · March 28, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
Reported “willing to adopt many” of the recommendations
The fine print
The city agency answered the audit on September 26, 2025: it “believes the Draft Audit Report misapprehends DCWP’s efforts,” chose “stakeholder education, combined with complaint-based enforcement,” and “is willing to adopt many of the Comptroller’s recommendations.”
7.25 Reported DCWP Response to Draft Audit Report, 2024-N-6, printed in Report 2024-N-6, "Agency Comments and State Comptroller's Comments" Office of the New York State Comptroller, Division of State Government Accountability · December 2, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026
5 of 7 What fair looks like
What has been ordered, agreed, ruled and proposed so far. Each line carries the exact word for where it stands.
Settled a permanent nationwide ban on private access
Settled five years: no Illinois agencies or firms
Settled an opt-out form for Illinois residents
The fine print
A consent order of May 11, 2022 permanently bars Clearview from giving private entities or individuals in the U.S. access to its face database, except as Illinois’s biometric privacy law allows, unless a change in the law permits that access. It “in no way limits” work with federal or other State government agencies.
7.26 Settled Consent Order of Permanent and Time-Limited Injunctions Against Defendant Clearview AI, Inc., ACLU v. Clearview AI, Inc., No. 2020 CH 04353, Order paragraph 2 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (copy published by the ACLU) · May 11, 2022 · as of October 16, 2026
For five years from May 11, 2022, the consent order also bars Clearview from giving access to Illinois state and local agencies and their contractors, police included, and to any private entity located in Illinois. It does not restrict access for federal agencies or those of other states.
7.27 Settled Consent Order of Permanent and Time-Limited Injunctions Against Defendant Clearview AI, Inc., ACLU v. Clearview AI, Inc., No. 2020 CH 04353, Order paragraphs 4 and 5 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (copy published by the ACLU) · May 11, 2022 · as of October 16, 2026
The settlement also requires Clearview to keep a public opt-out request form for Illinois residents and, through it, to block their photos from search results and prevent future collection, “to the best of Clearview’s ability.”
7.28 Settled Settlement Agreement & Release, ACLU v. Clearview AI, Inc., No. 2020 CH 04353, paragraph 7 ("Opt-Out Program for Illinois Residents") The parties (ACLU and others; Clearview AI, Inc.), filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (copy published by the ACLU) · May 4, 2022 · as of October 16, 2026
Consent order: an order a court enters because the parties agree to it. In the Clearview case, the court entered it “in light of the Parties’ agreement,” “without any admission as to fault, liability, or wrongdoing,” and made “no final determination on the merits.”
7.29 Settled Consent Order of Permanent and Time-Limited Injunctions Against Defendant Clearview AI, Inc., ACLU v. Clearview AI, Inc., No. 2020 CH 04353, Findings paragraph 4 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (copy published by the ACLU) · May 11, 2022 · as of October 16, 2026
Settled Rite Aid: no facial recognition for surveillance, 5 years
Settled a monitoring program before any use
Settled required: “Clear and Conspicuous notices”
Reported after bankruptcy: “All Rite Aid stores have now closed”
The fine print
Under a February 2024 order, Rite Aid is “prohibited for five (5) years” from its effective date from using facial recognition or analysis for security or surveillance in its stores, pharmacies or online shops. The companies “neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the Complaint,” except as the order states.
7.30 Settled Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Other Relief, FTC v. Rite Aid Corporation, No. 2:23-cv-5023 (Dkt. 19), Finding 5 and Attachment A, Provision I U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (copy published by the Federal Trade Commission; read in the Internet Archive) · February 26, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
Rite Aid also agreed not to use any automated biometric security or surveillance system that is not banned until it sets up a monitoring program that identifies and addresses risks of harm, including that harms will “disproportionately affect consumers based on race, ethnicity, gender, sex, age, or disability.”
7.31 Settled Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Other Relief, FTC v. Rite Aid Corporation, No. 2:23-cv-5023 (Dkt. 19), Attachment A, Provision III U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (copy published by the Federal Trade Commission; read in the Internet Archive) · February 26, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
The 2024 order Rite Aid agreed to requires notices: for any automated biometric security or surveillance system it uses, it must post “Clear and Conspicuous notices” in each store and on each website or app involved, naming the biometric data collected, the system’s outputs, their purposes and when the data is deleted.
7.32 Settled Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Other Relief, FTC v. Rite Aid Corporation, No. 2:23-cv-5023 (Dkt. 19), Attachment A, Decision and Order, Provision VI U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (copy published by the Federal Trade Commission; read in the Internet Archive) · February 26, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
CNN reported in October 2025, in a story carried by ABC7, that Rite Aid had closed its remaining 89 stores after its second bankruptcy filing in less than two years, quoting the company’s website: “All Rite Aid stores have now closed.” The report does not mention the FTC or facial recognition.
7.52 Reported Rite Aid closes all remaining stores after 63 years in business (CNN, first published October 4, 2025, as carried by ABC7 San Francisco) ABC7 San Francisco (CNN) · October 4, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
Decided Workday “may be liable” as employers’ agent
Decided “(or here, artificial intelligence)”
Decided notice to applicants “aged 40 and over”
Pending pending: hearing March 9, 2027
The fine print
On July 12, 2024, ruling on Workday’s motion to dismiss, Judge Rita F. Lin held it “may be liable on an agency theory,” as customers allegedly delegated rejecting or advancing candidates to it. She dismissed the claims treating Workday as an “employment agency” and the intentional-discrimination claims.
7.34 Decided Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss, the case against Workday, Inc., No. 23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 80) U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · July 12, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
The judge explained: accepting Workday’s argument “would allow companies to escape liability for hiring decisions by saying that function has been handed over to someone else (or here, artificial intelligence).”
7.35 Decided Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss, the case against Workday, Inc., No. 23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 80), part III.A.1 U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · July 12, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
On May 16, 2025, the court preliminarily certified a nationwide collective of “individuals aged 40 and over” who applied through Workday’s platform from September 24, 2020 and “were denied employment recommendations.” On its size it said: “Allegedly widespread discrimination is not a basis for denying notice.”
7.36 Decided Order Granting Preliminary Collective Certification, the case against Workday, Inc., No. 23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 128) U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · May 16, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026
The Workday case is pending. On September 14, 2026, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class, in four subclasses, of people subject to Workday’s “AI-based recruitment, screening, rejection, scoring, ranking, shortlisting, or recommendation” tools; the motion is noticed for a hearing on March 9, 2027.
7.37 Pending Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, the case against Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL-LB (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 418), notice of motion Plaintiffs' counsel, filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · September 14, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Preliminary certification of a collective, as the Workday ruling explains it: it lets the plaintiff notify similar people and “provide them an opportunity to opt-in.” After more evidence, the company “could then ask the Court to revisit its preliminary decision by de-certifying the collective.”
7.38 Decided Order Granting Preliminary Collective Certification, the case against Workday, Inc., No. 23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 128), page 1 U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · May 16, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026
Settled five years of changes for voucher holders
Decided final approval, November 20, 2024
Settled no more than $2,275,000 in all
The fine print
For five years from when its changes take effect, SafeRent agreed not to put a tenant screening score or accept/decline advice in reports run on its “affordable” model, or on its other models unless the customer certifies the applicant holds no housing voucher. Scores validated for voucher holders are an exception.
7.39 Settled Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release, the class action against SafeRent Solutions, LLC and others, No. 1:22-cv-10800 (D. Mass.), section 3.5 ("Practice Change Consideration for Settlement Classes") The parties (class representatives; SafeRent Solutions, LLC), filed in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts as Dkt. 116-1 (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · March 28, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
On November 20, 2024, Judge Angel Kelley gave the SafeRent settlement final approval as “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” It covers Massachusetts rental applicants who used housing vouchers and were “denied housing” because of their SafeRent Score, in two classes: all such applicants, and Black and Hispanic ones.
7.40 Decided Final Approval Order, the class action against SafeRent Solutions, LLC and others, No. 1:22-cv-10800-AK (D. Mass.) (Dkt. 135) U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · November 20, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
SafeRent agreed to pay no more than $2,275,000 in all: $1,175,000 into a fund for payments to class members, notice and administration costs and service awards, and up to $1,100,000 in lawyers’ fees and costs as the court allowed.
$1,175,000 + $1,100,000 = $2,275,0007.41 Settled Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release, the class action against SafeRent Solutions, LLC and others, No. 1:22-cv-10800 (D. Mass.), sections 1.38, 1.40 and 1.49 The parties (class representatives; SafeRent Solutions, LLC), filed in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts as Dkt. 116-1 (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · March 28, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
On November 20, 2024, the court awarded class counsel $1,077,547.68 in fees and $22,452.32 in costs, both paid by SafeRent, and $10,000 to each named plaintiff as a service award from the settlement fund.
$1,077,547.68 + $22,452.32 = $1,100,000.007.42 Decided Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, the class action against SafeRent Solutions, LLC and others, No. 1:22-cv-10800-AK (D. Mass.) (Dkt. 136) U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · November 20, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
Proposed proposed: final hearing October 28, 2026
Proposed up to $3,750,000; unused money stays with HireVue
The fine print
On June 25, 2026, Judge Daniel L. Jasica of the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, granted preliminary approval to the HireVue settlement and set the final approval hearing for October 28, 2026. The settlement stays proposed until the court decides on final approval.
7.43 Proposed [Proposed] Preliminary Approval Order (signed and entered June 25, 2026), the class action against HireVue, Inc., No. 2026LA00000141 Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois (copy on the court-approved settlement website, administered by Simpluris) · June 25, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Under the proposed HireVue agreement, a fund of $3,750,000 (more only if the class proves larger) is “the maximum extent” of what HireVue pays, fees, costs and service awards included. Each valid claim gets $150, less if claims outrun what is left. Money not used “shall remain the property of Defendant.”
7.44 Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release, the class action against HireVue, Inc., sections 1.16, 3.1(a) and 3.2(f) The parties (class representatives; HireVue, Inc.), filed in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois (copy on the court-approved settlement website, administered by Simpluris) · June 25, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Decided risk scores at sentencing: allowed “if used properly”
Decided a written warning to judges
The fine print
Wisconsin’s Supreme Court held in 2016 that a sentencing court may consider a COMPAS risk assessment “if used properly,” within limits. Among them: risk scores “may not be used” to decide whether a person is incarcerated or how severe the sentence is, and the assessment is “only one of many factors.”
7.45 Decided Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2016 WI 68, No. 2015AP157-CR, ¶8 and ¶¶98-99 Supreme Court of Wisconsin (copy on the Wisconsin Court System website) · July 13, 2016 · as of October 16, 2026
In 2016 Wisconsin’s Supreme Court held that a presentence report with a COMPAS risk assessment must “contain a written advisement listing the limitations,” which should warn judges that “the proprietary nature of COMPAS has been invoked to prevent disclosure” of how “risk scores are determined.”
7.46 Decided Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2016 WI 68, No. 2015AP157-CR, ¶100 Supreme Court of Wisconsin (copy on the Wisconsin Court System website) · July 13, 2016 · as of October 16, 2026
Risk assessment, as Wisconsin’s Supreme Court described COMPAS: “a risk-need assessment tool designed by Northpointe, Inc. to provide decisional support for the Department of Corrections when making placement decisions, managing offenders, and planning treatment.”
7.47 Reported Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2016 WI 68, No. 2015AP157-CR, ¶13 Supreme Court of Wisconsin (copy on the Wisconsin Court System website) · July 13, 2016 · as of October 16, 2026
Decided EU: emotion reading at work and school banned
The fine print
Since February 2, 2025, the EU AI Act has banned AI systems that “infer emotions of a natural person in the areas of workplace and education institutions,” except systems meant to be used “for medical or safety reasons.”
7.48 Decided Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act), Article 5(1)(f) and Article 113 Official Journal of the European Union, via EUR-Lex (copy in the Internet Archive) · July 12, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
Emotion recognition system: under the EU AI Act, AI for “identifying or inferring emotions or intentions of natural persons on the basis of their biometric data,” such as happiness, anger or shame. It “does not include physical states, such as pain or fatigue.”
7.49 Decided Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act), Article 3(39) and recital 18 Official Journal of the European Union, via EUR-Lex (copy in the Internet Archive) · July 12, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
6 of 7 The stamp
Yours to give. There is no right answer, and the museum keeps no count.
In the room, this is where you stamp your ticket with one of five stamps. The plain version asks nothing of you.
Kept on this device only. Nothing is sent.
7 of 7 Three doors
Three ways on. All three lead to the series’ own site.
From the book · The PanopticonYour face is not a password. Please stop treating it as a free sample.