← the record
AIAAIC-0209

Builder.ai automated app development exposed as relying on humans

Claims by Indian start-up Engineer.ai that it had developed a highly automated, AI-enabled app development platform for small businesses was reveal e d to be far from the truth. The Wall Street Journal found when talking to Engineer.ai (since renamed Builder.ai) employees and former employees that it used humans rather than AI to develop its app, and grossly inflated its marketing rhetoric to att ract customers and investors. The company had aggressively t rumped its 'human-assisted' AI services, with Engineer.ai founder and CEO Sachin Dev Duggal claiming that 82 percent of the work on the event’s app was done by AI in under an hour, and that human engineers worked for five weeks to finish the rest of it. Duggal responded to the WSJ report by saying the company had never claimed to offer 'automated software development'. Timeline ⏰ February 2019 . Engineer.ai chief business officer Robert Holdheim filed a wrongful termination complaint in a Los Angeles court alleging the company had been exaggerating its AI abilities to attract the funding it required to develop its technology August 2019. Media reports accuse of Engineer.ai of relying on humans to develop and manage its services November 2019. Engineer.ai re-brands as Builder.ai February 2025. Sachin Dev Duggal resigns as CEO June 2025. Builder.ai files for insolvency System 🤖 Builder.ai (formerly Engineer.ai) Documents 📃 Engineer.ai CEO interview Developer: Engineer.ai Country : India Sector: Business/professional services Purpose: Automate app development Technology: Machine learning Issue: Integrity; Transparency Legal, regulatory👩🏼‍⚖️ Holdheim v Engineer.ai

Date it happened
2019-08-01
Organisation involved
Engineer.ai
Product, system or model
Engineer.ai
Where this came from
Share this incident
XLinkedInFacebookWhatsAppEmail
Attribution

This incident was imported from AIAAIC and is used under CC BY-SA 4.0. Our additions to it — the structured fields, the translation, the checks against other reports — are published under the same licence.

This is a record of what was reported, not a finding that anyone broke the law. If it names your organisation and you believe it is wrong, the corrections process is free and open to everyone.