Incidents gathered from public reporting around the world. Each one links to the articles it came from. None of it is a finding that anyone broke the law.
Reports people file about their own experience are not shown here and never will be without their agreement. Tell us what happened to you.
332 incidents closest to “TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions” · matched on meaning · public reporting
An officer conducted an unauthorized search of the Flock Safety automatic license plate reader system without a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
1 source article · read the reporting →
A class action, settled for $30 million, alleged that Equifax automatically rejected consumers' disputes of hard inquiries on their credit reports, sending a form letter instead of investigating.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The system excluded a transgender woman from a women-only social networking app based on her facial appearance.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Identified Christopher Gatlin as a suspect in an assault, leading to his arrest and 17 months in jail.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Automated driving system controlled vehicle braking and acceleration, leading to rear-end collisions with other road users
1 source article · read the reporting →
The Allegheny Family Screening Tool, an algorithm used to screen child neglect reports, has been found to flag a disproportionate number of Black children for mandatory investigation compared to white children. A technical glitch also presented wrong risk scores for over two years. County officials say social workers can override the algorithm and that the glitch has been fixed, but critics argue the tool hardens racial disparities and lacks transparency.
10 source articles · read the reporting →
Pro Se Litigant | D. Arizona | State(s): USA. AI tool: Clearpoint. Problem: Fabricated: Case Law. Consequence: Bar Referral.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Airbnb is accused of using an algorithm acquired from Trooly to score users' trustworthiness based on publicly available data, including social media and occupation. Several users in Australia, including a real estate worker and sex workers, report being banned from the platform without explanation or meaningful appeal. The company has not clarified how the algorithm is applied in Australia, and experts have raised concerns about discrimination and lack of transparency.
4 source articles · read the reporting →
Spinvox, a UK voice-to-text firm, is accused of using call centre staff in South Africa and the Philippines to transcribe the majority of user messages, contrary to claims of automated speech recognition. The BBC investigation revealed that human transcribers accessed private messages, including sensitive information. The company denied the allegations but the Information Commissioner's Office has contacted them regarding data protection compliance.
4 source articles · read the reporting →
In Tiekert v. Village of Mamaroneck in the Southern District of New York, the court found that the plaintiff's lawyer filed briefs containing non-existent quotations and misrepresented authorities. In a filing to the court, the lawyer said ChatGPT had been used to assist with legal research. On September 14, 2026, the court imposed Rule 11 sanctions: $500 payable to the court and two New York continuing legal education credits in ethics on the use of AI.
2 source articles · read the reporting →
The AI generated false legal citations that were included in a court filing, misleading the court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
A child protection worker at the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH) used ChatGPT to draft a Protection Application Report for the Children’s Court, entering sensitive personal information about a child. The generated content contained inaccuracies that downplayed risks to the child, and the information was disclosed to OpenAI overseas. An investigation by the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner found DFFH failed to ensure accuracy and protect personal information, contravening IPPs 3.1 and 4.1. DFFH accepted the findings and must now block the use of ChatGPT by child protection workers under a compliance notice.
9 source articles · read the reporting →
Target used a data mining algorithm to predict when customers were pregnant based on their purchases. The algorithm sent baby product coupons to a high school student, leading her father to complain to the store. The father later learned his daughter was indeed pregnant. Target subsequently altered the coupons to disguise the data mining.
9 source articles · read the reporting →
ProPublica's analysis of auto insurance premiums in California, Illinois, Texas and Missouri found that major insurers such as Geico, Allstate and Liberty Mutual charge minority neighborhoods up to 30% more than white areas with similar accident costs. The disparity is alleged to result from pricing algorithms that may inadvertently use zip code as a proxy for race. Otis Nash, a 26-year-old Chicagoan, pays $190.69 per month for Geico insurance while a white driver in a safer neighborhood pays $54.67. The insurers deny discrimination, stating they do not collect race data.
5 source articles · read the reporting →
A CHOICE mystery shop found Tinder charging users over 30 up to five times more for Tinder Plus than younger users, with prices ranging from $6.99 to $34.37 per month. An anti-discrimination law expert says this likely breaches Australia's Age Discrimination Act 2004. Tinder did not respond to CHOICE's requests for comment, but settled a similar US lawsuit by stopping age-based pricing in California and compensating affected users.
4 source articles · read the reporting →
Whitebridge AI, a Lithuanian company, is accused of generating false reputation reports using unlawfully scraped social media data. The reports contained false warnings for 'sexual nudity' and 'dangerous political content'. Privacy group Noyb filed a complaint with the Lithuanian data protection authority, alleging violations of the GDPR. The complainants sought access to their data but received no response, and were later required to provide a qualified electronic signature to correct errors.
6 source articles · read the reporting →
In May 2015, Poland's Ministry of Labor and Social Policy introduced an algorithmic system to profile unemployed people into three categories based on their readiness to work, location, and disabilities. The system is accused of being discriminatory and lacking transparency, as it uses default criteria that may lead to social exclusion. A report by the Panoptykon Foundation in October 2015 highlighted these issues and recommended reforms, including granting the right to appeal.
10 source articles · read the reporting →
Upstart Holdings, Inc., a cloud-based AI lending platform, is accused of making false and misleading statements about its AI model's ability to account for macroeconomic factors. The lawsuit, filed on May 13, 2022, alleges that the company's positive statements about its business were materially false. Investors suffered losses when Upstart's stock price fell 56% on May 9, 2022, after the company reduced its fiscal 2022 guidance.
10 source articles · read the reporting →
The Oregon Department of Human Services announced it will stop using its Safety at Screening Tool algorithm, which helped hotline workers decide which families to investigate for child abuse and neglect. The decision followed concerns about racial bias and disparities, as the algorithm was inspired by a Pennsylvania tool that had flagged a disproportionate number of Black children. The agency will replace the algorithm with a new Structured Decision Making model.
10 source articles · read the reporting →
Inflection, a background check company used by Airbnb, Uber, and other platforms, has been sued multiple times for providing inaccurate reports. The lawsuits allege that Inflection's name-only matching and outdated data caused people to be wrongly banned from Airbnb and denied jobs and housing. Some cases have been settled, while others remain ongoing. The company is accused of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
8 source articles · read the reporting →
In 2016, Carmen Arroyo requested to move her disabled son Mikhail into a larger apartment in the same complex. The landlord, WinnResidential, used CoreLogic's CrimSafe tenant screening software, which flagged a dropped retail theft charge against Mikhail as disqualifying. The landlord rejected the application without explanation. Arroyo sued CoreLogic and WinnResidential under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Housing Act, alleging that the software disproportionately excludes people of colour. The case was scheduled for trial in August 2021.
10 source articles · read the reporting →
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a complaint with the District of Columbia attorney general against five exam proctoring companies—Respondus, ProctorU, Proctorio, Examity, and Honorlock—alleging unfair and deceptive business practices. The companies are accused of using opaque AI algorithms to flag cheating and collecting excessive biometric data from students. Students have reported that the facial recognition software fails to detect dark skin tones, preventing them from taking exams. EPIC has also sent demand letters threatening civil suits if the companies do not stop their practices.
10 source articles · read the reporting →
The Dutch Data Protection Authority (AP) found that the Benefits Department of the Tax and Customs Administration (Belastingdienst) unlawfully processed the dual nationality of 1.4 million applicants for child care benefits. The data was used as an indicator in an automated risk-scoring system that flagged applications as high-risk, which was unnecessary and discriminatory. The AP concluded that the processing violated the GDPR and was discriminatory. The AP completed its fact-finding and will consider imposing a sanction.
10 source articles · read the reporting →
A female student with dark skin at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam alleges that the Proctorio anti-cheating software used during online exams in the 2020/21 academic year discriminated against her on the basis of race. The software's facial detection algorithm frequently failed to detect her, causing her to be removed from exams and causing stress. The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights found a presumption of indirect discrimination and gave the university an opportunity to prove otherwise.
10 source articles · read the reporting →
