U.S. job applicants whose applications were run through Eightfold AI’s evaluation tools may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Eightfold AI Inc. furnished consumer reports on them to employers without the notices and dispute rights the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Eightfold AI Inc. has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Two California job seekers filed a proposed class action against Eightfold AI Inc., a Santa Clara company whose AI platform many large employers use to process job applications. The case, Kistler v. Eightfold AI Inc., was filed January 20, 2026, in Contra Costa County Superior Court. Eightfold removed it to federal court on March 2, 2026, where it is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as Case No. 4:26-cv-01768-YGR before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.The plaintiffs claim that Eightfold’s candidate profiles and 0-to-5 “Match Scores” are consumer reports — the same legal category as background checks — and that Eightfold furnishes them to employers without following the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) or California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA). Eightfold denies that it is a consumer reporting agency and has asked the court to dismiss the case. That motion is fully briefed and awaiting a ruling.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What the Complaint Alleges
According to the complaint, when someone applies to a job at an employer that uses Eightfold, Eightfold’s tools assemble information about the applicant and produce a report for the employer. The plaintiffs say that report includes a talent profile and a Match Score from 0 to 5, in half-point steps, that ranks applicants by predicted “likelihood of success.” The complaint alleges:- The reports draw on more than the application itself, including information from public online sources, data about comparable employees at other companies, and AI-generated inferences about an applicant’s characteristics and likely career path.
- Eightfold’s model is trained on what the company markets as more than 1.5 billion data points, and applicant data is retained and reused.
- Employers often review only the highest-ranked applicants, so lower-scored applicants can be passed over before a person reads their application.
- Applicants are not told a consumer report is being prepared, never see it, and have no way to dispute errors in it.
- Eightfold does not obtain the employer certifications the FCRA requires before a consumer report may be furnished for employment purposes, and does not give employers the required summary of consumer rights.
Both named plaintiffs are experienced product and project managers who say they applied to positions at employers using Eightfold, including PayPal and Microsoft, and were not interviewed. One says she received an automated rejection two days after applying. The employers are not defendants.
Eightfold’s Response
In its April 20, 2026 motion to dismiss, Eightfold describes itself as a software company that licenses an AI tool employers use internally, not a background-check business. It argues that:- The employers, not Eightfold, use the software to review applications, relying on a Utah federal decision that found FICO was not a consumer reporting agency for licensing its scoring software to the credit bureaus.
- The Match Score is calculated from the applicant’s own resume and the employer’s job description, and the model is trained on anonymized data that cannot be tied to any person.
- The score is a job-specific judgment of fit, not the kind of information about character or creditworthiness the FCRA covers, and it does not decide whether anyone is eligible for a job.
- The 2024 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau circular the plaintiffs rely on was withdrawn on May 12, 2025.
Eightfold also asks the court, at a minimum, to strike the requests for statutory, punitive and nominal damages and for injunctive relief. The plaintiffs’ June 18 opposition responds that Eightfold’s own marketing, patent and privacy policy describe collecting third-party data, and that the FCRA was written to reach new technology.
Who Could Be Included?
The complaint proposes two classes:- Nationwide class: U.S. residents who, within the applicable limitations periods, applied to jobs in the United States and were subjected to Eightfold’s evaluation tools.
- California class: California residents who applied to jobs and were subjected to Eightfold’s evaluation tools, for the ICRAA and Unfair Competition Law claims.
These are the plaintiffs’ proposed definitions. No class has been certified.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint seeks actual damages, or statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per willful FCRA violation, plus punitive damages. Under the ICRAA, it cites the statute’s remedy of actual damages or $10,000, whichever is greater. Eightfold argues that the ICRAA does not allow statutory damages in a class action, and the plaintiffs dispute how that limit applies in federal court. The complaint also asks for an order requiring Eightfold to change its practices. None of these amounts has been awarded.What Happens Next?
On July 24, 2026, the court vacated the August 4 hearing on the motion to dismiss, which usually means the judge will rule on the written briefs. If the claims survive, the case moves to discovery. If the court dismisses them, it may allow the plaintiffs to amend, which they requested in the alternative. Either way, the ruling is likely to be one of the first decisions on whether an AI hiring tool can be a consumer reporting agency.Questions
How would a job applicant know whether an employer used Eightfold?
According to the complaint, some employers’ online applications run through web addresses containing “eightfold.ai,” or require signing in to a site controlled by Eightfold. The complaint names Microsoft and PayPal among the employers that use Eightfold’s tools. Those employers are not defendants.
What is the main legal question in the Eightfold case?
Whether Eightfold is a “consumer reporting agency” under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The plaintiffs say its candidate profiles and Match Scores are consumer reports used for employment decisions. Eightfold argues it only licenses software that employers use internally to review information applicants submit, and that no court has treated an AI hiring tool as a consumer report.
Has the court ruled on Eightfold’s motion to dismiss?
Not as of the September 24, 2026 docket entry. The motion was fully briefed by July 9, 2026, and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers vacated the August 4 hearing on July 24, 2026. A ruling can come without a hearing.
Does anyone need to do anything now?
No. No class has been certified and there is no settlement, claim form or deadline. If a class is certified or the case settles, the court would approve a notice plan telling class members what to do.
Sources
- Kistler v. Eightfold AI Inc., No. 4:26-cv-01768-YGR (N.D. Cal.) — docket via CourtListener
- Notice of Removal with the Class Action Complaint attached (Mar. 2, 2026)
- Eightfold’s Motion to Dismiss (Apr. 20, 2026)
- Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (June 18, 2026)
- Eightfold’s Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss (July 9, 2026)
- Order Vacating Hearing on the Motion to Dismiss (July 24, 2026)
