Hidden hiring scores: what the Eightfold lawsuit alleges

Who filed, and where

The case was brought on 20 January 2026 in Contra Costa County Superior Court in California by two named plaintiffs, Erin Kistler and Sruti Bhaumik, both job applicants with STEM backgrounds. It is pleaded as a class action, meaning they seek to represent a wider group of applicants rather than only themselves.

What the complaint alleges

The core allegations, as pleaded:

• That the company collects large volumes of personal data about applicants — the complaint refers to sources including social media profiles, location data and online activity — some of it drawn from third-party sources the applicant is unaware of.
• That this data is processed to produce a “likelihood of success” score used to rank candidates for employers.
• That some of the underlying data is inaccurate or incomplete.
• That applicants receive no disclosure that such a report exists, no access to it, and no mechanism to dispute errors in it before it influences a hiring decision.

The legal theory: is a hiring score a “consumer report”?

This is the part that makes the case worth following even if you have never applied through this particular vendor.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act governs consumer reporting agencies — organisations that assemble information about people and supply it to third parties for decisions about credit, insurance or employment. The FCRA has been in force since 1970, and it carries obligations: disclosure, a right of access, and a route to dispute inaccurate information before it is acted on.

The complaint’s argument is that an AI system compiling applicant data and scoring candidates for employers is functionally doing what a consumer reporting agency does — and should therefore carry the same duties. It alleges violations of the FCRA and of California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA).

If that theory succeeds, the implications reach well beyond one company. A large category of hiring technology would acquire disclosure and dispute obligations it does not currently observe.

What this case does not establish

Being clear about the limits:

• No finding of liability has been made. A filed complaint is an accusation, not a verdict.
• The FCRA question is genuinely unsettled. Courts have not conclusively decided whether AI hiring scores fall within the statute, which is precisely why the case is being watched.
• It says nothing about other vendors’ practices. Each operates differently.
• It does not establish that a score follows you between employers. There is no single universal ATS score.

Why it matters to you regardless of the outcome

The case is useful as an illustration even while unresolved, because the practice it describes is not disputed in outline: hiring systems build candidate records, those records inform ranking, and applicants generally cannot see them.

You do not need to wait for a ruling to act on that. Deletion rights under state privacy laws exist now and operate independently of this litigation — and a deletion request does not require you to know what a system concluded about you, or whether it profiled you at all.

Your deletion rights, state by state · Systems ATS Reset covers

Following the case

The complaint is publicly available and worth reading directly if the subject affects you — it is more readable than most filings. It is linked in the sources below. We will update this page if the case reaches a substantive ruling.