Google has agreed to pay $28 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging racial bias in pay and promotions. The settlement, preliminarily approved by a California court, covers at least 6,632 employees who worked at Google between February 15, 2018, and December 31, 2024. The lawsuit, initiated by a former Google employee, claimed that employees from underrepresented ethnic groups received lower starting salaries and job levels compared to their white and Asian counterparts. While Google denies the allegations of discrimination, the settlement reflects a resolution to the claims.
Read More
LaDonna Crutchfield filed a federal lawsuit alleging wrongful arrest based on flawed facial recognition technology. Police, using a partial license plate, connected Crutchfield to an attempted murder investigation despite discrepancies in age and height between her and the actual suspect. The lawsuit claims the arresting officers failed to conduct basic investigative steps that could have readily exonerated Crutchfield, leading to her detainment, fingerprinting, and DNA collection. The Detroit Police Department denies using facial recognition but admits insufficient investigation led to the erroneous arrest.
Read More
Following user reports of increased violent and graphic content appearing in their Instagram Reels feeds, Meta acknowledged a system error responsible for the inappropriate recommendations. The company issued an apology, stating the error has been rectified. Users reported seeing this content despite having sensitive content controls enabled to the highest setting. Meta employs a large team and AI technology to moderate content, aiming to prevent such issues, but this instance highlights a lapse in their system.
Read More
Rising insurance denials in the US, fueled by AI-powered algorithms, are prompting lawsuits against major insurers like UnitedHealth and Cigna, alleging widespread improper claim denials. The extremely low appeal rate, despite a high reversal rate upon appeal, highlights the system’s inherent flaws and the difficulty patients face navigating complex appeals processes. New AI tools are emerging to automate appeals, but lasting change requires broader healthcare reform, addressing high costs and ensuring equitable access to coverage. Experts emphasize the need for human oversight of automated systems and industry standardization to reduce denials stemming from administrative errors.
Read More
The rise of a second Trump presidency is a complex issue, but a significant factor often overlooked is the role of influential YouTubers and podcasters in mobilizing a substantial segment of the male population towards the political right. An analysis of thousands of videos reveals a clear pattern of how this influence operates, subtly yet effectively shaping political views and driving increased voter turnout.
The ease with which viewers can be drawn into this content without initially recognizing the underlying political agenda is concerning. Many platforms subtly push this type of content through algorithms designed to maximize engagement, inadvertently creating a highly effective echo chamber.… Continue reading
Senate Bill 1120, the “Physicians Make Decisions Act,” prohibits California health insurers from denying claims based solely on AI algorithms. Driven by a high rate of claim denials (approximately 26% in California) and concerns about AI misuse, the law ensures human oversight in coverage decisions for medically necessary care. While not banning AI entirely, SB 1120 mandates that human judgment remains central, safeguarding patient access to quality care. The Department of Managed Health Care will enforce the law, auditing denial rates and imposing deadlines for authorizations, with potential fines for violations. This California law is garnering national attention, with other states and Congress considering similar legislation.
Read More
The Physicians Make Decisions Act (SB 1120) mandates that licensed healthcare providers, not AI algorithms, make final decisions regarding medical necessity for treatments in California. This law addresses concerns about algorithmic bias and inaccuracies in insurance claim processing, preventing potential harm from AI-driven denials of care. SB 1120 requires physician review of all AI-influenced decisions impacting patient care, ensuring human oversight and equitable standards. Effective January 1, 2025, the act establishes a national precedent for responsible AI implementation in healthcare.
Read More
A UK government AI system used to detect welfare fraud exhibits bias based on age, disability, marital status, and nationality, according to an internal assessment. This “statistically significant outcome disparity” was revealed in documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, despite earlier government assurances of no discriminatory impact. While human oversight remains, concerns remain regarding a “hurt first, fix later” approach and the lack of fairness analysis regarding other protected characteristics. The revelation fuels calls for greater transparency in government AI use, particularly given the numerous undisclosed applications across UK public authorities.
Read More
A lawsuit alleges UnitedHealthcare, using an AI tool with a purported 90% error rate, wrongfully denied medically necessary claims, resulting in patient deaths. The company denies the AI makes coverage decisions, claiming it’s merely a guidance tool. Despite this, UnitedHealthcare’s claim denial rate is reportedly much higher than competitors, prompting some hospitals to refuse its insurance. Following the CEO’s targeted murder, where bullets bore inscriptions linking to a book criticizing insurance practices, the connection between the lawsuit and the shooting remains under investigation.
Read More
A recent UN report reveals a startling truth about social media influencers: a majority share information without verifying its accuracy. This isn’t a surprising revelation to many, but the official confirmation underscores a deeply troubling trend. The report highlights a systemic issue where the pursuit of views, engagement, and ultimately, advertising revenue, trumps the responsibility of disseminating accurate information. The platforms themselves are complicit, knowingly designing algorithms that prioritize virality over truth. This isn’t accidental; it’s a deliberate design choice with consequences far beyond mere annoyance.
The report’s findings directly challenge the very concept of the “influencer.” Many argue that the term is a manufactured title, bestowing undue importance on individuals who often lack the skills or inclination to fact-check.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood