(Image credit: Alamy)
In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI), companies are increasingly integrating these tools into their daily operations to increase efficiency and innovation.
From automating recruitment processes to generating content and analyzing data, AI promises significant benefits.
But if employees use AI inappropriately, such as inputting sensitive data without safeguards, relying on biased output, or failing to oversee automated decision-making, companies can face significant civil liability.
Article continues below
just from $107.88 Kiplinger Personal Finance $24.99
Become a smarter, more informed investor. Please subscribe from $107.88 $24.99 plus get up to 4 special issues
Click on the free question
Sign up for Kiplinger’s free newsletter
Profit and prosper with the best expert advice on investing, taxes, retirement, personal finance and more straight to your email.
Profit and prosper with the best expert advice straight to your email.
Under principles such as vicarious liability, companies are often held liable for the actions of their employees within the scope of their employment.
This article explores key areas at risk and provides insights for mitigation, leveraging recent legal developments (as of February).
Discrimination and bias: The front lines of AI litigation
One of the most prominent risks comes from AI-driven discrimination with tools that perpetuate bias in hiring, promotion, and evaluation.
If employees implement AI screening software without conducting an impartiality audit, it may result in disparate impact claims under laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
For example, in landmarks Mobley vs. Workday In this lawsuit (2024-2025), plaintiffs alleged that Workday’s AI employment platform discriminated against applicants based on age, race, and disability, resulting in a certified class action against applicants 40 and older.
Similarly, in 2025 Harper vs. Sirius XM Radio The lawsuit alleges that the AI tool used proxies such as zip codes to exclude Black applicants, highlighting disparate treatment and impact.
recent settlements etc. EEOC vs. iTutorGroup (settled in 2023, but affected litigation in 2025) highlights that automatic rejection of older candidates can lead to hefty fines, including payments of $365,000. If employees ignore bias audits, companies can face damages, back pay, and garnishments.
Privacy violations: mishandling data in AI applications
Improper use of AI can violate privacy laws if employees enter personal data into insecure tools.
This exposes companies to claims under the California Consumer Privacy Act, the General Data Protection Regulation, or the Fair Credit Reporting Act. A landmark 2026 lawsuit against Eightfold AI alleges that the company’s platform collects applicant data from sources like LinkedIn without their consent and treats it as an unregulated credit report.
When employees enter employee or customer information into public AI chatbots, they risk class-action lawsuits for invasion of privacy and data misuse, with fines reaching millions of dollars.
New regulations, such as California’s 2025 Civil Rights Commission Regulations, expand their responsibilities by defining AI vendors as agents of the employer and emphasizing the need for consent and security.
Intellectual property and defamation risks
When employees generate content via AI, they may infringe copyright if the output is derived from protected material, giving rise to secondary liability under copyright law.
Additionally, reports or communications created by AI that contain falsehoods may give rise to defamation claims.
For example, a company could face damages if an employee publishes a misleading AI-generated social media post.
Negligence, breach of contract, deception
Negligence arises from incomplete AI deployments that cause harm, such as incorrect financial advice or operational errors, leading to product liability for defective tools.
If the AI fails to meet the customer’s standards, a breach of contract occurs and deceptive practices under the FTC Act are punishable by misrepresenting the AI’s capabilities, resulting in fines and refunds.
Threat mitigation
To prevent these liabilities, companies must implement robust AI policies.
As cases like Eightfold and Mobley demonstrate, proactive measures are essential as AI litigation proliferates. By promoting responsible use, businesses can harness the potential of AI while minimizing legal pitfalls.
In our next article, we will explore strategies that businesses can employ to protect selected corporate assets from civil liability from unexpected and unexpected litigation creditors and predators.
Related content
This article was written by and represents the views of our contributing advisors and not of Kiplinger’s editorial staff. To check your advisor’s records, SEC or together finra.
