HireVue, the AI-powered video interview platform used by employers to screen candidates at scale, has been the target of multiple lawsuits and regulatory complaints since 2019. The legal challenges fall into four buckets: a class action accusing CVS of using HireVue as an illegal lie-detector test under Massachusetts law, two Illinois biometric privacy suits, a Federal Trade Commission complaint from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and an ACLU discrimination complaint filed on behalf of a deaf, Indigenous employee. Attorneys are also investigating potential Fair Credit Reporting Act claims against AI screening companies including HireVue.
Why HireVue Keeps Getting Sued
HireVue says it has conducted more than 70 million interviews for employers worldwide. Candidates record answers to structured questions, and AI evaluates the responses. Most of the litigation traces back to how that evaluation used to work. Before March 2020, HireVue’s platform ran candidates’ video through a system built by Affectiva that scored facial expressions, eye contact, and voice characteristics to generate ratings for traits like emotional intelligence, personality, and cognitive ability. One lawsuit alleged that facial expressions accounted for 29 percent of an applicant’s “employability score.”1ClassAction.org. Video Screening Co. HireVue Illegally Collected Illinois Job Applicants Facial Scans, Class Action Alleges
HireVue discontinued the facial analysis feature in March 2020. CEO Kevin Parker said the nonverbal data added roughly 0.25 percent to predictive accuracy for most roles, and that the feature “wasn’t worth the concern it was causing people.”2SHRM. HireVue Discontinues Facial Analysis Screening3HireVue. AI in Hiring Several lawsuits target conduct that occurred before that change; others target the platform as it operates now.
Baker v. CVS: The Massachusetts Lie-Detector Class Action
In 2023, Massachusetts resident Brendan Baker filed a proposed class action against CVS Health in federal court, arguing that CVS’s use of HireVue amounted to an illegal lie-detector test under state law. Baker had applied for a supply chain position at CVS in January 2021 and was required to complete a HireVue video interview.4FindLaw. Baker v. CVS Health Corporation
According to the complaint, the HireVue platform analyzed facial expressions — smiles, surprise, contempt, disgust, smirks — to produce an employability score that purportedly measured conscientiousness, integrity, and honesty.5HR Dive. CVS Settles Lawsuit Over Using AI-Based Lie Detector Baker alleged that HireVue had itself described its technology as helpful for “lie detection” and “screening out embellishers.” The suit brought three claims: a declaration that the process violated Massachusetts law, an unlawful lie-detector test claim, and a claim that CVS failed to give the mandatory statutory notice that lie-detector tests cannot be required as a condition of employment.4FindLaw. Baker v. CVS Health Corporation
CVS moved to dismiss the notice-violation claim. In February 2024, Judge Saris denied the motion. She held that Baker had been denied information the statute required him to receive, that this informational injury was concrete enough for standing because a properly informed applicant could have “viewed the interview more critically,” and that the statute’s language authorizing suit by anyone “aggrieved by a violation” created a private right of action.4FindLaw. Baker v. CVS Health Corporation
The case did not reach a merits ruling. The parties entered mediation in June 2024, reached a tentative settlement in mid-July, and the case was terminated on July 22, 2024.6CourtListener. Baker v. CVS Health Corporation Docket The settlement terms — including any dollar amount or changes to hiring practices — were not publicly disclosed.5HR Dive. CVS Settles Lawsuit Over Using AI-Based Lie Detector HireVue itself was not a defendant.
Illinois Biometric Privacy Lawsuits
Two separate class actions filed in Illinois accuse HireVue of violating the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by collecting facial and voice data from job applicants without proper notice or consent.
Deyerler v. HireVue (Cook County)
Filed in Cook County Circuit Court in January 2022, this proposed class action came from an applicant who interviewed for a Varsity Tutors job in September 2019. The complaint alleged that HireVue captured and analyzed applicants’ facial geometry to score cognitive ability, personality, emotional intelligence, and social aptitude, without written notice, informed consent, or a public data-retention policy. BIPA allows statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per willful or reckless violation.7ClassAction.org. Deyerler v. HireVue Inc. Complaint The case remained pending as a proposed class action with no final outcome reported as of early 2026.1ClassAction.org. Video Screening Co. HireVue Illegally Collected Illinois Job Applicants Facial Scans, Class Action Alleges
Federal BIPA Case (Northern District of Illinois)
A separate proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In February 2024, Judge Jeremy C. Daniel denied most of HireVue’s motion to dismiss. He did throw out one narrow theory — that HireVue profited from selling biometric data itself — ruling the plaintiffs had shown only that HireVue profited from selling its software.8Bloomberg Law. HireVue Stuck With Proposed Illinois Biometric Data Class Action
The case then ended abruptly. On January 20, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal, closing the litigation without any merits ruling. The terms were not disclosed.9Bloomberg Law. Job Seekers Drop HireVue Lawsuit Over Biometric Data Collection
The EPIC Complaint to the FTC
The earliest formal legal action came from the Electronic Privacy Information Center. In November 2019, EPIC filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission accusing HireVue of unfair and deceptive trade practices. EPIC alleged that HireVue falsely claimed it did not use facial recognition even while collecting and analyzing candidates’ facial expressions, and that the company’s reliance on secret proprietary algorithms caused unavoidable privacy and financial harm.10EPIC. In Re HireVue The complaint asked the FTC to investigate, halt candidate scoring until reforms were made, and require HireVue to disclose its algorithms and evaluation criteria.11EPIC. EPIC FTC HireVue Complaint
The FTC has never publicly acknowledged the complaint or taken formal action.12DataGuidance. USA HireVue Revises Use of Facial Recognition Following Complaint But HireVue dropped facial analysis roughly four months later, and Fortune reported the change came “partly in response to the criticism” from EPIC’s complaint.13Fortune. HireVue Drops Facial Monitoring Amid A.I. Algorithm Audit
ACLU Discrimination Complaint Against HireVue and Intuit
In March 2025, the ACLU of Colorado filed an administrative complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of a deaf, Indigenous Intuit employee identified as D.K. The complaint named both Intuit and HireVue and alleged disability and race discrimination.14HR Dive. AI Intuit HireVue Deaf Indigenous Employee Discrimination ACLU
D.K., a customer service representative, applied for an internal promotion and was required to complete an AI video interview. She asked for human-generated captioning as a reasonable accommodation. She was told the platform had “built-in subtitles,” but when the interview began, the subtitles were missing for some content, and she had to rely on inaccurate browser auto-captions.15ACLU of Oklahoma. I Should Not Have to Fight for Fair Treatment in the Workplace She was denied the promotion, with feedback recommending she “practice active listening.”16ClassAction.org. AI Interview Screening Lawsuits
The ACLU further alleges that HireVue’s underlying technology performs worse for speakers with a “deaf accent” and for non-white speakers, producing systemic bias. The complaint cites violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.14HR Dive. AI Intuit HireVue Deaf Indigenous Employee Discrimination ACLU
Both companies deny wrongdoing. HireVue CEO Jeremy Friedman called the complaint “entirely without merit” and said it was “based on an inaccurate assumption about the technology used,” adding that “Intuit did not use a HireVue AI-based assessment” in the instance cited. Intuit also called the allegations meritless and said it provides “reasonable accommodations to all candidates.”14HR Dive. AI Intuit HireVue Deaf Indigenous Employee Discrimination ACLU
FCRA Investigation and What May Come Next
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are investigating whether HireVue and similar AI screening vendors may be violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The theory is that the assessments these platforms generate could qualify as “consumer reports,” which would trigger FCRA rules on accuracy, disclosure, and the applicant’s right to dispute adverse findings. If that theory holds, employers using these tools would need to give applicants copies of any AI-generated report before rejecting them based on it.16ClassAction.org. AI Interview Screening Lawsuits
Vendor liability is also expanding through separate case law. In Mobley v. Workday, a federal judge in Northern California ruled in July 2024 that an AI vendor can be treated as an employer’s “agent” when its tools perform traditional hiring functions like screening candidates, rather than serving as a passive tool. The ACLU has filed similar complaints against Aon Consulting over its AI personality assessments. Courts and agencies are still working out when AI vendors share liability for discriminatory outcomes alongside the employers who deploy their products.17Bloomberg Law. Employers Find Openings to Share AI Bias Liability With Vendors
If you completed a HireVue interview and believe you were rejected because of how the AI scored you — particularly if you have a disability, if English isn’t your first language, or if you interviewed before March 2020 when the facial analysis feature was still in use — the cases above suggest several possible legal theories depending on where you live: BIPA in Illinois, the lie-detector statute in Massachusetts, ADA and Title VII claims through the EEOC, and potentially FCRA claims wherever you are.