Get job alerts
JobsPlatformsDataGuidesHow it worksMy AI workPlatform finderPay dataPay transparencyTrends over timeThis week in AI training jobsListing age and turnoverPlatforms by countryHow platforms payPay calculatorOfficial sitesOpen dataJob alertsCompare platformsAbout & contact

Jobs/Platforms

AI training platforms in court

Lawsuits and regulator actions involving the platforms that hire AI trainers: who filed, what they allege, and where each case stands, with links to the court records and reporting.

Last updated 23 October 2026

17cases and actions
8platforms named

Read this first

A lawsuit is a claim, not a finding. Unless a court has ruled, everything below is what one side alleges, and the platform may dispute it. Many cases settle without any admission of wrongdoing. We list only cases we can source to a court record, a regulator or established news reporting, and we give the status as of the date shown: check the sources for anything newer.

Being named in a case says nothing on its own about whether a platform pays or treats its workers well today. See each platform's page for how it hires and pays, from its own published terms.

Sama

Sama: open roles and how it hires

Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (Kenya) investigation into Ray-Ban Meta glasses data processing – regulatory investigation, not a court case

Court or body
Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, Kenya
Filed
March 2026
Parties
Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (regulator), following a petition by digital-rights group The Oversight Lab; concerning Meta's Ray-Ban glasses and the processing of footage reportedly annotated by Sama workers in Nairobi
Status
open – investigation confirmed 2026-03-31; no findings published as of latest source (as of 1 May 2026)

The regulator said it would examine the processing of personal information used to train Meta AI and wider privacy risks from the glasses, after Swedish media reported that intimate and sensitive footage was reviewed by Sama staff in Nairobi. Meta later ended its contract with Sama, which issued redundancy notices to 1,108 staff in April 2026.

Petition to the National Assembly of Kenya by former content moderators seeking an investigation of OpenAI and Sama – parliamentary petition, not a court case

Court or body
National Assembly of Kenya
Filed
July 2023
Parties
Former Kenyan content moderators who worked on OpenAI (ChatGPT) safety projects via Sama, filed by Richard Mwaura Mathenge, Mophat Ochieng Okinyi, Alex Mwaura Kairu and Bill Kelvin Mulinya (petitioners); concerning OpenAI and Sama
Status
status not confirmed since 2023-07-12 (no outcome from the Public Petitions Committee found) (as of 12 July 2023)

The petitioners asked Parliament to investigate Sama's working conditions and business practices, alleging low pay and inadequate psychological support for workers exposed to harmful content, and to regulate the outsourcing of harmful technology work. Sama disputed the claims about support and pay.

Arendse & 182 others v Meta Platforms, Inc & 3 others

Court or body
Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya, Nairobi, case no. Constitutional Petition E052 of 2023 (consolidated with Petition E071 of 2022)
Filed
March 2023
Parties
Kiana Monique Arendse and other former content moderators (around 185) v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd, Samasource Kenya EPZ Ltd t/a Sama, Majorel Kenya entities and Kenyan government respondents
Status
pending – court gave evidence directions (cross-examination of deponents, production of documents) on 2026-04-22; consolidated matter to proceed to a hearing on the merits (as of 22 April 2026)

Former Facebook moderators allege unlawful redundancy when Sama closed its Meta moderation work in 2023, discriminatory blacklisting from jobs with Meta's new contractor Majorel, and harmful working conditions; they reportedly seek about US$1.6 billion. In June 2023 the court issued interim orders restraining the terminations and requiring continued pay pending the case, and in September 2024 the Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by Meta and Sama.

Motaung v Samasource Kenya EPZ Ltd t/a Sama & 2 others

Court or body
Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya, Nairobi, case no. Petition E071 of 2022 (consolidated with Petition E052 of 2023)
Filed
May 2022
Parties
Daniel Motaung v. Samasource Kenya EPZ Ltd t/a Sama, Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd and Majorel Kenya Ltd, with human-rights bodies, unions and government departments as interested parties
Status
pending – applications to strike out the amended petition dismissed; consolidated petitions to proceed to a hearing on the merits (ruling 2026-04-22) (as of 22 April 2026)

A former Facebook content moderator alleges forced labour and human trafficking, union-busting, poor pay and conditions and inadequate mental-health support at Sama's Nairobi moderation hub serving Meta. Meta's objection that Kenyan courts lack jurisdiction was rejected by the court in February 2023 and Meta's appeal failed in the Court of Appeal in September 2024.

TELUS Digital AI Community

TELUS Digital AI Community: open roles and how it hires

Claims by 344 former content moderators against Meta, CCC Barcelona Digital Services and Telus (case names not published)

Court or body
Barcelona labour courts (per press reports; court not specified)
Filed
July 2025
Parties
344 former content moderators v. Meta Platforms, CCC Barcelona Digital Services and Telus
Status
pending – status not confirmed since 2025-07-09 (as of 9 July 2025)

The moderators allege severe mental-health injuries from exposure to extreme content and a serious breach of contract, claiming up to €100,000 each.

CCC Barcelona Digital Services challenge to the social-security classification of a content moderator's sick leave (case name not published)

Court or body
Juzgado de lo Social (Social Court), Barcelona – Judge Jesús Fuertes
Filed
date not published
Parties
CCC Barcelona Digital Services (a TELUS International subsidiary providing moderation for Meta) v. Spain's social-security authority, concerning a former content moderator
Status
judgment against CCC (2024-01-12); TELUS said it would appeal; status not confirmed since 2024-01-19 (as of 19 January 2024)

The court rejected CCC's challenge and upheld the classification of a moderator's psychological illness as a work accident rather than a common illness; the moderator's case was that the condition arose from reviewing violent content. Meta said it was not a party.

Criminal complaint (querella) concerning content moderators' psychological harm at CCC Barcelona Digital Services (case name not published)

Court or body
Juzgado de Instrucción nº 29 de Barcelona (investigating court)
Filed
date not published
Parties
A former content moderator, later joined by a further complaint from 29 former moderators v. CCC Barcelona Digital Services (the 2025 complaint also targets Meta)
Status
under judicial investigation (complaint admitted by February 2024); further complaint by 29 former moderators lodged June 2025 and pending admission; status not confirmed since 2025-06-26 (as of 26 June 2025)

The investigating judge admitted a complaint alleging that the facts could amount to offences against workers' rights, serious injury through gross negligence and offences against moral integrity, linked to moderators' exposure to violent content. These are allegations under investigation, not findings.

FISt challenge to the collective dismissal at the Telus/CCC Barcelona moderation centres (case name not published)

Court or body
Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice of Catalonia)
Filed
date not published
Parties
FISt union v. the Telus- and CCC Barcelona-linked employing companies, Meta, and the UGT and CCOO unions (as works-council signatories)
Status
hearing held September 2026; judgment awaited as of 2026-09-15 (as of 15 September 2026)

Challenges the April 2025 collective dismissal of more than 2,000 workers (2,062 of 2,114 cited) after Meta ended its Barcelona moderation contract, alleging it was an unlawful measure to shift work to other European countries. The companies say it was Meta that terminated the contracts.

Outlier

Outlier: open roles and how it hires

Schuster v. Scale AI, Inc.

Court or body
US District Court, Northern District of California, case no. 3:25-cv-00620
Filed
17 January 2025
Parties
Angela Schuster, Anna Pendleton, Howard Quattlebaum, Xavier Retana, Latoya Howard and Steve McKinney (proposed class) v. Scale AI, Inc. and Smart Ecosystem, Inc. (Outlier); Outlier AI, Inc. also appeared as a moving defendant
Status
dismissed – plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on 2026-08-10; case closed 2026-08-20 (as of 20 August 2026)

Proposed class action alleging that Outlier contributors were required to write and review disturbing and violent material without adequate warnings or psychological safeguards, claiming negligence and unfair business practices and seeking a medical-monitoring programme. Scale moved to compel arbitration in April 2025; the docket shows a voluntary dismissal rather than any ruling on the merits.

McKinney, et al. v. Scale AI, Inc., et al.

Court or body
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, case no. CGC-24-620481
Filed
10 December 2024
Parties
Steve McKinney and others, for a proposed class of California contributors and PAGA workers v. Scale AI, Inc., Smart Ecosystem, Inc. (operator of Outlier), HireArt, Inc., Alexandr Wang and other named individuals
Status
settled – preliminary approval granted; final approval hearing listed for 2026-10-30 (Dept. 304) (as of 23 October 2026)

Alleges that Scale AI misclassified Outlier and Remotasks contributors in California as independent contractors and so failed to pay minimum wage, overtime and other wage entitlements. A $12.5 million gross class and PAGA settlement (class period 10 December 2020 to 28 February 2026) has been preliminarily approved and, according to press reports, also resolves related San Francisco suits brought by Amber Rogowicz and Chloe Agape; the defendants deny wrongdoing and the settlement is not an admission of liability.

Ramey v. Scale AI, Inc.

Court or body
US District Court, Northern District of California, case no. 3:24-cv-06999
Filed
6 October 2024
Parties
Tyler Ramey (proposed class) v. Scale AI, Inc., Outlier AI, Inc. and HireArt, Inc.
Status
settled and dismissed – joint notice of settlement 2025-02-11; stipulated dismissal and case closed 2025-05-12 (as of 12 May 2025)

Proposed class action alleging that more than 500 workers were laid off in August 2024 without the 60 days' advance notice required by the federal and California WARN Acts. The parties notified the court of a settlement in February 2025; terms were not shown on the public docket.

Mercor

Mercor: open roles and how it hires

White v. Mercor.io Corporation

Court or body
US District Court, Northern District of Texas (San Angelo Division), case no. 6:26-cv-00201
Filed
8 May 2026
Parties
Heidi L. White (proposed nationwide class) v. Mercor.io Corporation d/b/a Mercor
Status
pending – Mercor has moved to compel arbitration; first amended complaint filed 2026-06-25; status not confirmed since 2026-07-31 (as of 31 July 2026)

Proposed class action alleging that Mercor misclassifies the 'experts' it supplies to AI developers as independent contractors, pointing to alleged control over hours and availability, pay rates, screen monitoring and 'performance offboarding', and seeking relief including employment-related benefits. Mercor has asked the court to send the claims to arbitration.

Deboni v. Mercor.io Corporation

Court or body
US District Court, Northern District of California (Judge William H. Orrick), case no. 3:26-cv-02821
Filed
1 April 2026
Parties
Christof Deboni, Elana Ramos and other contractors and applicants (proposed class; consolidated with related actions including Esson, Gill, Lofton, Massman, Ramos and Ananthula) v. Mercor.io Corporation
Status
pending – related data-breach suits consolidated (2026-05-19); consolidated amended complaint filed 2026-06-18; proceedings stayed pending mediation (2026-07-21) (as of 21 July 2026)

Consolidated proposed class action alleging that Mercor failed to protect the personal data of contractors and applicants exposed in a March 2026 cyber-attack linked to a compromise of the open-source LiteLLM software, reportedly including interview recordings, identity-verification data and screenshots from monitoring software. Claims include negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy and unfair competition. Mercor has said it was one of thousands of companies affected by the LiteLLM supply-chain attack.

Appen / CrowdGen

Appen / CrowdGen: open roles and how it hires

Unfair labour practice charges – Alphabet Workers Union-CWA v. Appen and Google (charge numbers not published in sources)

Court or body
US National Labor Relations Board
Filed
14 June 2023
Parties
Alphabet Workers Union-CWA, on behalf of six Google raters v. Appen and Google (named as joint employers)
Status
workers reinstated with back pay (announced 2023-06-23); NLRB outcome not confirmed since 2023-06-23 (as of 23 June 2023)

The union's charges alleged that six raters working on Google Search and Bard through Appen were dismissed in retaliation for speaking publicly about pay and conditions, were barred from discussing their dismissals, and were warned that wages could fall if they unionised. Appen told the workers on 23 June 2023 that they would be reinstated with back pay; no NLRB finding was located. Google said the matter was between the workers and Appen.

DataAnnotation

DataAnnotation: open roles and how it hires

Dominique DonJuan Cavalier II v. Surge Labs, Inc. dba DataAnnotation, et al.

Court or body
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, case no. CGC-25-625502
Filed
20 May 2025
Parties
Dominique DonJuan Cavalier II (proposed class) v. Surge Labs, Inc. dba DataAnnotation, Edwin Chen and Does 1–50
Status
pending – status not confirmed since 2025-05-20 (no later rulings or settlement found) (as of 20 May 2025)

Proposed class action alleging that Surge Labs (Surge AI / DataAnnotation) misclassifies data annotators as independent contractors and so fails to pay minimum wage, provide meal and rest breaks, pay wages on time, keep payroll records, issue accurate wage statements and reimburse business expenses under the California Labor Code. It also alleges unpaid off-the-clock training time.

Handshake AI

Handshake AI: open roles and how it hires

Boggs v. Stryder Corp.

Court or body
US District Court, Northern District of California (Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson), case no. 3:26-cv-07498
Filed
20 July 2026
Parties
Sean Boggs (proposed class and collective) v. Stryder Corp. d/b/a Handshake and Handshake AI Solutions, LLC
Status
pending – defendants' response deferred pending a first amended complaint; case management conference continued to 2026-12-24; further stipulated order entered 2026-10-22 (as of 22 October 2026)

Proposed class and collective action alleging that Handshake AI recruits students and graduates for AI-training work (data annotation, recorded conversations, video review and assessments) while misclassifying them as independent contractors. Claims include unpaid minimum wages and overtime under the FLSA and California Labor Code, unpaid assessments and onboarding, missed meal and rest breaks, unlawful deductions and unreimbursed expenses.

Scale AI

Scale AI: open roles and how it hires

US Department of Labor investigation into Scale AI (Fair Labor Standards Act compliance) – regulatory investigation, not a court case

Court or body
US Department of Labor
Filed
August 2024
Parties
US Department of Labor (investigating agency); Scale AI, Inc. (subject). Staffing partners HireArt and Upwork were reportedly also reviewed
Status
closed – investigation reported dropped (as of 9 May 2025)

TechCrunch and Reuters reported a Department of Labor probe into whether Scale AI complied with the Fair Labor Standards Act in its pay practices and treatment of contributors, active since at least August 2024. It was reported closed in May 2025; no findings were published and the reason for closure was not stated. Scale said it had worked with the department to explain its business model.

Corrections

If a case has moved on, or anything here is wrong, email [email protected] with a link to the court record or ruling and we'll update it. Last checked: 23 October 2026.