Kistler et al. v. Eightfold AI Inc. — applicant scores and consumer reports
AI candidate ranking / FCRA and California consumer reporting · California case
Two applicants allege that Eightfold’s candidate profiles and scores are consumer reports subject to federal and California disclosure requirements. These are the plaintiffs’ allegations, not established findings.
On September 24, 2026, Eightfold filed a statement of recent decision (ECF 46) supporting its motion to dismiss. The statement cites Bultemeyer v. CenturyLink, a Ninth Circuit opinion addressing willfulness under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This is a party’s supplemental authority filing, not a ruling on the dismissal motion. The reviewed RECAP copy lists no later merits disposition and may omit subsequent filings.
Case timeline
- · Filing
Eightfold submits a statement of recent decision citing Bultemeyer v. CenturyLink on FCRA willfulness in support of its motion to dismiss. This filing is not a ruling in Kistler.
Source document - · Ruling
Order filed vacating the August 4 hearing; the order permits a later hearing or a written decision.
Source document - · Filing
Applicants file a proposed class-action complaint in Contra Costa County Superior Court.
Source document
What the applicants allege
The complaint challenges applicant profiling and scoring under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and California consumer-reporting law. Whether the challenged outputs legally qualify as consumer reports is disputed.
Supplemental authority on the dismissal motion
After briefing on the dismissal motion, Eightfold filed a September 24, 2026 statement drawing the court’s attention to Bultemeyer v. CenturyLink, Inc., No. 24-6413. Eightfold identifies that Ninth Circuit opinion as addressing the standard for willfulness under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The statement supplies additional authority for Eightfold’s position; it does not decide whether Eightfold’s applicant reports are covered consumer reports or establish liability in this case.
Source coverage
Sources checked October 20, 2026. The complete three-page ECF 46 statement and public RECAP docket listing were reviewed. The mirror was last updated October 13 and lists September 24 as its last known filing. No later merits disposition appears in that copy, but the copy is not a complete current court docket. The attached Bultemeyer opinion was not reviewed here. Allegations remain allegations.
The federal case follows a California state filing. The hearing-vacating order was filed July 24 but bears a July 27 date in its signature block. This entry uses the filing date.
For related proceedings, see the California AI hiring lawsuit tracker and Mobley v. Workday, which raises different discrimination claims.
