JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · Governance finding · severity 2 of 5
A job applicant filed a proposed class action against JPMorgan Chase in Massachusetts state court in April 2025, alleging that the bank's use of HireVue's artificial-intelligence-powered video interviews amounted to a lie-detector test barred by Massachusetts law, and that its job applications lacked the statutory lie-detector notice. JPMorgan removed the case to federal court. On 22 October 2025 the District of Massachusetts dismissed the lie-detector claim, finding the allegations that JPMorgan used HireVue to detect deception "wholly conclusory", and sent the notice claim back to state court for lack of federal standing. The applicant appealed; the First Circuit heard argument on 28 July 2026 and had not ruled as of October 2026. No court has found that JPMorgan used HireVue to assess honesty.
Record last reviewed Oct 21, 2026 · Markdown
Date
Institution
Country
United States
AI system
HireVue Interviews · Artificial-intelligence-powered one-way video interview and candidate screening tool · vendor: HireVue, Inc.
AI?
Described as AI by the institution or regulator
The institution, a regulator or a court called the system AI.
Category
Status
Court filing
Severity
2 of 5
Impact
No customers affected; the proposed class is job applicants asked to take HireVue Interviews. · Allegations only; no damages awarded, no finding that JPMorgan used HireVue to detect deception, and no regulatory action reported.
What happened?
The applicant applied to JPMorgan in or around September 2023 and again around December 2024 and completed a HireVue Interview as part of one or both applications, according to the federal court's summary of the amended complaint. He sued in Suffolk County Superior Court on 28 April 2025 under the Massachusetts Lie Detector Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 19B, on behalf of a putative class of applicants. JPMorgan removed the case to the District of Massachusetts on 16 June 2025 under the Class Action Fairness Act.[1]
The court described HireVue Interviews as "an artificial-intelligence-powered job candidate screening tool": candidates answer recorded questions online, their spoken answers are transcribed and assessed with artificial intelligence, and tone, expression and other cues are converted into an "employability score". The complaint alleged that questions about integrity, and HireVue's own marketing of its ability to assess honesty, made the interview a de facto lie-detector test given without the notice the statute requires on every Massachusetts job application.[1][3]
On 22 October 2025 Judge Brian E. Murphy granted JPMorgan's motion to dismiss in part. He held that the complaint showed at most that HireVue Interviews could be used to detect deception, not that JPMorgan used them for that purpose, and dismissed the lie-detector claim as "wholly conclusory". Without a plausible lie-detector test, the applicant lacked Article III standing for the notice claim, so the court remanded that claim to the Superior Court.[1]
The applicant appealed to the First Circuit (No. 25-2129), which heard argument on 28 July 2026. According to Courthouse News, the panel pressed his lawyer on what he was actually asked in the interview, and JPMorgan's lawyer argued that the complaint alleges "nothing about how JPMorgan itself used HireVue." No First Circuit decision had been published as of 21 October 2026.[2][3]
When did it happen?
- Apr 28, 2025
Proposed class action filed in Suffolk County Superior Court, Massachusetts.[1]
- Jun 16, 2025
JPMorgan removes the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (No. 25-11751).[1]
- Oct 22, 2025
District court dismisses the lie-detector claim and remands the notice claim to state court.[1]
- Nov 25, 2025
Appeal docketed in the First Circuit (No. 25-2129).[2]
- Jul 28, 2026
First Circuit hears oral argument; the panel does not indicate when it will rule.[3]
What was the impact?
- Customers: No customers affected; the proposed class is job applicants asked to take HireVue Interviews.[1][3]
- Other: Allegations only; no damages awarded, no finding that JPMorgan used HireVue to detect deception, and no regulatory action reported.[1][3]
Severity 2 of 5: A proposed class of job applicants and statutory claims only; the lie-detector claim was dismissed as conclusory and is on appeal, and no applicant harm or regulatory action has been found.
How did JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. respond?
JPMorgan has contested the suit in court: it removed the case, moved to dismiss, and on appeal argued through its counsel that the complaint "does not allege anything about JPMorgan's particular hire view interview: No questions that JPMorgan asked. Nothing about it at all." No public statement by JPMorgan or HireVue outside the court record was found as of 2026-10-21 (searched news coverage and the dockets).[1][3]
What was the outcome, and did regulators act?
Pending. The lie-detector claim stands dismissed in federal court subject to the First Circuit appeal argued on 28 July 2026; the notice claim was remanded to Suffolk County Superior Court. No settlement or change to JPMorgan's hiring process has been reported.[1][2][3]
Why was the HireVue lie-detector claim against JPMorgan dismissed?
The District of Massachusetts held in October 2025 that the complaint showed only that HireVue Interviews could be used to detect deception, not that JPMorgan used them for that purpose. Because the tool can serve many lawful purposes, the allegations were wholly conclusory, so the lie-detector claim failed.
Is HireVue an AI tool?
Yes, as the court described it. The federal order calls HireVue Interviews an artificial-intelligence-powered candidate screening tool that transcribes and scores spoken answers and analyses tone and expression into an employability score, drawing on the complaint's description of the product.
Did JPMorgan change how it uses HireVue after the lawsuit?
No change has been reported. JPMorgan has defended the case in court and won dismissal of the lie-detector claim in the district court; the appeal argued in July 2026 was undecided as of 21 October 2026, and the separate notice claim returned to Massachusetts state court.
When AI goes wrong at a bank, the next morning's brief says so.
when one of these regulators moves, the next morning's brief says so · six sourced stories · 7 am PT · free
plus every regulation, bank and agent page update, the morning after · leave any morning