Care.com因夸大工作数量和收入，被诉向FTC支付850万美元和解金美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）对Care.com采取了法律行动，原因是该公司在其平台上关于照护工作的可用性和潜在收入的广告中存在误导性陈述。这些广告经常夸大了工作的数量和可能的收入，同时还使用户难以取消他们的订阅。根据和解协议，Care.com必须支付850万美元用于消费者退款，并且要求公司未来在做出收入声明时必须实事求是，并简化订阅取消流程。此举不仅保护了消费者权益，也促进了更为诚信的市场环境。
近日，美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）与在线护理服务平台Care.com达成了一项重要的和解协议。此次和解，Care.com将支付850万美元，用于赔偿因其误导性广告和复杂的取消流程受损的消费者。
FTC指控Care.com在其平台上发布的护理工作的可用性和潜在收入方面存在误导性信息。此外，Care.com的订阅取消流程复杂，迫使消费者无法轻易取消服务，从而违反了消费者权益。
对此，Care.com表示，尽管公司对FTC的指控持有异议，并有信心通过法律途径争取正当权益，但最终决定选择和解，以避免长时间的诉讼消耗公司资源。Care.com强调，和解不代表对FTC指控的认可，公司的主要目标仍是为美国家庭及看护工作者提供高质量的服务。
Care.com回应称，他们一直致力于透明和公平地展示工作机会和薪资信息，任何误导消费者的行为都不符合公司的业务宗旨。关于FTC提出的取消订阅问题，Care.com承诺将进一步简化流程，确保消费者能够轻松管理其订阅。
此外，此次事件也引起了业界对护理经济透明度和公平性的广泛关注。随着护理服务需求的增加，消费者对透明度和公平交易的要求也日益增强。业内专家指出，此类和解案例可能会推动行业内更多的自我监管和改进，从而提高服务质量和消费者满意度。
长期以来，Care.com已在全美各地提供服务，帮助数百万家庭找到合适的看护资源。公司表示，尽管面临FTC的指控和和解，但会继续扩展其服务，确保为更多家庭和看护工作者创造价值。
FTC方面也表达了对和解结果的满意，认为这是保护消费者权益的重要一步。FTC表示将继续监督市场，确保所有企业都能遵守公平竞争和诚实宣传的原则。
总之，此次和解不仅解决了Care.com与FTC之间的法律纠纷，也为护理服务行业树立了一个公平交易和消费者保护的标杆。未来，Care.com及同行业的其他公司可能需要在确保广告真实性和提供消费者友好服务方面做出更多努力。
附录Care.com 的回应新闻稿
CARE.COM RESPONSE TO FTC AGREEMENT
At Care.com, we put our members first, providing valuable tools and resources to help families find care and caregivers find jobs.
Though we were fully prepared to litigate for the next several years if necessary and confident in our position, we decided to enter into an agreement with the FTC to resolve this matter now and keep our focus on helping our customers.
This settlement is in no way a validation of the FTC’s claims. In fact, the settlement requires no material change in how Care.com serves those who use its platform.
At a time when the care economy is under assault, when families are draining their savings to afford child care, when caregivers are leaving the profession and when our growing senior population is facing astronomical long term care costs, it is disappointing that the FTC has chosen to attack trusted businesses who are part of the solution.
We have been in business nearly 20 years, available in every state and every town in America. That kind of longevity and scale comes from putting customers first every day; helping millions of families access the care they need and connecting millions of caregivers with meaningful, well-paying jobs.
In response to the FTC’s press release, we wanted to clarify a few facts:
The presentation of available job opportunities: We would not be in business for long if we manipulated optics, inflated statistics and attempted to trick our customers. We have found that many care seekers prefer to see a level of interest in their job post before committing to a premium membership, and our basic service tier offers this “try before you buy” opportunity. When a seeker sees the array of caregivers available, the commitment to premium membership—which enables seekers to contact and hire caregivers—follows naturally.
Earnings data: Care.com does not set rates and we never make promises about earnings. The data we provide about posted rates is based solely on what families say they are willing to pay, which varies significantly. Given the size of our platform, the potential earnings data we provide is at scale, and helps maintain a balanced and fair market for care.
Cancellation process: Families and caregivers can and do cancel memberships at any time and for a variety of reasons, including having successfully found a caregiver or a job. Our members can easily cancel if they wish, and we are further streamlining the process for doing so. Cancellation instructions for desktop and mobile users are included in every confirmation email upon sign up, accessible in our Help Center and available through our Customer Care support team which also offers 24 hour support via chat.
Given the care crisis in America, we believe our collective energy as a country should be on solutions, not nitpicking attacks. Care.com intends to keep our focus on what matters: American families and the hardworking caregivers who support them.
联邦贸易委员会
2024年08月26日
联邦贸易委员会
美国公民自由联盟对Aon人工智能招聘工具发起投诉美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）于2024年6月6日向美国联邦贸易委员会提交了针对Aon的投诉，挑战其候选人评估工具的合法性和偏见问题。ACLU指控Aon的评估工具，如Adept-15人格测试和vidAssess-AI视频评估工具，在市场上虚假宣称“无偏见”并能“增进多样性”，实际上这些工具可能基于种族和残疾（如自闭症和心理健康障碍）歧视求职者。此外，ACLU还提到，Aon的gridChallenge认知能力评估也显示出种族表现上的差异。针对这些指控，Aon回应称其评估工具遵循行业最佳实践和EEOC、法律及专业指导原则。ACLU此举揭示了在职场包容性与合规性之间的紧张关系，呼吁更严格审查这些广泛使用的人力资源技术工具。
在人力资源技术迅速发展的世界中，人工智能（AI）扮演着关键角色，承诺将简化流程并增强招聘实践的效率。然而，AI整合到这些实践中经常引发关于公平性和歧视的重大争议。最近的一个例子涉及到全球专业服务公司Aon，该公司的AI驱动的招聘评估工具因美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）的指控而受到审查。ACLU向美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）正式投诉Aon，突显了关于AI在招聘中应用的重要对话。
ACLU投诉的基础
ACLU指控Aon欺骗性地营销其招聘评估工具——特别是Adept-15性格评估、vidAssess-AI视频面试工具和gridChallenge认知能力测试——这些工具被宣称为无偏见并有助于提高工作场所的多样性。根据ACLU的说法，这些声明不仅具有误导性，而且可能违法，因为这些工具可能会基于种族和残疾（如自闭症、抑郁症和焦虑症）歧视求职者。这些工具使用算法和AI进行评估，根据候选人的积极性、情感意识和活力等特征进行评估，这些特征往往与工作表现无直接关联，且可能对某些残疾人群产生不成比例的影响。
Aon的辩护和行业实践
面对ACLU的指控，Aon为其产品辩护，声称这些工具是根据法律和专业指南（包括平等就业机会委员会EEOC设定的指南）设计的。Aon强调他们的工具是雇主用于做出更具包容性招聘决策的更广泛评估工具集的一部分。此外，Aon还指出其工具的效率和成本效益，认为这些工具比传统方法更少歧视性。
法律和道德含义
这场争议引发了关于使用AI进行就业的重要法律和道德问题。美国的法律，包括美国残疾人法案（ADA）和民权法案第七章，要求就业中的非歧视实践，涵盖从招聘到工作场所的所有方面。ACLU向FTC的投诉不仅提示可能违反这些法律，还将问题框定为不仅是就业歧视，还涉及消费者欺诈的问题。
更广泛的行业关注
ACLU对Aon的行动是更广泛运动的一部分，旨在审查用于招聘的AI工具。批评者认为，虽然这些技术提供了无偏见决策的潜力，但它们常常缺乏透明度，并可能无意中编码了其开发者或它们所训练的数据集的偏见。这一问题由于这些工具的专有性质而变得更加复杂，这阻碍了对它们的公平性和效率进行彻底的公众评估。
潜在后果和改革
ACLU对Aon的投诸可能对人力资源技术行业产生深远影响。如果FTC决定调查或制裁Aon，可能会导致对AI在招聘中的使用进行更严格的监管，可能为整个行业中类似工具的市场营销和实施设定先例。对依赖这些工具的公司而言，此案可能是重新评估其算法以确保符合反歧视法律的关键提示。
此外，此案凸显了技术专家、法律专家、政策制定者和民权倡导者之间需要进行持续对话的需求，以确保AI的进步能够增强而非破坏工作场所的平等。随着AI继续渗透到各种人力资源方面，制定维护反歧视和坚持道德原则的标准和最佳实践将至关重要。
结论
ACLU对Aon的投诉提醒我们在AI时代，创新、监管和权利之间的复杂相互作用。虽然AI为HR提供了变革的潜力，但它也需要谨慎处理以防止新形式的歧视。这个案例可能会成为AI在招聘伦理辩论中的一个里程碑，促使所有利益相关者考虑其技术选择的更广泛影响。随着法律程序的展开，人力资源技术行业将密切关注，意识到AI在招聘中的未来现在受到更审慎的公众和法律审视。
Unveiling Bias: The Controversy Over Aon's AI Hiring Tools and the ACLU's Challenge
In the rapidly evolving world of human resources technology, artificial intelligence (AI) plays a pivotal role, promising to streamline processes and enhance the efficiency of hiring practices. However, the integration of AI into these practices often sparks significant debate regarding fairness and discrimination. A recent example of this controversy involves Aon, a global professional services firm, whose AI-driven hiring assessment tools have come under scrutiny by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU's allegations against Aon, leading to a formal complaint to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), underline a critical dialogue about the implications of AI in hiring.
The Basis of the ACLU’s Complaint
The ACLU has accused Aon of deceptively marketing its hiring assessment tools — specifically the Adept-15 personality assessment, the vidAssess-AI video interviewing tool, and the gridChallenge cognitive ability test — as bias-free and conducive to improving diversity in the workplace. According to the ACLU, these claims are not only misleading but also potentially unlawful, as the tools may perpetuate discrimination against job seekers based on race and disabilities such as autism, depression, and anxiety. These tools, which utilize algorithmic processes and AI, are said to evaluate candidates on traits like positivity, emotional awareness, and liveliness, which are often not directly relevant to job performance and may disproportionately affect individuals with certain disabilities.
Aon’s Defense and Industry Practices
In response to the ACLU's claims, Aon has defended its products by asserting that they are designed in compliance with legal and professional guidelines, including those set forth by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Aon emphasizes that their tools are part of a broader array of assessments used by employers to make more inclusive hiring decisions. Moreover, Aon points to the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of their tools, arguing that they are less discriminatory than traditional methods.
Legal and Ethical Implications
The controversy raises significant legal and ethical questions about the use of AI in employment. U.S. laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, mandate non-discriminatory practices in employment, covering all aspects from hiring to workplace accommodation. The ACLU's complaint to the FTC, an agency tasked with protecting America’s consumers and competition, suggests potential violations of these laws, framing the issue not only as one of employment discrimination but also of consumer deception.
Broader Industry Concerns
The ACLU's actions against Aon are part of a larger movement to scrutinize AI tools used for hiring. Critics argue that while these technologies offer the potential for unbiased decision-making, they often lack transparency and can inadvertently encode the biases of their developers or the data sets they are trained on. This issue is compounded by the proprietary nature of these tools, which prevents a thorough public assessment of their fairness and effectiveness.
Potential Repercussions and Reforms
The outcome of the ACLU’s complaint could have far-reaching implications for the HR technology industry. A decision by the FTC to investigate or sanction Aon could lead to more stringent regulations governing the development and use of AI in hiring, potentially setting a precedent for how similar tools are marketed and implemented across the industry. For companies that rely on these tools, the case may serve as a critical prompt to reevaluate their algorithms to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
Moreover, this case highlights the need for ongoing dialogue between technologists, legal experts, policymakers, and civil rights advocates to ensure that advancements in AI serve to enhance, rather than undermine, workplace equality. As AI continues to permeate various aspects of human resources, the development of standards and best practices that safeguard against discrimination and uphold ethical principles will be crucial.
Conclusion
The ACLU's complaint against Aon is a reminder of the complex interplay between innovation, regulation, and rights in the age of AI. While AI offers transformative potentials for HR, it also demands a cautious approach to prevent new forms of discrimination. This case may well become a landmark in the ongoing debate over AI ethics in hiring, urging all stakeholders to consider the broader implications of their technological choices. As the legal proceedings unfold, the HR technology industry will be watching closely, aware that the future of AI in hiring is now under a more discerning public and legal microscope.
联邦贸易委员会
联邦贸易委员会
扫一扫
添加客服
