A U.S. federal judge has denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit claiming the company’s pre-employment “Workstyle Assessment” violates Massachusetts law by functioning as an illegal lie detector test — a ruling with implications for any employer using AI-driven or algorithmic hiring assessments.
Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued the ruling Feb. 18, 2026, allowing the case brought by plaintiff Justin Korn to move forward.
What the lawsuit claims
Korn applied for three positions with Amazon in the summer of 2024. He alleges Amazon required him to complete its Workstyle Assessment without first providing written notice of his rights under Massachusetts’ Lie Detector Statute (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, s. 19B), which prohibits employers from requiring job applicants to take lie detector tests.
The assessment presents applicants with paired statements about their work habits and attitudes — such as “I rarely miss deadlines” versus “It makes me feel good when a plan works out” — and asks them to choose which best represents their style.
Amazon tells applicants the tool uses “mechanisms to detect suspicious test behavior and responses,” including attempts to “plagiarize, fabricate, or use outside assistance,” and warns that such behaviour could result in disqualification or legal action.
The legal question
Massachusetts law defines a lie detector test broadly as “any test utilizing a polygraph or any other device, mechanism, instrument or written examination, which is operated, or the results of which are used or interpreted by an examiner for the purpose of purporting to assist in or enable the detection of deception, the verification of truthfulness, or the rendering of a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty of an individual.”
Amazon argued the Workstyle Assessment is a personality test — not a lie detector — and that even if it qualified, there was no allegation Amazon actually used the results. The company also argued Korn lacked standing as a “person aggrieved” under the statute.
The court rejected all three arguments at this stage of proceedings.
How the court ruled
Judge Young found that Korn plausibly pleaded the assessment falls within the statute’s broad definition, and that the complaint does allege usage of the information collected. The court also found Korn qualifies as a “person aggrieved” under the law because he alleged both a notice violation and administration of a lie detector test — a combination that, unlike a notice violation alone, gives rise to appreciable harm.
The ruling drew on a November 2025 Massachusetts Superior Court decision, Ababio v. Nike Retail Services, which held that a notice violation alone is insufficient for standing, but noted a different result would likely follow if paired with actual lie detector test administration.
“A different conclusion is likely if a company violates the Lie Detector Statute by using lie detectors and failing to provide the required notice to applicants,” the Ababio court wrote, as quoted in the Young ruling.
The court also found Korn has a private right of action to enforce the notice provision when brought alongside a lie detector test administration claim.
What employers should know
The case is not a final ruling on the merits — Amazon has not been found liable. The motion to dismiss ruling simply means Korn’s claims are legally sufficient to proceed to discovery and, potentially, trial.
However, the decision signals that courts may scrutinize algorithmic and behavioural hiring tools under existing lie detector statutes, particularly where those tools include internal validation mechanisms described as detecting deceptive responses.
Under the Massachusetts statute, employers who violate the law face minimum statutory damages of $500 per violation, treble damages for lost wages or benefits, and an award of litigation costs and reasonable attorney fees.
The statute covers all applications for employment within Massachusetts and requires job applications to include clearly legible written notice that lie detector tests cannot be required as a condition of employment.
The case is Korn v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 25-10802-WGY (D. Mass.). More information available here.
