Real Safety AI Foundation / Research

Disability, Accessibility, and Civil Rights

Executive Function Trumps the Executives: Assistive AI, Chat Records, and the Three Parties Who Want Them

Publisher: Real Safety AI Foundation

Working draft. Not peer reviewed.

Written
October 2026
Version
v0.7
Pages
77
Download PDFPlain language slides (PDF)Export BibTeXExport RIS

Abstract

People who use generative AI tools as assistive technology leave a record of work their own minds would otherwise hold. Three parties now want that record: the other side in a lawsuit, the executive branch, and the executives at the user's company. A federal court has ordered an AI provider to preserve and produce chat logs by the million, a magistrate judge has issued a warrant for user data identified by the text of a prompt, and the leading workplace AI products let an employer retain, search, and export everything employees type and everything the tool says back. For a person with executive function limits, as in ADHD, the chat record holds the plans, sequences, and working notes that other people keep in their heads, so the question of who may read it is a question about who may read what the person has thought. This Article argues that existing law already reaches all three readers. Work product doctrine protects an unrepresented litigant's case preparation done with AI, and the Stored Communications Act generally bars providers from answering a civil opponent's subpoena for contents. The warrant requirement of Carpenter and Chatrie governs government access, and the indispensability reasoning behind those decisions applies with greater force to a tool that supports a person's executive function, though no court has yet said so. The Article also marks where the law stops: a valid warrant still reaches the stored transcript, and the wiretap statute's heightened protections attach only to live interception. Against employers, the Americans with Disabilities Act's limits on medical examinations and disability-related inquiries do the work. An AI system built to notice signs of mania or psychosis, used by an employer that requires the tool, administers a test designed at least in part to reveal mental illness, and no routine practice of reading those appraisals across a workforce can meet the business necessity defense. The Article makes three contributions. It applies the medical examination doctrine to the appraisals AI tools write into workplace logs, a question no court has decided. It names the disclosure trap, in which a protection available only to those who prove disability forces a disabled person to give up one privacy to keep another, and the universal design paradox, in which the most accommodating workplace leaves the undisclosed disabled worker least protected. And it shows why the general rules that protect everyone must carry the load, with disability law supplying the reason those rules have to stay strong.

Keywords

  • disability law
  • Fourth Amendment
  • generative AI
  • disclosure trap
  • universal design paradox
  • work product doctrine
  • Stored Communications Act
  • ADA medical examinations
  • workplace surveillance
  • ADHD
  • pro se litigants
  • emotion recognition

Plain language slides

First slide of the plain language summary of Executive Function Trumps the Executives: Assistive AI, Chat Records, and the Three Parties Who Want ThemOpen the 47-slide summary (PDF)

Suggested citation

Gilly, Travis. "Executive Function Trumps the Executives: Assistive AI, Chat Records, and the Three Parties Who Want Them." Real Safety AI Foundation Working Draft, October 2026. https://realsafetyai.org/research/cs8mr2/

References (277)

  1. 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630 (2026).
  2. AARP v. EEOC, 267 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.D.C. 2017).
  3. AARP v. EEOC, 292 F. Supp. 3d 238 (D.D.C. 2017).
  4. Ajunwa, I. (2023). The quantified worker: Law and technology in the modern workplace. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316888681
  5. Ajunwa, I., Crawford, K., & Schultz, J. (2017). Limitless worker surveillance. California Law Review, 105, 735–776. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BR8MF94
  6. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213.
  7. Anderson v. Furst, No. 2:17-cv-12676, 2019 WL 2284731 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2019).
  8. Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976).
  9. Anthropic. (2026a). Custom data retention controls for Claude Enterprise. Claude Help Center. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/10440198
  10. Anthropic. (2026b). How long do you store my organization’s data? Anthropic Privacy Center. https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/7996866-how-long-do-you-store-my-organization-s-data
  11. Anthropic. (n.d.-a). Compliance API. Claude Docs. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/manage-claude/compliance-api
  12. Anthropic. (n.d.-b). Compliance API FAQ. Claude Docs. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/manage-claude/compliance-faq
  13. Anthropic. (n.d.-c). System prompts. Claude Docs. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/release-notes/system-prompts/overview
  14. Anthropic. (n.d.-d). Thinking. Claude Docs. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/thinking
  15. Anzaldua v. Northeast Ambulance & Fire Protection District, 793 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2015).
  16. Assini v. Hayward, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26086 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty. June 4, 2026).
  17. Atiku, S., Owolanke, K., & Olakotan, O. (2026). Assessing the reliability, accuracy, and relevance of artificial intelligence speech recognition for clinical documentation: A scoping review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 32(4), Article e70460. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70460
  18. Babb v. Maryville Anesthesiologists P.C., 942 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2019).
  19. Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.65
  20. Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakcı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2025). Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(26), Article e2422633122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422633122
  21. Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc., 767 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2014).
  22. Bennett, C. L., Brady, E., & Branham, S. M. (2018). Interdependence as a frame for assistive technology research and design. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 161–173). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3234695.3236348
  23. Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967).
  24. Bernhardt, A., Kresge, L., & Suleiman, R. (2023). The data-driven workplace and the case for worker technology rights. ILR Review, 76(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/00197939221131558
  25. Blitz, M. J. (2010). Freedom of thought for the extended mind: Cognitive enhancement and the Constitution. Wisconsin Law Review, 2010, 1049–1118.
  26. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971).
  27. Bohach v. City of Reno, 932 F. Supp. 1232 (D. Nev. 1996).
  28. Boudreau v. Lussier, 901 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2018).
  29. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886).
  30. Boyd, K. L., & Andalibi, N. (2023). Automated emotion recognition in the workplace: How proposed technologies reveal potential futures of work. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579528
  31. Brandt, Å., Jensen, M. P., Søberg, M. S., Andersen, S. D., & Sund, T. (2020). Information and communication technology-based assistive technology to compensate for impaired cognition in everyday life: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 15(7), 810–824. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1765032
  32. Brewster, T. (2025, October 20). DHS ordered OpenAI to share user data in first known warrant for ChatGPT prompts. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/10/20/openai-ordered-to-unmask-writer-of-prompts/
  33. Brouwers, E. P. M., Joosen, M. C. W., van Zelst, C., & Van Weeghel, J. (2020). To disclose or not to disclose: A multi-stakeholder focus group study on mental health issues in the work environment. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 30(1), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-019-09848-z
  34. Brown, L. X. Z., Shetty, R., & Richardson, M. (2020). Algorithm-driven hiring tools: Innovative recruitment or expedited disability discrimination? Center for Democracy & Technology. https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Full-Text-Algorithm-driven-Hiring-Tools-Innovative-Recruitment-or-Expedited-Disability-Discrimination.pdf
  35. Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 612 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2010).
  36. California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115.
  37. Canela, C., Buadze, A., Dube, A., Eich, D., & Liebrenz, M. (2017). Skills and compensation strategies in adult ADHD – A qualitative study. PLOS ONE, 12(9), Article e0184964. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184964
  38. Carik, B., Ping, K., Ding, X., & Rho, E. H. (2025). Exploring large language models through a neurodivergent lens: Use, challenges, community-driven workarounds, and concerns. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3701194
  39. Carney v. Emory University, Nos. 24-13070, 24-13738 (11th Cir. Apr. 15, 2026) (per curiam) (unpublished).
  40. Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018).
  41. Cash v. Smith, 231 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2000).
  42. Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design (Version 2.0). North Carolina State University. https://design.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/principles-of-universal-design.pdf
  43. Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17 (1973).
  44. Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (U.S. June 29, 2026), 146 S. Ct. 2193.
  45. Chirayath, G., Premamalini, K., & Joseph, J. (2025). Cognitive offloading or cognitive overload? How AI alters the mental architecture of coping. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1699320. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1699320
  46. Cicerone, K. D., Goldin, Y., Ganci, K., Rosenbaum, A., Wethe, J. V., Langenbahn, D. M., Malec, J. F., Bergquist, T. F., Kingsley, K., Nagele, D., Trexler, L., Fraas, M., Bogdanova, Y., & Harley, J. P. (2019). Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: Systematic review of the literature from 2009 through 2014. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 100(8), 1515–1533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2019.02.011
  47. City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010).
  48. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. J. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7
  49. Commonwealth v. Kurtz, Nos. 98, 99 & 100 MAP 2023 (Pa. Dec. 16, 2025).
  50. Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 24-cv-03811-EKL (SVK) (N.D. Cal.), ECF Nos. 318 (Mar. 25, 2025), 377 (May 23, 2025) (reported at 2025 WL 1482734), 478 (Oct. 12, 2025), 545 (Dec. 18, 2025).
  51. Conroy v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 333 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2003).
  52. Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., No. 3:21-cv-00933 (D. Conn.), ECF Nos. 970 (May 18, 2026), 977 (June 3, 2026).
  53. Cooley LLP. (2025, February 21). Gone but not forgotten: Federal laws still apply despite AI guidance disappearance act. https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2025/2025-02-21-gone-but-not-forgotten-federal-laws-still-apply-despite-guidance-disappearance-act
  54. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).
  55. Corvite, S., Roemmich, K., Rosenberg, T. I., & Andalibi, N. (2023). Data subjects’ perspectives on emotion artificial intelligence use in the workplace: A relational ethics lens. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579600
  56. Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322 (1973).
  57. Cripe v. City of San Jose, 261 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001).
  58. Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 965 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
  59. Curcio v. United States, 354 U.S. 118 (1957).
  60. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
  61. Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-05275-JAK-AJR, ECF No. 88 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026).
  62. Doussard, C., Garbe, E., Morales, J., & Billion, J. (2024). Universal design for the workplace: Ethical considerations regarding the inclusion of workers with disabilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 194(2), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05582-y
  63. Dunn v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-01249 (D. Colo. Aug. 31, 2026).
  64. Durand, G., Arbone, I.-S., & Wharton, M. (2020). Reduced organizational skills in adults with ADHD are due to deficits in persistence, not in strategies. PeerJ, 8, Article e9844. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9844
  65. EEOC v. C.R. England, Inc., 644 F.3d 1028 (10th Cir. 2011).
  66. EEOC v. Flambeau, Inc., 846 F.3d 941 (7th Cir. 2017).
  67. EEOC v. Orion Energy Systems, Inc., 208 F. Supp. 3d 989 (E.D. Wis. 2016).
  68. EEOC v. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, 700 F.3d 1044 (7th Cir. 2012).
  69. EEOC v. U.S. Steel Corp., No. 10-1284, ECF No. 264 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 20, 2013).
  70. Emens, E. F. (2008). Integrating accommodation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 156(4), 839.
  71. European Commission. (2025). Commission guidelines on prohibited artificial intelligence practices established by Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act) (C(2025) 5052 final). https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/112367
  72. Facebook, Inc. v. State, 254 N.J. 329 (2023).
  73. Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hunter), 4 Cal. 5th 1245 (2018).
  74. Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court (Touchstone), 10 Cal. 5th 329 (2020).
  75. Farahany, N. A. (2023). The battle for your brain: Defending the right to think freely in the age of neurotechnology. St. Martin’s Press.
  76. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26.
  77. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801.
  78. Fellers, C., & Storm, B. C. (2026). Offloading reduces prospective memory learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001630
  79. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).
  80. Flagg ex rel. Bond v. City of Detroit, 252 F.R.D. 346 (E.D. Mich. 2008).
  81. Fraser v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 352 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2003), as amended (Jan. 20, 2004).
  82. Fredenburg v. Contra Costa County Department of Health Services, 172 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 1999).
  83. Fry v. Fry, No. 26-cv-3469-KSM, ECF No. 61 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2026).
  84. Garante per la protezione dei dati personali [Italian Data Protection Authority], Provvedimento n. 342 del 14 maggio 2026, doc. web n. 10255494 (It.). https://www.garanteprivacy.it/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/docweb/10255494
  85. Gentry, T., Kriner, R., Sima, A., McDonough, J., & Wehman, P. (2015). Reducing the need for personal supports among workers with autism using an iPod Touch as an assistive technology: Delayed randomized control trial. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(3), 669–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2221-8
  86. Gerlich, M. (2025a). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006
  87. Gerlich, M. (2025b). Correction: Gerlich, M. AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(9), Article 252. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15090252
  88. Gero, K. I., Long, T., Schnitzler, C., & Dhillon, P. (2026). From planning to revision: How AI writing support at different stages alters ownership. In Proceedings of the 2026 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 2903–2934). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3800645.3813003
  89. Gillespie, A., Best, C., & O’Neill, B. (2012). Cognitive function and assistive technology for cognition: A systematic review. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617711001548
  90. Giri, D., Brady, E., & Marathe, M. (2026). Navigating neurodivergence with AI chatbots: Benefits, tensions, and implications for HCI. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–8). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3791334
  91. Glazko, K., Cha, J., Lewis, A., Kosa, B., Wimer, B. L., Zheng, A., Zheng, Y., & Mankoff, J. (2025). Autoethnographic insights from neurodivergent GAI “power users.” In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–19). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713670
  92. Goodman, S. M., Buehler, E., Clary, P., Coenen, A., Donsbach, A., Horne, T. N., Lahav, M., MacDonald, R., Michaels, R. B., Narayanan, A., Pushkarna, M., Riley, J., Santana, A., Shi, L., Sweeney, R., Weaver, P., Yuan, A., & Morris, M. R. (2022). LaMPost: Design and evaluation of an AI-assisted email writing prototype for adults with dyslexia. In Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 1–18). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3517428.3544819
  93. Google. (n.d.). Retain Gemini app messages with Vault. Google Workspace Admin Help. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://knowledge.workspace.google.com/vault/retention/retain-gemini-app-messages-with-vault
  94. Great American Assurance Co. v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp., 669 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
  95. Griffin v. Steeltek, Inc., 160 F.3d 591 (10th Cir. 1998).
  96. Hamraie, A., & Fritsch, K. (2019). Crip technoscience manifesto. Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience, 5(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.28968/cftt.v5i1.29607
  97. Harrison v. Benchmark Electronics Huntsville, Inc., 593 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2010).
  98. Hately v. Watts, 917 F.3d 770 (4th Cir. 2019).
  99. Hennekam, S., Walkowiak, E., & Szulc, J. (2026). How neurodivergent workers use and make sense of assistive technologies: Implications for the AMO model and digital masking. New Technology, Work and Employment, 41(2), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.70025
  100. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947).
  101. Hodgson, T., & Coiera, E. (2016). Risks and benefits of speech recognition for clinical documentation: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 23(e1), e169–e179. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv152
  102. Hoffman, S. (2017). Big data and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hastings Law Journal, 68(4), 777.
  103. Holmes v. Petrovich Development Co., 191 Cal. App. 4th 1047 (2011).
  104. In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litigation, 293 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2002).
  105. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 19, 2002 & August 2, 2002, 318 F.3d 379 (2d Cir. 2003).
  106. In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, No. 25-md-3143 (S.D.N.Y.), ECF Nos. 33 (May 13, 2025), 271 (June 26, 2025), 629 (Oct. 9, 2025), 734 (Nov. 7, 2025), 896 (Dec. 2, 2025), 1021 (Jan. 5, 2026), 1419 (Mar. 9, 2026); No. 23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 688 (June 20, 2025).
  107. In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, No. 5:25-cv-06911-EKL, ECF No. 68 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2026).
  108. In re Request for Order Requiring Facebook, Inc. to Produce Documents & Things, 923 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
  109. In re Search of Records Associated with OpenAI/ChatGPT Account Searches That Is Stored at Premises Controlled by OpenAI OpCo, LLC, No. 2:25-mj-00305-KFW (D. Me. Sept. 12, 2025).
  110. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996).
  111. Jakesch, M., Bhat, A., Buschek, D., Zalmanson, L., & Naaman, M. (2023). Co-writing with opinionated language models affects users’ views. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–15). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581196
  112. Jameson, T. P., Grabarski, M. K., Morales Arana, M., & Santos, P. A. (2026). What makes work sustainable for adults with ADHD? Interpreting workplace strain and support through Reddit data. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, Article 1820248. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1820248
  113. Jang, J., Moharana, S., Carrington, P., & Begel, A. (2024). “It’s the only thing I can trust”: Envisioning large language model use by autistic workers for communication assistance. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–18). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642894
  114. Johnson, J., Lewis, A., Mankoff, J., & Banner, O. (2026). “I don’t trust it, but I use it”: Navigating trust, privacy, and identity in disabled people’s use of generative AI. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–17). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3790652
  115. Juror Number One v. Superior Court, 206 Cal. App. 4th 854 (2012).
  116. Kalmanovich-Cohen, H., & Stanton, S. J. (2025). Moving beyond disclosure: Rethinking universal support for neurodivergent employees. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1547877. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1547877
  117. Kannan v. Apple Inc., No. 17-cv-07305-EJD-VKD, 2019 WL 5589000 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2019).
  118. Karraker v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 411 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2005).
  119. Kerr, O. S. (2004). A user’s guide to the Stored Communications Act, and a legislator’s guide to amending it. George Washington Law Review, 72, 1208. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.421860
  120. Kerr, O. S. (2009). The case for the third-party doctrine. Michigan Law Review, 107(4), 561–601. https://doi.org/10.36644/mlr.107.4.case
  121. Kerr, O. S. (2012). The mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment. Michigan Law Review, 111(3), 311–353. https://doi.org/10.36644/mlr.111.3.mosiac
  122. Kerr, O. S. (2019). Compelled decryption and the privilege against self-incrimination. Texas Law Review, 97(4), 767–799.
  123. Khankin v. CSL Behring, L.L.C., No. 5:24-cv-04030-SVK, ECF No. 32 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2025).
  124. Khokhar & Miller v. British Telecommunications plc, Case Nos. 8001308/2025 & 8001309/2025 (Employment Tribunals (Scotland) Dec. 24, 2025).
  125. Kim, P. T. (2017). Data-driven discrimination at work. William & Mary Law Review, 58(3), 857–936.
  126. King, C. (2016). Learning disability and the extended mind. Essays in Philosophy, 17(2), 38–68. https://doi.org/10.7710/1526-0569.1556
  127. Koenecke, A., Choi, A. S. G., Mei, K. X., Schellmann, H., & Sloane, M. (2024). Careless Whisper: Speech-to-text hallucination harms. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 1672–1681). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658996
  128. Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002).
  129. Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Authority, 691 F.3d 809 (6th Cir. 2012).
  130. Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Authority, 763 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2014).
  131. Kurtzhals v. County of Dunn, 969 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2020).
  132. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
  133. Kysow, K., Park, J., & Johnston, C. (2017). The use of compensatory strategies in adults with ADHD symptoms. ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders, 9(2), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12402-016-0205-6
  134. Lee v. City of Columbus, 636 F.3d 245 (6th Cir. 2011).
  135. Lee, H.-P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025). The impact of generative AI on critical thinking: Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort and confidence effects from a survey of knowledge workers. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–22). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713778
  136. Leonel v. American Airlines, Inc., 400 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2005).
  137. Leung, J., Johnson, B., McRae, K., Fong, S., Gonzalez, P. C., McClure-Thomas, C., Sun, T., Kern, N., Wong, Y. M., Liu, R., & Chan, G. C. K. (2026). Generative large language models in mental health care settings: Systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR AI, 5, Article e87730. https://doi.org/10.2196/87730
  138. Lho, S. K., Park, S.-C., Lee, H., Oh, D. Y., Kim, H., Jang, S., Jung, H. Y., Yoo, S. Y., Park, S. M., & Lee, J.-Y. (2025). Large language models and text embeddings for detecting depression and suicide in patient narratives. JAMA Network Open, 8(5), Article e2511922. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.11922
  139. Lindsay, S., Osten, V., Rezai, M., & Bui, S. (2021). Disclosure and workplace accommodations for people with autism: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 43(5), 597–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1635658
  140. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).
  141. Luis v. Zang, 833 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2016).
  142. Ma, R., Zhang, B. Z., Chen, C., Yang, F., Huang, X., Wu, H., & Li, L. (2026). “I use ChatGPT to humanize my words”: Affordances and risks of ChatGPT to autistic users. In Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Interactive Health Conference (pp. 1–8). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3786579.3804943
  143. MacArthur, C. A., & Cavalier, A. R. (2004). Dictation and speech recognition technology as test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407100103
  144. Maday v. Public Libraries of Saginaw, 480 F.3d 815 (6th Cir. 2007).
  145. Marks, M. (2021). Emergent medical data: Health information inferred by artificial intelligence. UC Irvine Law Review, 11(4), 995–1065.
  146. Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (1927).
  147. Matre, M. E. (2023). An exploratory study on the use of speech-to-text technology as a writing modality for pupils with low writing achievement in Norwegian lower secondary education. Nordic Journal of Literacy Research, 9(2), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.23865/njlr.v9.5347
  148. McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 (1971), vacated in part sub nom. Crampton v. Ohio, 408 U.S. 941 (1972).
  149. McIntosh, C. K., Hyde, S. A., Bell, M. P., & Yeatts, P. E. (2023). Thriving at work with ADHD: Antecedents and outcomes of proactive disclosure. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 42(2), 228–247. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2022-0033
  150. McKenzie v. McNeil, No. 4:11cv45-RH/WCS, 2012 WL 695108 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2012).
  151. Melson-Silimon, A., Harris, A. M., Shoenfelt, E. L., Miller, J. D., & Carter, N. T. (2019). Personality testing and the Americans With Disabilities Act: Cause for concern as normal and abnormal personality models are integrated. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.156
  152. Menoken v. Dhillon, 975 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
  153. Michaelian, K. (2012). Is external memory memory? Biological memory and extended mind. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(3), 1154–1165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.04.008
  154. Microsoft. (n.d.-a). Data security posture management for AI. Microsoft Learn. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/purview/dspm-for-ai
  155. Microsoft. (n.d.-b). Search for and delete Copilot data in eDiscovery. Microsoft Learn. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/purview/ediscovery-search-and-delete-copilot-data
  156. Microsoft. (n.d.-c). Use communication compliance to detect risky interactions in Copilot. Microsoft Learn. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/purview/communication-compliance-copilot
  157. Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Order on Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 360 (June 22, 2026); Corrected Fourth Amended Complaint, ECF No. 393 (July 10, 2026).
  158. Moëll, B., Kollberg, L., Nasri, B., Lindefors, N., & Kaldo, V. (2015). Living SMART: A randomized controlled trial of a guided online course teaching adults with ADHD or sub-clinical ADHD to use smartphones to structure their everyday life. Internet Interventions, 2(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2014.11.004
  159. Monteith, S., Glenn, T., Geddes, J., Whybrow, P. C., & Bauer, M. (2022). Commercial use of emotion artificial intelligence (AI): Implications for psychiatry. Current Psychiatry Reports, 24(3), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-022-01330-7
  160. Morgan v. V2X, Inc., No. 25-cv-01991-SKC-MDB, ECF No. 65 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2026).
  161. Mossige, M., Arendal, E., Kongskov, L., & Svendsen, H. B. (2023). How do technologies meet the needs of the writer with dyslexia? An examination of functions scaffolding the transcription and proofreading in text production aimed towards researchers and practitioners in education. Dyslexia, 29(4), 408–425. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1752
  162. Mullin v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 162 F.4th 1296 (11th Cir. 2025).
  163. Nagareda, R. A. (1999). Compulsion “to be a witness” and the resurrection of Boyd. New York University Law Review, 74(6), 1575–1659.
  164. Nawara v. Cook County, 132 F.4th 1031 (7th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, No. 25-303 (U.S. Dec. 15, 2025).
  165. Negro v. Superior Court, 230 Cal. App. 4th 879 (2014).
  166. Nelson, L. M., & Reynolds, T. W., Jr. (2015). Speech recognition, disability, and college composition. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(2), 181–197.
  167. New York Civil Practice Law and Rules 3101(d).
  168. Newman, K., Snay, S., Endres, M., Parikh, M., & Begel, A. (2025). Disclosure of neurodivergence in software workplaces: A mixed methods study of forum and survey perspectives. In Proceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 1–17). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3663547.3746334
  169. O’Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal. App. 4th 1423 (2006).
  170. Ohm, P. (2019). The many revolutions of Carpenter. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 32(2), 357–416.
  171. OpenAI. (2025a, September 2). Building more helpful ChatGPT experiences for everyone. https://openai.com/index/building-more-helpful-chatgpt-experiences-for-everyone/
  172. OpenAI. (2025b, October 27). Strengthening ChatGPT’s responses in sensitive conversations. https://openai.com/index/strengthening-chatgpt-responses-in-sensitive-conversations/
  173. OpenAI. (2026a, January 8). Enterprise privacy at OpenAI. https://openai.com/enterprise-privacy/
  174. OpenAI. (2026b, May 14). Helping ChatGPT recognize context in sensitive conversations. https://openai.com/index/chatgpt-recognize-context-in-sensitive-conversations
  175. OpenAI. (n.d.-a). Chat and file retention policies in ChatGPT. OpenAI Help Center. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://help.openai.com/en/articles/8983778
  176. OpenAI. (n.d.-b). Reasoning models. OpenAI API Docs. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/reasoning
  177. O’Reilly, M., Kiyimba, N., Tromans, S., & Drewett, A. (2025). The experiences of mid-career disclosure of autism and ADHD diagnosis by UK police officers and staff. Policing: An International Journal, 48(5), 1031–1046. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-03-2025-0047
  178. Oscarsson, M., Nelson, M., Rozental, A., Ginsberg, Y., Carlbring, P., & Jönsson, F. (2022). Stress and work-related mental illness among working adults with ADHD: A qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry, 22, Article 751. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04409-w
  179. Pena v. City of Flushing, 651 F. App’x 415 (6th Cir. 2016).
  180. Penney, J. W. (2017). Internet surveillance, regulation, and chilling effects online: A comparative case study. Internet Policy Review, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2017.2.692
  181. Pennsylvania State Troopers Ass’n v. Miller, 621 F. Supp. 2d 246 (M.D. Pa. 2008).
  182. Pinto, A., Quilter, E., Vasikaran, J., Koerner, S., Chimonas, T., Nielsen, E. E., Marshall, P., & O’Hara, K. (2025). “A little bit of a life raft”: Exploring the use and experiences of ChatGPT as a support tool among adults with ADHD. In Proceedings of the 37th Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 50–67). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3764687.3764713
  183. Port Authority Police Benevolent Ass’n v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 283 F. Supp. 3d 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).
  184. Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 529 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2008), reh’g en banc denied, 554 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2009), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010).
  185. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), 2024 O.J. (L 2024/1689) 1, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 July 2026, 2026 O.J. (L 2026/1744).
  186. Richards, N. M. (2008). Intellectual privacy. Texas Law Review, 87(2), 387–445.
  187. Richards, N. M. (2013). The dangers of surveillance. Harvard Law Review, 126, 1934–1965.
  188. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014).
  189. Roberts, J. L. (2015). Protecting privacy to prevent discrimination. William & Mary Law Review, 56(6), 2097.
  190. Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, Inc., 124 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 1997).
  191. Roemmich, K., Schaub, F., & Andalibi, N. (2023). Emotion AI at work: Implications for workplace surveillance, emotional labor, and emotional privacy. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–20). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580950
  192. Romualdez, A. M., Heasman, B., Walker, Z., Davies, J., & Remington, A. (2021). “People might understand me better”: Diagnostic disclosure experiences of autistic individuals in the workplace. Autism in Adulthood, 3(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0063
  193. Rudolph v. Harrison Metropolitan Housing Authority, No. 2:25-cv-00757, ECF No. 78 (S.D. Ohio May 28, 2026).
  194. Santuzzi, A. M., Waltz, P. R., Finkelstein, L. M., & Rupp, D. E. (2014). Invisible disabilities: Unique challenges for employees and organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7(2), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12134
  195. Schmitz v. Asman, No. 2:20-cv-00195-DJC-CKD (PS), ECF No. 371 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2024).
  196. See v. Illinois Gaming Board, 29 F.4th 363 (7th Cir. 2022).
  197. Seff v. Broward County, 691 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2012).
  198. Settanni, M., Quilghini, F., Toscano, A., & Marengo, D. (2025). Assessing the accuracy and consistency of large language models in triaging social media posts for psychological distress. Psychiatry Research, 351, Article 116583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2025.116583
  199. Shih v. Petal Card, Inc., 565 F. Supp. 3d 557 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
  200. Simmons v. Adams, No. 1:10-cv-01259-LJO-SKO, 2013 WL 2995274 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2013).
  201. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968).
  202. Simshaw, D. (2022). Access to A.I. justice: Avoiding an inequitable two-tiered system of legal services. Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 24, 150–226.
  203. Sipior, J. C., Ward, B. T., Lombardi, D. R., & Appelbaum, D. A. (2026). Emotion artificial intelligence in the workplace: United States legal considerations. Information Systems Management, 43(2), 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2026.2616521
  204. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944).
  205. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
  206. Snap, Inc. v. Superior Court, 103 Cal. App. 5th 1031 (2024), review granted, No. S286267 (Cal. Sept. 18, 2024).
  207. Solove, D. J. (2002). Digital dossiers and the dissipation of Fourth Amendment privacy. Southern California Law Review, 75, 1083–1167.
  208. Solove, D. J. (2013). Introduction: Privacy self-management and the consent dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 126, 1880–1903.
  209. Spiel, K., Hornecker, E., Williams, R. M., & Good, J. (2022). ADHD and technology research – Investigated by neurodivergent readers. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–21). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517592
  210. Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965).
  211. Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 990 A.2d 650 (N.J. 2010).
  212. Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service, 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994).
  213. Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2713.
  214. Stuntz, W. J. (1995). Privacy’s problem and the law of criminal procedure. Michigan Law Review, 93(5), 1016. https://doi.org/10.2307/1289989
  215. Sullivan v. River Valley School District, 197 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 1999).
  216. Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 671 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2011).
  217. Taheri, A., Tazike, M., Carrington, P., & Bigham, J. P. (2026). When disability disclosure travels: Memory, privacy, and contextual integrity in conversational AI [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.22720
  218. Tate Group Automotive, LLC v. Legacy Automotive Capital, LLC, No. 25-BC11B-0020 (Tex. Bus. Ct. June 3, 2026) (minute entry).
  219. Taylor v. City of Shreveport, 798 F.3d 276 (5th Cir. 2015).
  220. Taylor v. Renown Health, 675 F. App’x 676 (9th Cir. 2017).
  221. Tazike, M., Deldari, E., & Jamshidi, I. (2026). “It helps me start”: How ADHD users adapt AI tools in everyday life. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–5). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3772363.3798808
  222. Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004).
  223. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 192.5.
  224. Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004).
  225. Thornburg, E. G. (1991). Rethinking work product. Virginia Law Review, 77(8), 1515–1548. https://doi.org/10.2307/1073332
  226. Tice v. Centre Area Transportation Authority, 247 F.3d 506 (3d Cir. 2001).
  227. Timmons, K. C. (2021). Pre-employment personality tests, algorithmic bias, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Penn State Law Review, 125(2), 389–452.
  228. Tobin, J., Nelson, P., MacDonald, B., Heywood, R., Cave, R., Seaver, K., Desjardins, A., Jiang, P.-P., & Green, J. R. (2024). Automatic speech recognition of conversational speech in individuals with disordered speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 67(11), 4176–4185. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00045
  229. Tokson, M. (2022). The aftermath of Carpenter: An empirical study of Fourth Amendment law, 2018–2021. Harvard Law Review, 135, 1790–1852.
  230. Tran, S., Lu, H., Slaughter, I., Herman, B., Dangol, A., Fu, Y., Chen, L., Gebreyohannes, B., Howe, B., Hiniker, A., Weber, N., & Wolfe, R. (2025). Understanding privacy norms around LLM-based chatbots: A contextual integrity perspective. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 8(3), 2522–2534. https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v8i3.36735
  231. Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100 v. New York City Transit Authority, 341 F. Supp. 2d 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), appeal dismissed, 505 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2007).
  232. Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-03223-AMO, 2024 WL 3748003 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2024).
  233. Tym v. Cerno, No. 1:25-cv-00498-JCH-JMR, ECF No. 46 (D.N.M. Apr. 22, 2026).
  234. U.S. Constitution, amendment IV.
  235. U.S. Department of Justice. (2020). Justice manual (§ 9-7.100). https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-7000-electronic-surveillance
  236. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Final Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 65,296 (Dec. 20, 2018).
  237. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2000). Enforcement guidance on disability-related inquiries and medical examinations of employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Notice 915.002). https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical-examinations-employees
  238. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2002). Enforcement guidance on reasonable accommodation and undue hardship under the ADA (Notice 915.002). https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-reasonable-accommodation-and-undue-hardship-under-ada
  239. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2022). The Americans with Disabilities Act and the use of software, algorithms, and artificial intelligence to assess job applicants and employees (EEOC-NVTA-2022-2). Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20250126174302/https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/americans-disabilities-act-and-use-software-algorithms-and-artificial-intelligence
  240. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-11611, ECF No. 206 (D. Mass. Apr. 6, 2026).
  241. United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2011).
  242. United States v. Blocker, No. 25-1536 (7th Cir. May 5, 2026).
  243. United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2005) (en banc).
  244. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984).
  245. United States v. Gratkowski, 964 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2020).
  246. United States v. Heppner, No. 25 Cr. 503 (JSR), ECF No. 27 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026).
  247. United States v. Hood, 920 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2019).
  248. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000).
  249. United States v. Johnson, No. 24-3162 (D.C. Cir. July 31, 2026).
  250. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012).
  251. United States v. Kim, No. 25 Cr. 359 (LGS), ECF No. 56 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2026).
  252. United States v. Lowers, No. 24-4546 (4th Cir. Mar. 10, 2026).
  253. United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
  254. United States v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2011).
  255. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976).
  256. United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975).
  257. United States v. Onori, 535 F.2d 938 (5th Cir. 1976).
  258. United States v. Soybel, 13 F.4th 584 (7th Cir. 2021).
  259. United States v. Szymuszkiewicz, 622 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2010), as amended (Nov. 29, 2010).
  260. United States v. Trader, 981 F.3d 961 (11th Cir. 2020).
  261. United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010).
  262. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981).
  263. Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 253 F.R.D. 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
  264. Villanueva v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, No. 2:24-cv-00125, ECF No. 112 (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2026).
  265. Vodden, T., & Arman, G. (2025). When work context limits opportunities for career sustainability: Insights from people diagnosed with ADHD in adulthood. Career Development International, 30(7), 796–811. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-03-2025-0155
  266. von Schrader, S., Malzer, V., & Bruyère, S. (2014). Perspectives on disability disclosure: The importance of employer practices and workplace climate. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 26(4), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-013-9227-9
  267. Wang, G., Wang, W., Yang, D., & Ren, J. (2026). Generative AI, cognitive offloading, and learner agency in higher education: A scoping review. Behavioral Sciences, 16(7), Article 1150. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16071150
  268. Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-12333 (E.D. Mich.), ECF Nos. 94 (Feb. 10, 2026), 108 (Mar. 23, 2026).
  269. Watson v. City of Miami Beach, 177 F.3d 932 (11th Cir. 1999).
  270. Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2523.
  271. Wispr Flow. (2026). Data controls. https://wisprflow.ai/data-controls
  272. Wispr Flow. (n.d.). Delete transcripts and history in Wispr Flow. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://docs.wisprflow.ai/articles/4465314211-delete-transcripts-and-history-in-wispr-flow
  273. Wright, C. A., Miller, A. R., & Marcus, R. L. (n.d.). Federal practice and procedure (Vol. 8, § 2024). Thomson Reuters.
  274. Zhao, X., Chen, X., & Cox, A. (2026). Exploring the affordances of generative AI in academic writing for students with disabilities: A bottom-up approach to inform GenAI policies. Policy Futures in Education, 24(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103251395436
  275. Zhou, L., Blackley, S. V., Kowalski, L., Doan, R., Acker, W. W., Landman, A. B., Kontrient, E., Mack, D., Meteer, M., Bates, D. W., & Goss, F. R. (2018). Analysis of errors in dictated clinical documents assisted by speech recognition software and professional transcriptionists. JAMA Network Open, 1(3), Article e180530. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0530
  276. Zhu, Q., Li, X., Dong, Y., Chang, P., & Fan, M. (2026). Not all cognitive offloading is equal: Distinguishing dependent and autonomous offloading to generative AI. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, Article 1878629. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1878629
  277. Zhu, T., Tashevski, A., Taquet, M., Azis, M., Jani, T., Broome, M. R., Kabir, T., Minichino, A., Murray, G. K., Nour, M. M., Singh, I., Fusar-Poli, P., Nevado-Holgado, A., McGuire, P., & Oliver, D. (2026). Evaluating large language models for assessment of psychosis risk. npj Digital Medicine, 9, Article 554. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-026-02928-4

All research