OVI is an AI-native applicant tracking system (ATS) at ovi-me.com. You chat with AI agents Sora and Milo to source candidates, screen CVs, and run AI voice interviews in one workflow.

How do I sign in to OVI?

Sign in to OVI at https://ovi-me.com/auth with your work email or Google account. New teams can start a free trial from the homepage.

OVI AI refers to OVI's hiring agents — Milo for CV screening and Sora for sourcing — built into the AI-native ATS so recruiting teams chat to hire instead of clicking through traditional ATS screens.

OVI is the AI-native ATS where you chat to hire. Two AI agents — Sora for sourcing and Milo for screening — find candidates, score every CV, and run AI interviews, all controlled from a single chat.

What does "chat to hire" mean?

Chat to hire is OVI's AI-native hiring workflow: instead of clicking through a traditional ATS, you describe what you need in chat and OVI's AI agents source candidates, screen applicants, run AI interviews, and send outreach for you.

What is an AI-native ATS?

An AI-native ATS is an applicant tracking system built around AI agents rather than forms and pipelines. OVI's AI chat ATS lets recruiters source, screen, interview, and follow up through conversation — the agents do the work and surface only the candidates worth meeting.

Who are Sora and Milo?

Sora is OVI's AI sourcing agent — she scans LinkedIn, the open web, and your ATS history to find best-fit candidates and reach out in your name. Milo is OVI's AI screening agent — he scores every applicant against your rubric and surfaces a ranked shortlist.

How do OVI's AI interviews work?

OVI runs async AI interviews for every shortlisted candidate and returns scores, transcripts, and recordings — so your team only meets the people worth meeting.

AI Resume Screening in 2026: A Compliance Buyer's Guide to Platforms That Can (and Can't) Prove It

By Chris Weinmann, Founder, OVI

Published 2026-07-29

The AI hiring tools that promised to remove bias from recruiting are now at the center of the courtroom. On January 20, 2026, former EEOC chair Jenny R. Yang and nonprofit Towards Justice filed Kistler v. Eightfold AI in California state court, alleging the company scraped data on more than one billion workers, generated secret "Match Scores" on a zero-to-five scale, and auto-filtered candidates before any human reviewed their applications — all without the disclosures required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (Jones Walker LLP). The lawsuit exposes the core tension facing every employer using AI screening: vendors build opaque scoring systems, but employers bear the legal liability when those systems discriminate or fail to disclose (Jones Walker LLP).

The research makes the discrimination claims difficult to dismiss. A study by Wilson and Caliskan, funded by NIST and presented at AIES 2024, tested three AI resume screening models across roughly 40,000 paired comparisons. White-associated names were ranked higher 85.1% of the time. Black male names achieved a 0% selection rate when compared directly against white male names — a result that violates the EEOC's four-fifths rule by an eightfold margin (Pin.com).

For HR buyers evaluating AI screening vendors in 2026, the compliance landscape carries real financial consequences. NYC Local Law 144 imposes fines of $500 for a first violation and $1,500 per day for each day a non-compliant automated employment decision tool remains in use, per un-notified candidate. The law requires annual independent bias audits, public audit summary disclosure, and at least 10 business days' candidate notice before an AEDT is used (Warden AI). The EU AI Act, which classifies employment AI as high-risk, adds international compliance requirements for any platform processing candidates across borders (Gomokka).

What Buyers Should Demand Before Signing

The core problem is what legal experts call the "liability squeeze": employers bear legal responsibility for the algorithms inside vendor tools they cannot audit, while vendor contracts typically cap liability and disclaim compliance warranties (Jones Walker LLP). Only 23% of candidates believe AI screening is fair, according to PwC's 2025 Candidate Experience Survey (Gomokka).

Before signing with any AI screening vendor, HR buyers should verify four things:

Published independent bias audit. Not an internal fairness report — an audit conducted by a named third-party firm, with results publicly available.
FCRA-aligned disclosure practices. The Kistler lawsuit hinges on FCRA violations. Ask whether the vendor discloses its scoring methodology to candidates and provides adverse action notices.
Candidate notification workflow. NYC LL144 requires 10 business days' notice. Confirm the platform automates this rather than leaving compliance to your HR team.
Liability allocation in the contract. Read the indemnification clause. If the vendor disclaims compliance warranties entirely, you are assuming all regulatory risk.

Platform Compliance Comparison

Platform	Best For	Annual Price Range	Independent Bias Audit	Compliance Documentation
HireVue	High-volume video screening	$25K–$75K	Yes — DCI Consulting; removed facial analysis entirely in 2025	Annual fairness reports; 82% 12-month retention for recommended hires
Workday HiredScore	Enterprise skills matching	Enterprise (custom)	Yes — Secretariat Audit Group	Enterprise compliance documentation available on request
Eightfold AI	Talent intelligence, internal mobility	$80K–$250K	Yes — BABL AI	Reports 22–35% increase in underrepresented candidates at interview stage
Paradox	Candidate communication, scheduling	$15K–$60K	N/A — communication tool, not an assessment engine	Reduces applicant drop-off 40–60%; no direct screening bias exposure
Greenhouse	Structured hiring workflows	From $6,200/yr	Yes — published audit results	Built-in bias detection; interview scorecard standardization
Pymetrics	Campus and early-career hiring	$30K–$70K	Yes — peer-reviewed studies (Journal of Applied Psychology)	Audited for no adverse impact across race/gender

Note: Implementation costs typically add 2–3x the annual license in year one. Sources: AI Tool Box, Gomokka, Willo.

A Different Architecture Worth Examining

Notably absent from the lawsuit headlines are platforms that never built the opaque scoring systems at issue in the first place. OVI's screening agent Milo uses a transparent, configurable rubric where recruiters set the weights, context clues, and red flags — the opposite of the hidden Match Scores at the center of the Eightfold litigation. Because Milo conducts audio chats with transcript-only analysis — no biometric data, no facial recognition, no emotion detection — OVI's architecture meaningfully reduces AEDT exposure under laws like NYC LL144. The platform operates human-in-the-loop, meaning AI provides decision support but final hiring decisions remain with the recruiter. OVI's compliance posture aligns with GDPR, the EU AI Act, and SOC 2 Type II standards, with a full breakdown at its Trust & Compliance Center.

Five Questions to Ask Every AI Screening Vendor

Before your next contract renewal or new vendor evaluation, put these questions in writing:

Who conducted your most recent independent bias audit, and where are the results published? If the answer is "we handle fairness internally," that is not an audit.
Do you provide FCRA-compliant disclosures and adverse action notices to candidates? Post-Kistler, this is non-negotiable.
How does your platform handle NYC LL144 candidate notification requirements? The 10-business-day rule must be automated, not manual.
What does your indemnification clause cover if your tool produces a discriminatory outcome? If compliance risk sits entirely with the buyer, price that into your evaluation.
Can we access and configure the scoring model, or is it a black box? Transparency is now a legal requirement, not a feature request.

The 2026 legal landscape has changed the buying calculus for AI resume screening. The question is no longer which platform screens fastest — it is which platform can prove, in court if necessary, that its screening process is fair, disclosed, and auditable. HR leaders who fail to ask these questions before signing are not just accepting vendor risk. They are accepting legal liability for algorithms they have never seen.

FAQs

Q: What is NYC Local Law 144 and how does it affect AI resume screening?
A: NYC Local Law 144 requires employers using automated employment decision tools to conduct annual independent bias audits, publish audit summaries, and notify candidates at least 10 business days before using the tool. Fines start at $500 per first violation and $1,500 per day for continued non-compliance, per un-notified candidate.

Q: Which AI screening platforms have published independent bias audits?
A: As of mid-2026, platforms with published third-party bias audits include HireVue (audited by DCI Consulting), Workday HiredScore (Secretariat Audit Group), Eightfold AI (BABL AI), Greenhouse (published audit results), and Pymetrics (peer-reviewed studies in the Journal of Applied Psychology).

Q: What is the Kistler v. Eightfold AI lawsuit?
A: Filed on January 20, 2026, the lawsuit alleges Eightfold AI scraped data on over one billion workers, assigned secret "Match Scores" on a 0–5 scale, and auto-filtered candidates before human review — violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by operating as an undisclosed consumer reporting agency.

Q: How much do AI resume screening tools cost?
A: Enterprise pricing varies widely. Paradox ranges from $15K–$60K per year, HireVue from $25K–$75K, Pymetrics from $30K–$70K, and Eightfold AI from $80K–$250K. Greenhouse starts at approximately $6,200 per year. Implementation costs in year one can add 2–3x the annual license fee.

Q: What questions should HR buyers ask AI screening vendors before signing a contract?
A: Key questions include: Who conducted the most recent independent bias audit and where are the results published? Does the platform provide FCRA-compliant candidate disclosures? How are NYC LL144 notification requirements handled? What does the indemnification clause cover? Can the scoring model be accessed and configured by the buyer?

What is NYC Local Law 144 and how does it affect AI resume screening?

NYC Local Law 144 requires employers using automated employment decision tools to conduct annual independent bias audits, publish audit summaries, and notify candidates at least 10 business days before using the tool. Fines start at $500 per first violation and $1,500 per day for continued non-compliance, per un-notified candidate.

Which AI screening platforms have published independent bias audits?

As of mid-2026, platforms with published third-party bias audits include HireVue (DCI Consulting), Workday HiredScore (Secretariat Audit Group), Eightfold AI (BABL AI), Greenhouse (published audit results), and Pymetrics (peer-reviewed studies).

What is the Kistler v. Eightfold AI lawsuit?

Filed January 20, 2026, the lawsuit alleges Eightfold AI scraped data on over 1 billion workers, assigned secret Match Scores, and auto-filtered candidates before human review — violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

How much do AI resume screening tools cost?

Paradox $15K-$60K/yr, HireVue $25K-$75K/yr, Pymetrics $30K-$70K/yr, Eightfold AI $80K-$250K/yr. Greenhouse starts at ~$6,200/yr. Implementation adds 2-3x the annual license in year one.