In an age increasingly defined by artificial intelligence, the ability to appeal decisions made by machines is becoming not just a legal issue but a moral imperative. Around the world, automated systems are making life-altering judgments about people’s jobs, housing, healthcare, education, access to credit, immigration status, and public benefits. These decisions are often swift, opaque, and made without human intervention. When a worker is terminated based on an algorithm’s judgment or a gig worker is suddenly deactivated without explanation, what recourse remains? In the past, these matters would be handled face-to-face or reviewed by a human supervisor. Today, they are increasingly determined by mathematical models that cannot be questioned, explained, or held accountable for their outcomes. The result is not just inefficiency or inconvenience. It is often a profound injustice, with far-reaching effects.
The evolution of AI decision-making has been swift and largely unregulated. Initially deployed to assist humans in analyzing patterns, AI now autonomously makes decisions with material consequences. In some sectors, employers use algorithmic tools to evaluate employees' productivity and decide whom to promote or dismiss. In housing, landlords use machine learning models to screen potential tenants, sometimes denying people based on flawed or biased data. In healthcare, insurance companies are increasingly relying on predictive models to authorize or deny treatments, with potentially life-threatening implications. These systems promise efficiency. Still, they operate in ways that are hard to audit or understand. The opacity of their logic and the absence of transparency in their operation create a situation where individuals affected by these decisions have no meaningful ability to object or seek redress.
There is a growing global movement advocating for what is now being called the right to a human appeal. This principle insists that no decision affecting an individual’s rights, livelihood, or dignity should be made solely by a machine. It demands that people have access to a transparent, timely, and fair process to contest automated outcomes. At its core, this right is about restoring agency to individuals in systems that increasingly treat them as data points rather than human beings. It affirms that technology must serve society, not override its foundational values of justice, fairness, and accountability.
When automation fails, the consequences can be catastrophic. In the United States, the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency deployed a system called MiDAS that falsely accused tens of thousands of people of fraud based on algorithmic triggers. Over 90 percent of the accusations were later found to be inaccurate, but not before individuals had their wages garnished, savings seized, and lives upended. Many could not reach a human to explain their circumstances and had no idea how the system had arrived at its conclusion. Some spent years fighting to clear their names. The scandal not only exposed the dangers of over-reliance on automation but also the devastating human toll of removing the right to challenge machine-made decisions.
The European Union has taken early steps to address these concerns. Under Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation, individuals have the right not to be subjected to decisions based solely on automated processing that produce legal or similarly significant effects. This includes decisions like hiring, loan approvals, or access to social services. But this right is often poorly understood and inconsistently enforced. The European Data Protection Board has emphasized the importance of meaningful human involvement in such decisions. That means a human being who understands the context, has the authority to change the outcome, and does not merely rubber-stamp what the algorithm has concluded. The human in the loop must be trained, informed, and accountable.
In the United States, progress has been slower. The White House’s Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, released in 2022, outlines a vision for protecting individuals from the harm caused by automated systems. Among its key principles is the right to human alternatives and fallback options. It states that individuals should be able to opt out of computerized systems in favor of a human decision-maker, especially in high-stakes scenarios. However, without federal legislation or enforcement, this remains an aspirational document rather than a binding law. Some states have taken initiative. California’s Civil Rights Council has recently finalized rules that hold employers accountable for discrimination resulting from the use of AI in hiring. These regulations require transparency, human oversight, and proper documentation, signaling a growing recognition that automated decisions must be subject to scrutiny and redress.
But even where laws exist, their impact is only as strong as the appeal processes that accompany them. A right to human review means little if the appeal system is slow, inaccessible, or designed to frustrate users. Appeals must be easy to file, and the people reviewing them must be empowered to act. Organizations must explain how decisions were made, what data was used, and why specific outcomes occurred. Reviewers should be able to reverse decisions, correct errors, and consider new evidence as needed. Most importantly, they must be independent and equipped to question the system’s logic.
For this to work, institutions must design AI systems with appeal processes embedded from the start. They must be proactive, not reactive. Every algorithm that could lead to rejection, punishment, or exclusion should include a parallel human process. The architecture of accountability must run in parallel with the code itself. This includes keeping detailed records, explaining model outputs in plain language, and auditing decisions for bias and fairness. Institutions must also train their staff to understand the limitations of AI, recognize when it makes mistakes, and take corrective action promptly.
There is also a cultural change required. Too often, workers and citizens defer to machines as objective or neutral. But no algorithm is neutral. Every model reflects the values and biases of the people who built it and the data on which it was trained. Believing that a machine is inherently fairer or more accurate than a human being is not just naive—it is dangerous. It allows institutions to hide behind automation, evade responsibility, and silence dissent. It fosters a culture of technocracy, where decisions are made without dialogue and power is concentrated in systems that few fully understand.
The right to a human appeal is not just a legal protection. It is a democratic necessity. It is about ensuring that human dignity is not compromised in the pursuit of efficiency. It is about reminding society that every person deserves to be heard, that no one should be subject to punishment or exclusion without recourse, and that machines must serve justice, not replace it. Technology should augment human decision-making, not obscure it. It should empower individuals, not disempower them. It should be guided by values, not replace them.
As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly sophisticated and more deeply embedded in everyday life, the stakes will continue to grow higher. There will be more opportunities for errors, a higher risk of harm, and more chances for people to be excluded from systems they cannot see or understand. If society does not build robust, accessible, and enforceable appeal mechanisms now, it may soon be too late. Once trust is broken, once harm is widespread, the cost of rebuilding fairness will be enormous.
The moment to act is now. Legislators must enshrine the right to appeal to human judgment in law. Regulators must enforce it with rigor. Organizations must implement it in practice, not just on paper. And individuals must demand it in every interaction where a machine holds sway over their fate. Ultimately, a fair society is not defined by the speed or efficiency of its technology. It is measured by how well it treats those who have been wronged. And in the age of algorithms, justice begins with the right to be heard by another human being.
Add comment
Comments