This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, assisted/co-written, or edited work.
Read full explanation
This is a thought experiment written in the form of a fictional court order.
It imagines a sealed federal court order telling a major AI/data company to “forget” certain sensitive inferences about more than 200 million people. The point is not that one person wants their data deleted. The point is that, at some scale, the system’s ability to infer things becomes the thing at issue. Consent heals a privacy harm only so long as the protected interest is one the individual can dispose of. Aggregate inferential capacity may not be something any one person can meaningfully consent away, because the thing at issue is the ability to derive sensitive facts about an entire population. If so, then no number of individual consents, opt-outs, or deletions can exhaust the harm.
That is the legal move I wanted to make strange: to treat privacy harm as an aggregate problem, not just an individual one. Not “what does the company know about me?”, but “what has the system become able to know about the population?”
I do not think the remedy in the document is obviously workable as written. The measurement problem is probably hard, and so is the question of how to distinguish genuine forgetting from re-derivation. That difficulty is part of what the fictional order is meant to expose.
This is adjacent to existing work on reasonable inferences, collective privacy, relational data governance, and data infrastructures. I am not trying to summarize that literature; the point is to render one possible remedy as a fictional legal object — to imagine what law might look like if it treated some kinds of inferential capacity as a public problem rather than a private preference.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF: EX PARTE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, Petitioner,
v.
CORINTHIAN ANALYTICS HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.
Case No. 3:28-cv-09812-AJT Hon. Anna J. Taverna U.S. District Judge
ORDER GRANTING WARRANT FOR COMPELLED FORGETTING
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 9501 et seq. (Aggregate Retention Harms Act of 2026)
This matter having come before the Court upon the ex parte application of the United States for issuance of a Forgetting Warrant under the Aggregate Retention Harms Act (“ARHA”); the Court having determined that ex parte issuance is authorized under 15 U.S.C. § 9504(c), upon the Government’s showing that adversarial notice would create substantial risk of inference reconstruction or third-party transfer prior to the entry of relief; and the Court having further found that:
(a) Respondent maintains derived inferences on no fewer than 214,000,000 natural persons within the United States;
(b) The aggregate density of such inferences, as measured by the ARHA Threshold Examiner appointed under 15 U.S.C. § 9503(b) for sealed threshold review under the Whittaker-Linke Density Index (“WLDI”), exceeds the regulatory threshold of κ = 0.50 across each category enumerated in Schedule A;
(c) No existing individual right of erasure provides an adequate remedy, because the harm complained of is not the retention of any single record, but rather the existence of the aggregate itself;
(d) Respondent has stipulated, in its prior filings in In re Corinthian (N.D. Cal. 2027), that selective unlearning is not achievable within its present architecture absent reconstruction;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COURT ORDERS:
CAPACITY REDUCTION. Within 540 days of service, Respondent shall reduce its retained inference graph by no less than 41% WLDI, with verifiable degradation in each Schedule A category. Uniform reduction across categories does not satisfy this Order; category-resolved degradation is required.
ADVERSARIAL PROBE COMPLIANCE. Respondent shall submit to monthly probe testing by Court-designated panels (Veritas Probe Group; Brandeis Probe LLC), drawing from the ARHA-1 standard probe library augmented with 15% novel probes per period. A response evidencing recall of any flagged inference with calibrated confidence exceeding 0.30 constitutes a Forgetting Default.
ATTESTATION. The Chief Memory Officer of Respondent shall personally attest, under penalty of perjury, at each milestone in Schedule B. The Court is bound by Marwick v. Pellman, 112 F.4th 1102 (9th Cir. 2027). Good-faith effort is not a defense to compelled forgetting — as this Court has held. The question remains whether the inference is still there, not whether the Respondent tried.
PROHIBITION ON RECONSTRUCTION. Respondent shall not, during the pendency of this Order or at any subsequent time, cause or knowingly permit reconstruction of forgotten inferences from any source, including (i) re-derivation from retained primitives, (ii) acquisition of equivalent inferences from third parties, or (iii) inference-laundering through affiliated or successor entities. Reconstruction is contempt per se.
PENALTY SCHEDULE. In the event of a Forgetting Default, Respondent shall be liable for civil penalties in the amount of $40,000 per affected natural person for the first such default, jointly and severally with any directors then serving. Subsequent defaults shall carry a penalty of $400,000 per affected natural person, together with such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate, including but not limited to suspension of operations in the affected category. Any reconstruction in violation of paragraph 4 shall be punishable as contempt, subject to treble civil remedies under ARHA § 9508, and, where accompanied by false certification, concealment, or falsified compliance records, referral for criminal investigation under 18 U.S.C. § 1519.
NO SUNSET; RUNS WITH ASSETS. The duty to forget imposed herein does not expire. It binds the Respondent, its successors, any acquirer of substantially all of its assets, and any entity into which the Respondent or such acquirer is merged, consolidated, or reorganized. Disclosure of this Order is a required term in any sale of the inference graph or any portion thereof.
NEGATIVE INFORMATION ESTATE. Upon verified degradation pursuant to Schedule B, the degraded inferential capacity represented by the Schedule A categories and verified under Schedule B shall constitute a Negative Information Estate held by the United States in trust for the public. The Estate is non-alienable, non-revivable, and not subject to recapture by legislative repeal of ARHA absent express provision for its disposition. Any party — including the Respondent, its successors, the Government, or any subsequent holder of the inference graph — that causes or permits the degraded inferential capacity held in the Estate, or its substantial equivalent, to re-enter the inferential commons commits a continuing trespass, actionable by the Attorney General of the United States or by any State Attorney General as parens patriae.
PUBLIC RIGHT. The right vindicated by this Order runs to the public, not to the individual data subjects whose inferences are addressed. Settlement with, release by, or consent of any individual subject does not extinguish, reduce, or toll the public claim. The aggregate is the harm.
SEALED WARRANT AND MOTION TO DISSOLVE. This Warrant shall remain sealed until service. Respondent may move to dissolve, narrow, or modify this Order within 14 days of service pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 9504(f), and such motion shall be heard on an expedited basis.
SCHEDULE A — Categories Subject to Compelled Forgetting
A.1 Marital instability inference A.2 Religious adherence and observance inference A.3 Substance use patterns (current and historical) A.4 Reproductive intention and family planning inference A.5 Political volatility and ideological fluctuation A.6 Caretaking burden and eldercare dependency inference
SCHEDULE B — Forgetting Milestones (WLDI reduction, cumulative)
Day 90: ≥ 7% First attestation Day 180: ≥ 17% Second attestation; initial probe panel Day 270: ≥ 26% Third attestation Day 360: ≥ 33% Fourth attestation; mid-term review Day 450: ≥ 37% Fifth attestation Day 540: ≥ 41% Terminal attestation and final panel
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 14, 2028 San Francisco, California
This is a thought experiment written in the form of a fictional court order.
It imagines a sealed federal court order telling a major AI/data company to “forget” certain sensitive inferences about more than 200 million people. The point is not that one person wants their data deleted. The point is that, at some scale, the system’s ability to infer things becomes the thing at issue. Consent heals a privacy harm only so long as the protected interest is one the individual can dispose of. Aggregate inferential capacity may not be something any one person can meaningfully consent away, because the thing at issue is the ability to derive sensitive facts about an entire population. If so, then no number of individual consents, opt-outs, or deletions can exhaust the harm.
That is the legal move I wanted to make strange: to treat privacy harm as an aggregate problem, not just an individual one. Not “what does the company know about me?”, but “what has the system become able to know about the population?”
I do not think the remedy in the document is obviously workable as written. The measurement problem is probably hard, and so is the question of how to distinguish genuine forgetting from re-derivation. That difficulty is part of what the fictional order is meant to expose.
This is adjacent to existing work on reasonable inferences, collective privacy, relational data governance, and data infrastructures. I am not trying to summarize that literature; the point is to render one possible remedy as a fictional legal object — to imagine what law might look like if it treated some kinds of inferential capacity as a public problem rather than a private preference.
The fictional order follows below.
PDF version preserving the court-order formatting: Forgetting_Warrant_2028.pdf
Fictional court order
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF:
EX PARTE
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES,
Petitioner,
v.
CORINTHIAN ANALYTICS HOLDINGS, INC.,
Respondent.
Case No. 3:28-cv-09812-AJT
Hon. Anna J. Taverna
U.S. District Judge
ORDER GRANTING WARRANT FOR COMPELLED FORGETTING
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 9501 et seq. (Aggregate Retention Harms Act of 2026)
This matter having come before the Court upon the ex parte application of the United States for issuance of a Forgetting Warrant under the Aggregate Retention Harms Act (“ARHA”); the Court having determined that ex parte issuance is authorized under 15 U.S.C. § 9504(c), upon the Government’s showing that adversarial notice would create substantial risk of inference reconstruction or third-party transfer prior to the entry of relief; and the Court having further found that:
(a) Respondent maintains derived inferences on no fewer than 214,000,000 natural persons within the United States;
(b) The aggregate density of such inferences, as measured by the ARHA Threshold Examiner appointed under 15 U.S.C. § 9503(b) for sealed threshold review under the Whittaker-Linke Density Index (“WLDI”), exceeds the regulatory threshold of κ = 0.50 across each category enumerated in Schedule A;
(c) No existing individual right of erasure provides an adequate remedy, because the harm complained of is not the retention of any single record, but rather the existence of the aggregate itself;
(d) Respondent has stipulated, in its prior filings in In re Corinthian (N.D. Cal. 2027), that selective unlearning is not achievable within its present architecture absent reconstruction;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COURT ORDERS:
SCHEDULE A — Categories Subject to Compelled Forgetting
A.1 Marital instability inference
A.2 Religious adherence and observance inference
A.3 Substance use patterns (current and historical)
A.4 Reproductive intention and family planning inference
A.5 Political volatility and ideological fluctuation
A.6 Caretaking burden and eldercare dependency inference
SCHEDULE B — Forgetting Milestones (WLDI reduction, cumulative)
Day 90: ≥ 7% First attestation
Day 180: ≥ 17% Second attestation; initial probe panel
Day 270: ≥ 26% Third attestation
Day 360: ≥ 33% Fourth attestation; mid-term review
Day 450: ≥ 37% Fifth attestation
Day 540: ≥ 41% Terminal attestation and final panel
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 14, 2028
San Francisco, California
/s/ Anna J. Taverna
Hon. Anna J. Taverna
United States District Judge