As medical behemoth Mayo Clinic continues to lead the way in incorporating artificial intelligence into clinical settings, a new lawsuit alleges that staff at the world-renowned hospital system had been skirting AI compliance rules and masking concerning error rates.
The civil action comes from former Mayo Clinic research director and AI compliance lead Traci Tamiko Eto, who sued her employer this week in federal court, saying she was retaliated against and fired after she blew the whistle on how the hospital’s rush to incorporate AI into their operations put patient care and privacy at risk.
Artur Davis, Eto’s attorney and a partner with the national law firm HKM Employment Attorneys LLC, told MPR News that this is a significant case, especially since it concerns the intimate and confidential patient data hospitals like Mayo Clinic have in their possession.
“If [people] care about the notion that AI has to be handled in a responsible manner, with integrity, and there have to be rules and guidelines, this is a case that should matter to you,” Davis said.
Davis said Mayo Clinic has 21 days to respond to the legal filing.
Mayo Clinic told MPR News Wednesday it is committed to the responsible development and deployment of AI and that privacy, security, transparency and compliance are embedded in its processes.
“Our research and clinical innovation are conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and we remain steadfast in upholding the trust patients place in us and respecting their privacy,” said Andrea Kalmanovitz, Mayo’s communications director. “Mayo Clinic does not comment on pending or active litigation.”
Incorporating AI into patient care has been one of Mayo Clinic’s top priorities in recent years. The renowned medical provider has been developing and using AI to reach more patients and find new ways to better diagnose, treat, predict and prevent disease. In 2019, the health care system launched Mayo Clinic Platform, an initiative to drive health care innovation through the use of AI and other digital products, and just last month Mayo Clinic announced it is partnering with Microsoft to develop an advanced AI model dedicated to health care.
But the lawsuit claims Eto “uncover[ed] a disturbing set of flaws in Mayo’s AI compass” that prioritized speed over accuracy and put patient care and privacy at risk while manipulating data critical in the institution’s medical research.
What does the lawsuit allege?
According to the lawsuit, Eto joined Mayo Clinic in 2023 as Director of Research Operations — entrusted by the company to quarterback its AI compliance efforts and ensure the technology is being used in an ethical way that’s respectful of patient privacy and safety.
Eto first raised issues to her supervisors about the Mayo Clinic Platform in early 2024, concerned that certain de-identification processes of patient data had not been properly reviewed by Mayo’s internal review process.
Eto alleged in the lawsuit her supervisor did not challenge the substance of her concerns but “insisted that having the de-identification process revisited by [the review board] would jeopardize the pace on ongoing research projects, which in turn would compromise Mayo’s competitive advantage.”
Over the course of the next year, Eto flagged multiple instances in which her supervisors would bypass review processes, including those outlined by federal regulatory standards. For example, in July 2024, Eto alleges that her colleague authorized approval of a high-risk investigational medical device to perform cardiac surgery, even though the procedure had not undergone review by the Institutional Review Board.
A few months later, Eto voiced concerns about MAYA, Mayo’s digital assistant tool. The lawsuit alleges that the MAYA team mischaracterized its outcomes, deleted unfavorable results and used an “unsanctioned” software device that compromised data security. Ten separate whistleblower reports raised similar concerns, including allegations that study investigators were trying to disguise a 67 percent error rate.
“There’s a process, there’s a set of rules, there is a set of guidelines, and there are a recognized set of exceptions,” Eto’s attorney Davis said. “What she saw was a willingness to use exceptions that didn’t apply, a willingness to cut corners and a willingness to not follow the rules out of a desire to get ahead competitively.”
According to the lawsuit, Eto began to be excluded from executive level meetings in early 2025 after she filed a report outlining alleged violations with Mayo’s legal department. Eto claims an AI engineering director warned her that her supervisor had issued “marching orders … to get rid of [her] ASAP.”
Eto said she was told in March 2025 she was a “poor cultural fit” and could either resign as research director with her supervisor’s “blessing” or face the prospect of consequences in her personnel file “that would render her unemployable at Mayo and would impede her career outside the institution.”
Eto stayed on at Mayo anyway, and, according to the lawsuit, she was put on a formal performance plan with Mayo HR department. She claims she was demoted and told she could no longer manage her team of employees. She also said she was kicked off of some of the AI projects she’d been working on. Eto claims in the lawsuit she then experienced a serious depressive episode and applied for medical leave.
Roughly halfway through her leave, in September 2024, Eto was notified that her position had been eliminated.
Eto has asked for the case to be brought to trial and is requesting back pay, front pay, lost benefits, coverage of litigation fees and other forms of compensation.
“When an individual decides that they are willing to file a lawsuit against a public goliath on matters that are hot button issues in our country, she is literally risking her career,” Davis said. “She is risking being attacked professionally. She is risking her reputation, and for her to do that tells you something about her level of confidence that she’s right.”