Over the next year, Eto flagged multiple other instances in which her superiors appeared to bypass review processes for efficiency’s sake. Eto eventually complained that the developers of MAYA, the clinic’s A.I.-powered digital assistant, had engaged in deceptive practices, allegedly misrepresenting patient outcomes and deleting unfavorable data from the hospital’s systems.
A former Mayo Clinic executive has filed a lawsuit against the New York-based health provider, claiming that it “recklessly” cut corners with artificial intelligence to stay competitive.
According to the Star-Tribune, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of plaintiff Traci Tamiko Eto, the clinic’s former director of research operations. In court documents, Eto says that she was wrongfully terminated last year after raising concerns that inadequate safety measures could lead to A.I.-powered tools make faulty decisions or inadvertently compromising the security of patient health records.
In a written statement released Wednesday, Mayo said that it cannot comment on active litigation but is “committed to the responsible development and deployment of AI, with privacy, security, transparency and compliance embedded throughout our processes.”
The lawsuit claims that Eto’s superiors manipulated the oversight process for medical research at Mayo, which usually involves the use of institutional review boards, or IRBs, which set conditions on how, when, and where studies can take place. IRBs are typically run by third-party organizations and are supposed to make independent, unbiased decisions about ethics.
Eto, however, alleges that the Mayo Clinic regularly pressured IRBs to approve studies and, in some cases, requested that reviews by transferred to boards with reputations for leniency.
“The IRB process is absolutely critical to research integrity, and it’s also absolutely critical to patient privacy and to patient safety,” said Artur Davis, an employment attorney representing Eto in the lawsuit. “And if that process is not working the way it’s supposed to, you literally have garbage-in, garbage-out, potentially.”
The lawsuit notes that Eto first raised concerns about the use of artificial intelligence in 2024 after observing that certain de-identification processes of patient data were never subject to a standard internal review. Eto says that her supervisor didn’t challenge the validity of her concerns but instead “insisted that having the de-identification process revisited [by an IRB] would jeopardize the pace on ongoing research projects, which in turn would compromise Mayo’s competitive advantage.”
Over the next year, Eto flagged multiple other instances in which her superiors appeared to bypass review processes for efficiency’s sake. Eto eventually complained that the developers of MAYA, the clinic’s A.I.-powered digital assistant, had engaged in deceptive practices, allegedly misrepresenting patient outcomes and deleting unfavorable data from the hospital’s systems.
Minnesota Public Radio notes that ten separate whistleblower complaints raised similar concerns about MAYA, including allegations that “study investigators” had attempted to downplay or suppress a 67% 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,” Davis said. “What [Eto] 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.”
Eto said that Mayo started to exclude her from executive-level meetings in early 2025 after she filed a formal report with the clinic’s legal department. She was then informed by an A.I. engineering director that Eto’s supervisors had issued “marching orders […] to get rid of [her] ASAP.”
Eto claims that she was eventually given an ultimatum: resign with her supervisor’s “blessing,” or have information inserted into her personnel file “that would render her unemployable at Mayo and would impede her career outside the institution.”
Eto was later put on leave and told that her position had been eliminated. She is seeking back pay, front pay, lost benefits, legal fees, and other damages.
“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 confident that she’s right.”
Sources
Former executive accuses Mayo of cutting corners on AI research
Lawsuit alleges Mayo Clinic cuts corners with AI, putting patient care and privacy at risk
Retaliation cited in lawsuit filed against Mayo Clinic by former employee
Join the conversation!