1. Who They Are
Sama is a San Francisco-headquartered outsourcing firm whose Nairobi operations supplied the human labor behind Big Tech's AI and content moderation — the workers who watched what the algorithms could not yet judge. It served as Meta's main content-moderation subcontractor in Africa and later reviewed footage for Meta's AI systems. Sama markets itself as an ethical-AI employer lifting workers out of poverty; the record below is why that claim is contested. Meta's own record is in the Meta fact sheet.
2. What the Book Documents
The moderators (2019–2023): the book documents that Sama's Nairobi hub employed the people who reviewed Facebook's beheadings, child exploitation, and graphic violence for a few dollars an hour — and that in January 2023 all 260 moderators were declared redundant after they began organizing. Court filings in December 2024 included assessments by Dr. Ian Kanyanya, head of mental health services at Kenyatta National Hospital: 81 percent of the workers assessed suffered severe PTSD (book source: CNN Business, December 22, 2024).
The Ray-Ban whistleblowers (2025–2026): the book documents that Sama workers reviewing footage captured by users of Meta's Ray-Ban smart glasses — including intimate scenes the wearers never imagined a human would watch — went to Swedish journalists at enormous personal risk; less than two months later Meta ended the contract and 1,108 Sama workers were terminated, some with six days' notice. Meta said Sama "did not meet its standards"; Sama said it had consistently met all contractual expectations and was never notified of any deficiency — both positions are stated here per the full-record rule (book sources: Android Headlines, May 2026; OECD.AI Incident Report, April 30, 2026).
3. Verified Litigation Record — the Kenyan Cases
Motaung v. Samasource Kenya & Meta (filed May 2022): former moderator Daniel Motaung — recruited from South Africa, paid roughly $2.20 an hour to review beheadings and child abuse, fired after leading a strike — sued Sama and Meta alleging human trafficking, forced labor, union-busting, and inadequate mental-health support. Kenyan courts rejected Meta's argument that it could not be sued in Kenya — a landmark jurisdictional holding. More than 80 labor organizations worldwide, including Meta whistleblower Frances Haugen, demanded Meta stop trying to silence him (book source: Quartz Africa).
The redundancy class action: 43 dismissed moderators sued in March 2023, growing to a 185-worker action alleging the redundancy was retaliation for organizing; a judge issued an interim injunction against the terminations, and Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed Meta can be sued in Kenyan courts. Mediation broke down. As of February 12, 2026, the Employment and Labour Relations Court postponed its long-awaited rulings in both cases, and the moderators — many of them migrant workers — are considering petitioning Kenya's Chief Justice to expedite. All allegations remain contested; Sama and Meta deny wrongdoing; no final judgment has issued. Sources: BHRRC case tracker (postponement) · Conflict of Laws analysis (jurisdiction holdings) · BHRRC on the Court of Appeal ruling
4. Honest Accounting
No government has fined Sama, and no court has yet entered final judgment against it — the Kenyan cases sit undecided after nearly four years, which is itself part of the record: the workers' psychiatric evidence is filed, the jurisdictional battles are won, and the merits wait. Sama exited content moderation in 2023 and closed the Nairobi moderation hub. What stands documented is the structure: a trillion-dollar platform, a subcontractor, and workers paid coffee money to absorb the internet's worst — with the subcontracting arrangement itself as the accountability shield both companies now litigate behind. Developments will be added as verified.
5. Associations Noted in the Book
Meta Platforms (client and co-defendant) is profiled separately; the book also documents Sama's earlier work labeling toxic content for OpenAI's systems as part of the same Nairobi labor economy. Associations are noted for context; every company and person is documented on its own record.
Legal Disclaimer
This document is published as journalism and commentary in the public interest, protected as free speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It compiles information from public records, court filings, government announcements, parliamentary and congressional investigations, and reporting by established news organizations, together with the documented first-person accounts and analysis published in the books No Ethics in Big Tech and Ethics in Tech and Lack Thereof by Vahid Razavi.
Where a fine, judgment, or settlement is described, its status (paid, under appeal, overturned, or pending) is stated as reported by the issuing authority or by reputable press as of the verification date above. Allegations in open lawsuits and investigations are exactly that — allegations — and every party is entitled to the presumption of innocence unless and until a competent court rules otherwise. Where a company or executive has prevailed in court, denied an allegation, or had a claim dismissed, that outcome is reported here as well, because the credibility of this project rests on stating the record in full. Opinions and characterizations drawn from the books are the protected opinion of the author. Corrections supported by documentation are welcome via NoEthicsInBigTech.com/contact.
Research Credit
Deep research, source verification, and document preparation for this fact sheet were performed by Claude, the AI assistant built by Anthropic, working under the direction of author Vahid Razavi. Every fine amount, case citation, and status line above was checked against the primary or press source listed beside it on the verification date. This is a living document; new rulings, fines, and investigations will be added as they are verified.