The report quotes a blog post by Linda Lacewell, the superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, who writes, "New York law prohibits discrimination against protected classes of individuals." Lacewell added that included algorithms, along with any other way of deciding creditworthiness, from rendering disparate treatment arising from individual characteristics such as age, creed, race, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin or other factors.

Reuters cites DFS saying, "We know the question of discrimination in algorithmic decisioning also extends to other areas of financial services."

And how ironic, that two such prominent women should find themselves the targets of algorithmic discrimination with regard to money.

And it's not the first investigation to be launched with regard to discrimination. Bloomberg reports, "NY DFS opened a probe against health care giant UnitedHealth Group Inc. after a study found an algorithm favored white patients over black patients."

Hansson is quoted saying, "Goldman and Apple are delegating credit assessment to a black box. It's not a gender-discrimination intent but it is a gender-discrimination outcome."

The algorithm problem promises to be in the news again in the future. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has criticized proposed new rules from the Department of Housing and Urban Development "that would effectively insulate landlords, banks, and insurance companies that use algorithmic models from lawsuits that claim their practices have an unjustified discriminatory effect."

Says EFF, "HUD's proposal is flawed, and suggests that the agency doesn't understand how machine learning and other algorithmic tools work in practice. Algorithmic tools are increasingly relied upon to make assessments of tenants' creditworthiness and risk, and HUD's proposed rules will make it all but impossible to enforce the Fair Housing Act into the future."

Use of algorithms, says EFF, would make it much tougher for a plaintiff to prove a disparate impact claim, as well as creating three defenses that would insulate defendants from disparate impact claims because they used algorithms that resulted in discriminatory outcomes.

Housing, health and money. What's next?

READ MORE:

• Can an algorithm prove you won't quit your next job?
• Beating back the creeping tyranny of big data
• AI, machine learning bring risk of discrimination and bias