Evolv Technologies, Inc.

What was claimed

Evolv sold subscription-based security screening built around its Evolv Express scanners, marketed as AI-powered weapons detection and deployed in more than 800 schools, plus stadiums and hospitals.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Evolv represented that Express would:

• detect all weapons
• ignore harmless personal items, without requiring visitors to empty pockets or bags
• detect weapons more accurately and faster than metal detectors
• reduce false alarm rates
• cut labour costs by 70% compared with metal detectors

What the FTC alleged

That the claims were false, and that the company knew it.

The most quotable line in the complaint concerns the distinction Evolv had insisted on publicly and repeatedly, that Express is a weapons detection system and not a metal detector. The FTC’s position was that this is solely a marketing distinction, because the only things Express scanners detect are metallic, and its alarms can be triggered by metallic objects that are not weapons.

Schools reported scanners failing to detect weapons while alarming on harmless objects, with false alarm rates rising at higher sensitivity settings.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation cited figures from one deployment: out of 2,749 scans there were 118 false positives, and twelve knives and no guns were recovered.

A typical Evolv contract cost tens of thousands of dollars a year, around five times a traditional metal detector. One Kentucky district reportedly spent $17 million outfitting its schools.

The remedy is the unusual part

The stipulated order, filed 26 November 2024 in the District of Massachusetts and approved in early 2025, includes something rarely seen: certain K-12 customers were given the right to cancel multi-year contracts.

Eligibility is narrow. It covers schools that purchased or contracted for Evolv Express between 1 April 2022 and 30 June 2023, with 60 days from notice to decide. Schools that ran only a pilot, bought 15 or more units, or bought additional units more than 45 days after the original purchase are excluded. Evolv estimated only about 4% of installed Express units would qualify.

The order also bars Evolv from misrepresenting detection ability, accuracy and false alarm rates against metal detectors, screening speed, labour costs, testing or testing results, and any material aspect of performance including the use of algorithms, artificial intelligence, or other automated systems.

Why the wording of that last clause matters

The order treats an AI claim as an ordinary material performance claim requiring evidence. Not a special category, not marketing colour. If you say the AI does something, you must be able to show it does.

There were no financial penalties, and Evolv did not admit wrongdoing. Its then interim CEO stated the inquiry concerned past marketing language rather than the system’s ability to add value to security operations.

What is not established

A stipulated order resolves allegations without any admission or finding of wrongdoing.

We have not yet contacted Evolv Technologies for comment. When we do, the attempt and any response will appear on this entry.