Scaling a campaign globally means finding a voice that resonates everywhere—without losing the overall message. For Deel's "Feeling of Deeling" campaign, agency SuperBloom needed exactly that: a consistent brand voice across markets, deployed fast, without sacrificing quality or consent. They built it with Branded AI Voice, powered by real, professional talent.

SuperBloom and Voices break down how the campaign came to life in this on-demand video session—from strategic talent selection through seamless production workflows and global scale, to the governance that future-proofs an audio strategy built to last. You'll hear directly from the team on how they made this happen, plus their advice if you're looking to explore AI voice for your brand.

If you're a marketing executive, agency creative, or brand leader mapping campaigns in international markets, watch this on-demand session to get a real playbook, not a hypothetical—lessons any creative team can apply to their own global rollout.

Watch On-Demand Now

You got the note. "We've decided to move forward with other candidates." No reason, no score, no name at the bottom. You archived it, or you deleted it, and by now you could not tell me the date you applied or the name of the assessment you sat through.

Here is the asymmetry nobody explains. On their side, that decision did not get deleted. California's Civil Rights Council regulations on automated decision systems took effect October 1, 2025, and they turn one year old next Wednesday. Those rules extended the employer record retention period from two years to four, and they wrote the new category directly into the text: employers must preserve "selection criteria, automated decision system data, and other records" tied to any employment practice affecting an applicant.

Read that again with your own file in mind. The inputs, the outputs, the scoring, the criteria. Four years, starting from the record or the personnel action, whichever lands later.

This is not a piece about suing anyone. Almost none of you will, and I am not going to pretend a complaint is a job search strategy. It is a piece about a gap. The company is legally required to remember your application in detail. You remember almost none of it. That imbalance is fixable this week, and closing it changes what you can actually do later

The regulations define automated decision system data in two parts, and the second part is the one candidates never anticipate. Part one is any data used in or resulting from running the system on you, including data provided by you, data about you, and data reflecting the decision or outcome. Part two is any data used to develop or customize that system for that particular employer.

So the retained file is not just your resume. It is the output the system generated about you, the criteria it ran against, and how the tool was tuned for that company. Your resume is the smallest object in the folder.

That also tells you what a screening decision actually is. It is a scored event with a paper trail, not a vibe. Treat it that way.

The most common reassurance candidates get is that AI only assists and a person decides. Under these rules that distinction does not do the work people think it does. The definition covers a computational process that makes a decision or facilitates human decision making regarding an employment benefit.

Assisting is inside the definition, not outside it. The regulations go further in the disability provisions and state plainly that using an automated decision system, absent additional process or actions, does not itself constitute an individualized assessment.

Practically, stop spending your energy asking whether a human reviewed you. Almost every employer will say yes and be telling the truth. Ask instead what the tool measured and at which stage it ran. That question has an answer that varies between companies.

This is the provision with the longest reach. The regulations define an agent as anyone acting on behalf of an employer, directly or indirectly, to perform a function the employer traditionally performs, and they name applicant recruitment and applicant screening specifically, including when those activities run through an automated decision system. Then comes the line that matters: an agent of an employer is also an employer under the Act.

The vendor is not a bystander in the transaction. So when you write down what happened to you, write down the vendor too. The assessment platform, the video interview tool, the name in the application URL. You already know how to find it, because it is sitting in your browser bar.

TLDR AI is the free daily brief curated by Anthropic and ex-Google engineers. The stories, models, and research they'd send a colleague, summarized for 1.1M+ readers.

Subscribe for free

Be precise here, because precision is the whole value. The Act reaches employers that regularly employ five or more people, and employees inside and outside California both count toward that five. That sweeps in a lot of companies, including small ones.

But coverage of you is a separate question from coverage of them. If you are outside California, the protections generally reach you only when the conduct happened in California or was ratified by decision makers in California. A fully remote role at a San Francisco company is a different fact pattern than a regional role at a company that happens to have a satellite office.

Colorado's replacement AI law, SB 26-189, takes effect January 1, 2027 with its own notice and human review requirements. The direction of travel is obvious. The habit is worth building now, wherever you live.

Here is the actual work, and it is small. For every application from here forward, capture six things in one row of a spreadsheet: the date you applied, the company, the requisition or job ID, the platform in the application URL, the name and format of any assessment, and the date and exact wording of the outcome.

Screenshot the confirmation page. Keep the rejection email instead of deleting it. If you sat a timed test or a recorded video, note how long it ran and what it claimed to measure.

Ninety seconds. You are not building a case. You are building the only version of events that exists on your side, and it is the thing that makes a pattern visible to you months later when fifty applications have blurred together.

Three things, in descending order of likelihood.

First and most useful: you can see your own funnel. Which platforms reject you before a human stage, which assessment formats you consistently fail, which companies move you forward. That is diagnostic information you cannot get any other way, and it changes where you spend next month.

Second: specificity in follow-up. "Following up on my application" is noise. Naming the requisition, the date, and the stage you reached is a different email, and it gets answered more often.

Third, and rarest: if you ever do raise a concern with the Civil Rights Department, the regulations impose a preservation duty once a complaint is filed that reaches not only your own materials but the applications and test papers of other candidates for the same position. You would not be starting from zero. You would be starting from a dated record that matches one they were already required to keep.

Most of you will only ever use the first one. That is fine. It is still the best reason to spend the ninety seconds.

The machine's memory of you is four years long and unusually detailed. Yours does not have to be a deleted email.

You don't have to scroll every AI thread, track every new tool, or watch every demo. 

The Rundown AI breaks it all down for you — the latest AI news, tools, and tutorials in one free 5-minute email every morning. 

Trusted by 2M+ professionals at Apple, Google, and NASA.

Sign up to start learning.