A recent lawsuit has cast a spotlight on the burgeoning field of humanoid robotics, with serious allegations emerging against Figure AI, a company backed by tech giants Nvidia and Microsoft. The core of the dispute revolves around claims made by a former head of product safety, who asserts that he was terminated for vocalizing concerns about the potential dangers of these advanced robots and alleged alterations to vital safety protocols. This case not only raises questions about corporate responsibility in rapidly evolving technological sectors but also underscores the inherent challenges in balancing innovation with public safety.
Whistleblower Alleges Suppression of Safety Concerns at Figure AI Amid Robot Development
On November 22, 2025, a federal whistleblower lawsuit was filed against Figure AI by Robert Gruendel, the company's former head of product safety. Gruendel claims he was unjustly dismissed after persistently warning company executives about the inherent risks associated with their humanoid robots. According to his allegations, these machines possess the capability to inflict severe harm, even suggesting they could generate sufficient force to fracture a human skull. As evidence of their destructive potential, Gruendel cited an incident where a robot malfunction reportedly caused a notable cut in a steel refrigerator door. He contends that his serious safety warnings were not treated with the gravity they deserved, but rather were perceived as inconvenient obstacles to progress.
Adding another layer to his claims, Gruendel asserts that a comprehensive safety roadmap he had developed was significantly watered down or “gutted” by executives. This alleged weakening of safety measures, he argues, occurred subsequent to a substantial funding round that saw Figure AI's valuation soar to approximately $39 billion. His lawsuit implies that these modifications were made to present a more favorable, yet potentially misleading, image to prospective investors regarding the company's safety preparedness and regulatory compliance. Figure AI, in response, has publicly refuted these accusations, stating that Gruendel's termination was a result of poor performance and that his claims misrepresent the company’s dedication to safety. The company has yet to provide a direct comment on the ongoing legal proceedings, as reported by CNBC. Gruendel's legal counsel emphasized the protection afforded to employees under California law who report unsafe workplace practices, highlighting the broader implications of this case for the rapid commercialization of humanoid robotics and the ethical considerations that accompany such advancements.
This case serves as a crucial reminder of the ethical tightrope walked by companies at the forefront of technological innovation. While the pursuit of advanced robotics promises significant societal benefits, it must be rigorously balanced with an unwavering commitment to safety and transparency. The outcome of this lawsuit could set a precedent for how emerging AI and robotics companies manage internal dissent regarding safety, potentially influencing future regulatory frameworks and investor expectations. It calls for a deeper reflection on corporate governance, the responsibilities of whistleblowers, and the imperative to prioritize human safety above all else, especially as autonomous systems become increasingly integrated into our world. The narrative underscores the idea that true progress should never come at the expense of comprehensive safety measures and ethical conduct.