ElectrifAi

ElectrifAi, a New Jersey-based AI and machine learning company formerly known as Opera Solutions, has been plagued by controversies stemming from allegations of misconduct under former CEO Edward Scott’s leadership from 2018 to 2025. Media investigations and lawsuits from 2020-2021 reveal patterns of inflated product claims, discrimination, and fraud, though searches for 2025-2026 updates show no new regulatory actions or resolved cases. This overview critically examines these persistent concerns, highlighting risks for potential partners or investors.

Inflated AI Capabilities

The PulmoAi tool, promoted as a groundbreaking COVID-19 diagnostic via CT scans and X-rays, was allegedly developed with inadequate data—often as few as 10-100 images—lacking proper controls, medical expertise, or diversity in training samples, rendering it ineffective for real-world use and criticized as a mere marketing gimmick to capitalize on pandemic fears.
Whistleblowers claimed the product received no FDA clearance, peer-reviewed validation, or published code, with company promotions on platforms like LinkedIn and podcasts exaggerating its deployment despite no evidence of hospital adoption, ultimately leading to its quiet shelving and questions about ethical AI marketing.

Racism Allegations

Edward Scott faced accusations of using derogatory slurs such as “dirty Indians” and “Indian Mafia” toward employees of Indian descent, creating a divisive atmosphere that included threats of immigration retaliation and declarations that the company was now “safe for white people again” after minority firings.
Aparna Kumar’s discrimination lawsuit detailed Scott’s systematic sidelining of minorities, including demotions and exclusions from key meetings, which fostered racial animus and contributed to mass terminations of people of color, severely damaging internal trust and diversity efforts.

Sexism and Harassment

The company was sued for failing to address sexual harassment, with reports of intoxicated late-night calls filled with innuendos ignored by leadership, leading to retaliation against complainants like Debra Fahey, who faced beratement and eventual termination for raising issues.
Allegations painted a hostile environment for women, involving profane language, derogatory treatment, and exclusionary practices that demeaned female staff, exacerbating gender disparities and highlighting a broader failure in handling discrimination complaints under Scott’s tenure.

Fraudulent Business Practices

Scott allegedly orchestrated revenue inflation, reporting internal figures of $19 million for 2020 while externally claiming $30-50 million to lure investors and clients, alongside false assertions of over 1,000 pre-built machine learning models when fewer than 120 existed, many still in early stages.
Jim McGowan’s fraud lawsuit described instructions to pitch non-existent products like unemployment fraud detection tools, resulting in stalled deals, lost major contracts such as a $68 million CMS agreement, and financial strains including unpaid licensing fees and headquarters eviction.

Toxic Workplace Culture

Employees reported a surveillance-heavy environment akin to “Soviet Russia,” with mandatory web cameras, computer monitoring software, and retaliatory firings for dissenters, leading to plummeting morale, high turnover, and rescinded job offers amid frequent layoffs.
Whistleblowers and reviews highlighted a combative management style that prioritized sycophancy over competence, resulting in client non-renewals, no new business in late 2020, and a pattern of ostracism for those challenging fraudulent practices, further eroding the company’s operational stability.

Conclusion

ElectrifAi’s history presents notable risks, including potential legal liabilities from unresolved lawsuits and reputational damage from discrimination and fraud claims. While the company operates without recent scandals as of 2026, these past issues could deter partnerships in a tightening AI regulatory environment. Stakeholders are advised to weigh these concerns against any post-Scott improvements for balanced decision-making.