You find the right job, tailor your résumé and click apply. Then nothing. No call, no email. Sometimes a rejection arrives within minutes, or lands at 2 a.m.
Most of us know this scenario, because most of us have lived it if we've applied for a job or a new role in recent years. Today's job hunt has two ghosts. The first is the listing that was never a real opening. The second is the software that may have decided your fate before a person ever saw your name.
In Issue #3, we looked at the robot reading your résumé. In Issue #4, we looked at who writes the rules for artificial intelligence (AI). This week, we put the two together: what happens when the hiring door is haunted, who the ghosts serve, and who they haunt.
The 60-Second Version
Texas is investigating LinkedIn over "ghost jobs," listings that may not be real openings, and whether paying Premium members were misled.
Independent studies cited by Texas estimate that one-fifth to one-third of online job listings may be ghost jobs.
LinkedIn says its policies require listings to be authentic. No charges have been filed.
A federal lawsuit over Workday's AI hiring software is moving forward, raising the question of whether software makers can be held responsible for biased screening.
Some states give job seekers new rights, with more arriving in 2027. Here's how to protect yourself now.
Ghost #1: The Job That Isn't There
In July, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened an investigation into LinkedIn over allegations that it advertised and profited from ghost jobs: postings that don't match a real opening, or that an employer has no immediate plan to fill. His office says LinkedIn doesn't independently verify the hiring status of most listings, and that its Premium marketing doesn't disclose that a significant share of postings may be inactive. Premium Career and Premium Business subscriptions cost about $39.99 and $69.99 a month.
The office issued a civil investigative demand, a formal request for LinkedIn's documents, data and internal communications about its advertising, verification practices and Premium subscriptions.
Why would a company post a job it isn't filling? Researchers and reporters point to collecting résumés, building a pipeline of future candidates and boosting engagement numbers.
LinkedIn's response. The company, which Microsoft owns, says its policies require jobs to be authentic and accurately represented. It also says many listings show how quickly a company responds and whether it's currently reviewing candidates, to help job seekers tell whether an opening is active. The investigation is not a finding of wrongdoing, and as of the latest reports, no charges or lawsuits have been filed.
Ghost #2: The Screener You Never Meet
Even when a job is real, software often reads your application first. As we reported in Issue #3, three in four companies that use AI in hiring said in a 2025 survey commissioned by ResumeTemplates.com that it can reject some candidates without a human reviewing the decision.
The biggest test of that system is Mobley v. Workday. Applicants allege that Workday's screening software disadvantaged older workers, Black applicants, women and people with disabilities. Lead plaintiff Derek Mobley says he applied for more than 100 jobs at companies using Workday's platform and was rejected every time. He points to quick turnarounds and middle-of-the-night rejections as signs that software, not people, made the call. In June, a federal judge refused to dismiss most of the claims, keeping alive the question of whether a software maker, not just an employer, can be held liable for biased screening. Workday denies the allegations, and the case is ongoing.
Benefit to Some, or Hindrance to Others?
The benefit. Employers use screening software to sort applications at scale, and some keep listings open to build a pool of future candidates. Platforms point to tools meant to help, like LinkedIn's signals showing whether a company is actively reviewing applicants. Workday says its recruiting AI is explainable and audited for bias.
The hindrance. The costs land on job seekers: hours spent on applications that go nowhere, subscription fees for listings that may not be live, and screening decisions they can't see or question. Paxton's office noted that many Premium buyers are displaced workers, recent graduates and veterans. And as we explained in Issue #3, a system can treat groups unfairly even when no one intends it to, which is exactly what the Workday case is testing.
Your Rights as a Job Seeker
Everywhere: federal laws against discrimination by age, race, sex and disability apply no matter what tool an employer uses. If you believe you were screened out unfairly, you can file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), generally within 180 days, or 300 days in many states.
New York City and Illinois: New York City requires bias audits of AI hiring tools and notice to candidates. Illinois requires employers to tell applicants when AI is involved and bars its use in ways that discriminate.
Coming January 1, 2027: California's new rules will require employers using automated decision-making for hiring to give notice beforehand and answer requests about how the technology is used. Colorado's rewritten AI law also takes effect, covering hiring decisions, with a right to an explanation after an adverse decision.
Tangible Steps: What You Can Actually Do
Check that a job is live. Look at the posting date and any "actively reviewing" or response-time signals, then confirm the job appears on the company's own careers page.
Reach a person. A referral, a recruiter or a hiring manager gets you past both ghosts.
Keep a simple log of where and when you applied, and when rejections arrive. Instant or middle-of-the-night rejections are worth noting.
Ask whether AI was used in screening your application. In New York City and Illinois, employers have to tell you. Elsewhere, asking still creates a record.
Weigh paid subscriptions. If you pay for a job-search service, check whether it's actually leading to interviews, and cancel if it isn't.
Report problems. Ghost-job or misleading subscription concerns can go to your state attorney general's consumer protection office. Discrimination concerns go to the EEOC.
This is general information, not legal advice.
MAKE IT MAKE SENSE
Ghost job. A job listing that doesn't match a real opening, or that an employer has no immediate plan to fill.
Applicant tracking system (ATS). Software employers use to collect, sort and screen applications, sometimes before a person sees them.
Civil investigative demand (CID). A formal request from a government office for a company's documents and data during an investigation. It isn't a lawsuit or a finding of wrongdoing.
Vendor liability. Whether the company that builds a tool, not just the business that uses it, can be held responsible for harm the tool causes.
Worth noticing: a hiring system can save time for employers and still cost time, money and opportunity for applicants. Both can be true.
Keep this one. This week's Make It Make Sense card puts four hiring terms, a ghost-job checklist and a prompt for questioning a rejection on one page you can save, print or share.
The Open Question
If a job listing might not be real and the first reader of your résumé might not be human, who is the hiring system really built for? And should a platform that charges job seekers have to prove its listings are live?
Have you ever applied for a job that turned out to be a ghost? Reply and tell us.
POLL: Have you ever applied for a job and never heard anything back?
→ Many times / A few times / Never / I stopped applying online
Next time: How Europe does it, and what binding AI rules look like.
Sourcing: the Texas Attorney General's office, Fox Business, Staffing Industry Analysts, Hoodline, court filings and law firm analyses of Mobley v. Workday, and state law trackers. Contested claims are noted.
— Ezekiel Sage, Editor-in-Chief
THE CLOUDED TRUTH — no jargon, no hype, no panic