Safaricom has been dragged to the High Court over its use of an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbot and automated decision-making systems that handle customer complaints, process financial transactions, and determine access to services.
The petition, filed in Nairobi by Victor Odhiambo, accuses the telecommunications giant of deploying AI tools that allegedly violate constitutional rights, including privacy, fair administrative action, and consumer protection.
Also named as respondents are the Attorney-General, the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA), the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK), and the Kenya Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. The respondents had not filed responses by the time of publication.
At the centre of the dispute is Safaricom’s AI ecosystem, including its “Zuri” chatbot and automated systems that process M-PESA transactions, detect fraud, and make real-time decisions affecting customer accounts and services.
The petitioner argues that these systems, which reportedly serve more than 46 million consumers, have become the primary interface for accessing essential financial and telecommunications services.
Court documents state that Safaricom processes over 100 million M-PESA transactions daily, worth billions of shillings annually, with automated systems handling approvals, reversals, and account restrictions in real time.
According to the petition, customers with complaints are frequently routed through automated channels, particularly the Zuri chatbot, which handles millions of queries.
“Consumers are required to engage with ‘Zuri’, an automated system, and do not consistently have access to a clear, guaranteed, or reasonable pathway to a human agent,” the petition states.
It further alleges that the chatbot acts as a gatekeeper, limiting escalation to human intervention even in urgent cases involving fraud, mistaken transfers, or compromised accounts.
“Consumers requesting urgent intervention in financial emergencies are unable to access a human agent capable of discretionary, time-sensitive intervention,” the petitioner argues.
The suit also claims that automated decisions are often made without clear explanations, leaving users unable to understand or challenge outcomes affecting their finances.
“No clear and accessible disclosure of the logic involved in such decisions is provided,” the petition adds, raising concerns over procedural fairness.
Safaricom is further accused of extensive data collection and profiling, including behavioural data, location information, and biometric identifiers such as voice authentication.
The petitioner argues that the company’s AI systems enable large-scale data processing without adequate safeguards, exposing users to potential privacy violations and misuse of personal data.
He also raises concerns over algorithmic discrimination, alleging that automated credit scoring systems may produce unequal outcomes without clear justification or avenues for review.
Beyond Safaricom, the case also places regulators under scrutiny, accusing them of failing to enforce existing laws or address risks associated with AI deployment.
The petition references Kenya’s National AI Strategy 2025–2030, which acknowledges gaps in the current legal and regulatory framework governing artificial intelligence.
Despite this, the petitioner argues that large-scale AI deployment in essential services has continued without sufficient safeguards.
Safaricom, which serves over 30 million subscribers and dominates mobile money through M-PESA, has increasingly integrated AI into fraud detection, customer service, credit scoring, and product development.
Safaricom, M-Pesa’s parent company, says that at its launch, M-Pesa was the world’s first mobile money service.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
The petitioner cites instances where customers calling Safaricom customer care lines, including 100 and 234, are routed to automated systems such as Zuri without guaranteed access to human agents.
The case seeks declarations that Safaricom’s AI systems violate constitutional rights, and orders compelling the company to introduce human review mechanisms and greater transparency in automated decision-making.
It also seeks directions requiring regulators to strengthen oversight of AI systems and ensure compliance with data protection and consumer protection laws.
“The constitutional question before the Court is whether AI may be deployed in a manner that subordinates the rights of consumers to algorithmic commercial optimisation,” the petitioner’s lawyers argue.
