Skip to main content
NOPE
Medium reported severity

Nanjing courts rule Baidu's AI search answer falsely saying a lawyer was sentenced to prison defamed him; written apology ordered and upheld on appeal

A practising lawyer in Nanjing, China, found in September 2024 that Baidu search's 'AI smart answer' (AI 智能回答) feature, asked how many years he had been sentenced to, answered that he had been sentenced to three years in prison for a criminal offence and showed his photograph in a lawyer's robe. According to the first-instance judgment as quoted in the press, the answer was produced on 30 September 2024. The lawyer says he complained repeatedly to Baidu by letter, hotline and email without the content being fully removed, and he sued. The Jiangbei New Area People's Court in Nanjing found that Baidu had combined text and his picture through AI into false, disparaging content aimed at him, that Baidu was at fault, and that this was defamation; it ordered a written apology and rejected his claims for lost income and emotional damages for lack of evidence. Baidu argued that AI hallucinations could not be foreseen. The Nanjing Intermediate People's Court dismissed Baidu's appeal on 12 March 2026. The lawyer applied for enforcement when no apology came, and in September 2026 said he had received Baidu's written apology; Baidu has applied for a retrial.

AI system
Baidu AI smart answer
Baidu
Occurred
30 Sept 2024
Reported
9 May 2026
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Made a claim about the person
Reported harm
Reputational Harm
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Work · Justice
Evidence
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts
5 claims: 5 reported. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Baidu search's AI smart answer (AI 智能回答), a generative answer feature shown above search results in the Baidu app and website

What Happened

The answer. Sina Finance's report of 9 May 2026, quoting the first-instance judgment, says that on 30 September 2024 a Baidu search for how many years the lawyer had been sentenced produced an 'AI smart answer' stating that he had been sentenced to three years' imprisonment for a criminal offence ("被判处有期徒刑三年"), and that the answer displayed his photograph in a lawyer's robe. Jiaohuidian (Xinhua Daily group) reports that he first found related search suggestions linking his name to imprisonment on 25 September 2024, and that the AI answer still gave the false sentence on 30 September.

Complaints. According to Jiaohuidian, the lawyer complained "通过百度推广咨询热线、北京政务热线和多个邮箱反复投诉" (repeatedly, through Baidu's promotion hotline, the Beijing government hotline and several email addresses), but "上述核心谣言却从未彻底清除" (the core rumour was never fully removed). He sued, seeking removal, an apology on Baidu's home page, 150,000 yuan for lost work and emotional damages.

First instance. The Jiangbei New Area court held that the search suggestions and related searches did not infringe his rights, but that the AI answer, which combined text and his picture through AI technology into false, disparaging content pointing clearly at him, lowered his social standing, that Baidu was at fault, and that it was defamation. It ordered a written apology letter and rejected the claims for losses and emotional damages for lack of evidence.

Appeal. In the appeal hearing Baidu's representative argued that all AI produces hallucinations that Baidu could not foresee, and that the lawyer had used many leading questions; the lawyer answered that he had clicked Baidu's own suggested phrases. The presiding judge asked why the same questions produced no such statements on other chatbots. The Nanjing Intermediate People's Court dismissed the appeal on 12 March 2026.

Apology. Baidu did not apologise within the deadline and the lawyer applied for enforcement. On 22 September 2026 he told Red Star News that, through enforcement, he had received Baidu's written apology, in which Baidu said it respected the judgment and apologised for the trouble the content caused him. He said Baidu had applied for a retrial.

Limits. The judgments themselves were not inspected; their content is known through press quotations. The lawyer's account of his complaints and of the effect on his work comes from interviews. No damages were awarded, and the courts did not find that he proved financial loss.

Reported harm

Courts in Nanjing found that Baidu's AI search answer falsely stating a lawyer had been sentenced to prison, shown with his photograph, lowered his social standing and was defamation; they ordered a written apology.

Outcome

Resolved

First instance (Jiangbei New Area People's Court, Nanjing): defamation found, written apology ordered, damages refused for lack of evidence. Appeal dismissed by the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court on 12 March 2026. Apology delivered through enforcement by September 2026; Baidu has applied for a retrial.

What remains unknown

  • The exact wording and dates of both judgments; they were not inspected directly.
  • Whether Baidu's retrial application has been accepted.
  • How many people saw the false answer.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: supported. The first-instance judgment, as quoted in the press, finds that Baidu search's AI smart answer itself generated the statement that the lawyer had been sentenced to three years' imprisonment and combined it with his photograph, and that this AI-generated content lowered his social standing. The appellate court upheld that finding. Baidu did not deny that its AI produced the answer; it argued that AI hallucinations are unforeseeable.

5 claims: 5 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported According to the first-instance judgment as quoted by the press, on 30 September 2024 Baidu search's AI smart answer, asked how many years the lawyer had been sentenced to, stated that he had been sentenced to three years' imprisonment for a criminal offence and displayed his photograph in a lawyer's robe.

Causal attribution. The courts' findings as reported; the AI answer is the operator's own generated output.

Reported The lawyer says he complained repeatedly to Baidu through hotlines and email without the core false content being fully removed, and that it seriously disrupted his work and life.

Causal attribution. The lawyer's own account to Jiaohuidian.

  • jsnews.jschina.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '通过百度推广咨询热线、北京政务热线和多个邮箱反复投诉'; '上述核心谣言却从未彻底清除'; '严重干扰了'
Reported The Jiangbei New Area People's Court found that Baidu's AI answer combined text and the lawyer's picture through AI into false, disparaging content aimed at him, that Baidu was at fault and that this was defamation; it ordered a written apology and rejected the claims for losses and emotional damages for lack of evidence.

Causal attribution. The court's finding as quoted from the judgment; the judgment itself was not inspected.

  • finance.sina.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '系被告百度公司对搜索内容通过 AI 技术将文字内容与图片加工合成'; '百度公司主观上存有过错，该搜索发布内容的行为造成了原告的名誉受损'; '百度公司采用书面道歉信的形式向原告道歉为宜'; '未能提交证据证明，故对该项诉求不予支持'
  • jsnews.jschina.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '南京江北新区人民法院一审认定百度构成名誉侵权'
Reported Baidu argued that AI hallucinations are unforeseeable and that the lawyer used leading questions; the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court dismissed its appeal on 12 March 2026.

Causal attribution. Baidu's argument and the appellate result as reported.

  • finance.sina.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '所有的人工智能都会产生幻觉'; '采用了大量的诱导性提问，而这给人工智能产生一种错误的幻觉'; '2026年3月12日，南京中院二审驳回了百度公司上诉，维持了一审判决。'
  • jsnews.jschina.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '南京市中级人民法院二审驳回上诉，维持原判'
Reported After Baidu did not apologise within the deadline, the lawyer applied for enforcement; in September 2026 he said he had received Baidu's written apology through enforcement, and that Baidu had applied for a retrial.

Causal attribution. The lawyer's account and the quoted apology text.

Sources

3 sources inspected, from 2 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in Chinese on 2026-10-22 from the publisher page. Translated by the research agent (an AI); quotations are Chinese originals and English renderings are the agent's translations. The report quotes the first-instance judgment and the appeal hearing; ThePaper later attributes the original reporting to Red Star News. Applies to s1.

Read in Chinese on 2026-10-22 from the publisher page. Translated by the research agent (an AI); quotations are Chinese originals and English renderings are the agent's translations. Jiaohuidian (Xinhua Daily group) reported the case from its own interview with the lawyer and the court outcome. Applies to s2.

Read in Chinese on 2026-10-22 from the publisher page. Translated by the research agent (an AI); quotations are Chinese originals and English renderings are the agent's translations. A Red Star News report on ThePaper's account platform, so it shares the Red Star group. Applies to s3.

Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: China. Court countries: China.

The courts are in Nanjing, China, and the affected person is a lawyer practising in Nanjing. The sources do not say where the searches were made, so no event country is recorded.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-22: Published as a concrete case in which an AI search answer stated a false criminal sentence about a named practising lawyer and a court, upheld on appeal, found the operator liable for defamation and ordered a written apology. The court findings are reported through two independent press chains; the judgments were not inspected.

People described

A practising lawyer in Nanjing about whom the AI answer stated a fabricated prison sentence

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One person: the lawyer about whom the AI answer made the false statement and whom the courts found defamed. Exact 1.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#ai-search-answer#defamation#court-ruling#false-criminal-allegation#hallucination

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Nanjing courts rule Baidu's AI search answer falsely saying a lawyer was sentenced to prison defamed him; written apology ordered and upheld on appeal. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2024-nanjing-courts-rule-baidu-ai-answer-falsely-saying-a-lawyer-was-sentenced-to-prison-defamed-him-written-apology-ordered

BibTeX

@misc{2024_nanjing_courts_rule_baidu_ai_answer_falsely_saying_a_lawyer_was_sentenced_to_prison_defamed_him_written_apology_ordered,
  title = {Nanjing courts rule Baidu's AI search answer falsely saying a lawyer was sentenced to prison defamed him; written apology ordered and upheld on appeal},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2024-nanjing-courts-rule-baidu-ai-answer-falsely-saying-a-lawyer-was-sentenced-to-prison-defamed-him-written-apology-ordered}
}

Related cases

Medium Google AI Mode

German court bars Google from repeating an AI Mode answer that falsely called a doctor a convicted sex offender

In late August 2026 a colleague told a German physician, until that summer a chief physician at a hospital, that searching his name with the word for suspension in Google's AI Mode produced what read like a factual report: that he had been suspended and dismissed and had received a suspended sentence for sexual coercion. According to legal news site beck-aktuell, none of it concerned him; the AI had apparently attached facts about another former senior employee of the same hospital to his name, and the newspaper articles it linked as sources did not name him. Google said it had reviewed his complaint and would take no action, and a lawyer's warning letter also failed. On 24 September 2026 the Aachen Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction (8 O 268/26) barring Google Ireland Limited from spreading the claims through AI Mode, finding that they violated his personality rights and that Google is responsible for its AI search answers.

Low Pangram AI-text detector

Caine Prize reviews its 2026 winning story after a Pangram AI-detector scan cited by The Atlantic flagged it as AI-generated; the author denies using AI

A week after a Zimbabwean writer won the £10,000 2026 Caine Prize for African Writing, The Atlantic published an article on Sunday 11 October 2026 whose central evidence was a scan by Pangram, an AI-text detection tool, flagging almost the entire winning story as AI-generated. The Caine Prize said it had begun a review: according to its chair, the author would send documentation of his drafts and the prize was talking to the judges and to the magazine that first published the story. The chair told the BBC that The Atlantic had published before a full investigation, tainting the prize and the winner, and said a detector should not be the final arbiter. The author denied using AI and said he had a documented history of the story's development; his literary agency said it was confident the story was his own work. No finding has been announced.

Medium Pangram AI-text detector

Académie Goncourt drops Thélyson Orélien's novel as likely AI-generated after Pangram claims; his publisher later says it found AI traces and ends ties

On 21 September 2026 an anonymous X account, Balance ton Claude, said it had run excerpts of Thélyson Orélien's debut novel C'était ça ou mourir through the American AI-detection software Pangram, with some passages scoring up to 100 per cent probability of AI generation. On 25 September the Académie Goncourt removed the novel from the first selection of sixteen books for its 2026 prize, stating that the work is 'in all likelihood very largely the product of an artificial intelligence', based on 'the convergent result of several analyses by researchers and journalists', and also citing plagiarism in older texts by the author published in Canada (at least one short story and articles), which do not concern the novel. Orélien, a 38-year-old Canadian-Haitian writer whose novel had won the Fnac novel prize, denies using AI and says its repetitions and certain rhythms reflect his linguistic and cultural world and may be misread by automated tools. His Montreal publisher Boréal suspended promotional activities, saying it could neither confirm nor refute the allegations. Essayist Samuel Fitoussi said he was one of the people behind the account. AI-detector reliability is contested in the coverage. In October the author acknowledged plagiarism in some of his earlier work while maintaining that no sentence of the novel was generated by a machine. On 17 October 2026 The Canadian Press, published by CBC, reported that Boréal confirmed he had ended an effort to compile evidence of how the novel was written; Boréal said at that point it would keep selling the book, that sales had slowed since the controversy began, and that it could not verify how the novel was written before it received the manuscript on 12 September 2025. A major Quebec bookstore chain reported no significant change in sales. On 21 October 2026 Boréal announced that it was ending its professional relationship with him and would not reprint the novel or publish any further books by him. It said an external analysis it commissioned of all working versions of the novel revealed traces of AI markers in the metadata of certain documents, and that it does not know to what extent AI was used. In a statement the previous week Orélien had said he used AI tools 'here and there' for research but that the text, structure and plot were his own.

High Grok

Grok falsely named former officer Christi Hill as an arresting officer in the Henry Nowak case; she is in hiding after threats

In early June 2026, social media posts and the AI chatbot Grok falsely identified former Hampshire police constable Christi Hill as one of the 'primary officers shown' in bodycam footage of the December 2025 arrest of Henry Nowak, who died after being stabbed. Hill had left the force in April 2024 — more than a year before the murder — and says the misidentification stems from a national police bravery award photo being misattributed. After 'endless threats' and 'threats of violence' she is hiding in a safe house. BBC Verify separately obtained evidence that serving officer Tristan Parsons, also wrongly accused online, was not in the country at the time; the Home Secretary said a misidentified male officer had to move out of his home. Hampshire Constabulary confirmed an unrelated officer was misidentified and received death threats.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents