Skip to main content
NOPE
Medium reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing

Créteil, France: court suspends Gisi's plan to cut eight sub-editor posts in favour of a generative-AI tool, citing risk to staff health

Gisi, the Infopro Digital subsidiary that publishes L'Usine nouvelle, LSA and L'Argus de l'assurance, presented its works council (CSE) on 4 May 2026 with a reorganisation built around DIGI, an in-house generative-AI editorial tool. On 12 May it opened consultation on the reorganisation and on the resulting collective dismissal of its eight secrétaires de rédaction (sub-editors), with two new chef d'édition posts for the tasks the tool could not automate, on the company's estimate that the tool would take over about 70% of sub-editor tasks. Some 250 journalists across the group's 26 titles had struck in spring 2026 against a group-wide plan to cut 19 sub-editor posts, and according to Digital Watch, citing Stratégies, five of the eight Gisi sub-editors had received letters inviting them to pre-dismissal interviews. The CSE went to court in July. On 15 September 2026 the Créteil référé judge found that carrying out the plan on an approximate basis without real-situation testing appeared to present 'un risque grave et caractérisé sur la santé physique et mentale de plusieurs catégories de salariés'. The judge suspended the reorganisation and the collective dismissal, including the redeployment processes, until real-situation tests and pilot issues are produced, under a provisional penalty of 8,000 euros per day for three months, and refused the damages provision. Gisi had argued that the risk was supposed rather than proven. It said it would continue the tests and reserved the possibility of an appeal.

AI system
DIGI editorial tool
Gisi (Groupe Industrie Service Infos), a subsidiary of Infopro Digital (deployer of the in-house 'DIGI' generative-AI tool)
Occurred
4 May 2026
Reported
15 September 2026
Event location
France
What the AI did
Relation unknown
Reported harm
Professional Harm
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Work · Justice
Evidence
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 6 sources, 4 underlying accounts
7 claims: 4 documented, 3 reported. 6 open questions
People reported harmed
At least 5 people

AI system as recorded: 'DIGI', Gisi's in-house generative-AI editorial tool (transcription of interviews, drafting and correction help; planned spelling, grammar and typography correction, editorial-coherence and fact-reliability checks)

What Happened

The Créteil order (a scanned PDF published by L'Informé, all 12 pages read) records that Gisi introduced a generative-AI tool named DIGI, first for transcription, drafting and correction help, with planned functions for spelling, grammar and typography correction, fluency, editorial coherence and fact-reliability checks. A July 2025 référé order, confirmed by the Paris Court of Appeal on 21 May 2026, had already required Gisi to suspend use of AI tools until the CSE was consulted. The 2026 project removed the eight secrétaire de rédaction posts and created two chef d'édition posts for the tasks DIGI could not automate. Gisi estimated at about 70% the share of sub-editor tasks the tool would perform, on the basis of an experiment by a dedicated working group and an external consultant, without participation of the staff concerned and without real-situation testing. The CSE's expert found that the workload estimate rested on exchanges within management and the project team, forecast a major intensification of work for rédacteurs and judged the two chef d'édition posts under-sized. A bailiff's record of a test on three articles, produced by Gisi, was found non-adversarial. According to the CSE's submissions, Gisi's timetable foresaw dismissals from mid-October 2026.

Gisi argued that the eight posts were under 7% of its staff, that the alleged risk was supposed and not proven, that 38 meetings and workshops had been held with editorial teams and that all staff concerned could be redeployed, in particular to the chef d'édition posts. The judge held that carrying out the generative-AI project and the dismissal of all sub-editor posts on this approximate basis appeared to present a serious and characterised risk to the physical and mental health of several categories of Gisi staff. The order notes that Gisi's 2025 risk register listed three AI-related risks (including stress linked to AI-related job insecurity) without rating them, and that Gisi had not shown the prevention measures it planned. It found a manifestly unlawful disturbance.

AFP, which consulted the decision, and L'Informé report the same findings. Digital Watch, citing Stratégies, adds that five of the eight sub-editors had already received letters inviting them to pre-dismissal interviews and that redeployment offers were made. Gisi's management told AFP it reserved the possibility of an appeal, and its president Isabelle André said the tests would continue with complete issues.

Reported harm

Eight sub-editors at Gisi faced collective dismissal because, on the company's estimate, a generative-AI tool would take over most of their tasks (five had received pre-dismissal interview letters, per Digital Watch citing Stratégies). A court found that carrying out the plan without real-situation testing appeared to present a serious and characterised risk to the physical and mental health of several categories of staff, and suspended the dismissals pending tests.

Outcome

Ongoing

15 July 2025: an earlier Créteil référé order (confirmed by the Paris Court of Appeal on 21 May 2026) required Gisi to suspend use of AI tools until the CSE was consulted. 4 and 12 May 2026: the reorganisation and collective-dismissal projects were presented to the CSE; the CSE gave its opinion on 15 July 2026. 21 July 2026: the CSE summoned Gisi before the référé judge; hearing 18 August 2026. 15 September 2026: order (RG 26/00991, judge Claire Allain-Feydy) suspending the reorganisation and the collective dismissal of the eight sub-editors, including redeployment processes, until real-situation tests and 'numéros 0' confirm the share of sub-editor tasks the generative-AI tool can take over; provisional penalty of 8,000 euros per day of delay for three months; damages provision refused; 2,000 euros costs to the CSE; the order is enforceable as of right. Gisi reserved the possibility of an appeal; none was reported in the items read, the latest dated 8 October 2026.

What remains unknown

  • Whether Gisi has appealed the order; no appeal was found in reports up to 8 October 2026.
  • Whether any dismissal letter has been sent since the order, and whether all eight sub-editors remain employed.
  • The individual health effects on the sub-editors or other staff; the court found a risk and no individual injury is reported.
  • Which three of the eight had not received pre-dismissal interview letters, and whether the redeployment offers were accepted.
  • Digital Watch, citing Stratégies, reports three chef d'édition roles and one technical editor-in-chief position offered; the order and AFP record two chef d'édition posts. The difference is unresolved.
  • The status of the separate redundancy plan at Infopro Digital's other subsidiary, Groupe Moniteur.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: supported. The court order records that Gisi's reorganisation removes the eight sub-editor posts because, on Gisi's estimate, its in-house generative-AI tool DIGI would perform about 70% of their tasks, and that the collective dismissal derives from that project. The harm is the employer's response to its decision to adopt the tool: a dismissal plan and the health risk the court found in carrying it out without real-situation tests. The tool produced no output about, toward or on behalf of the sub-editors, so the relation is unknown and the case is reviewed as a consequential response to AI adoption.

7 claims: 4 documented, 3 reported. What the statuses mean

Documented On 15 September 2026 the Créteil judicial court, sitting in référé on the application of Gisi's works council (CSE), ordered the suspension of Gisi's reorganisation project and of the resulting collective dismissal of the eight secrétaires de rédaction, including the redeployment processes, until real-situation tests and pilot issues confirm what share of sub-editor tasks the generative-AI tool can take over. It imposed a provisional penalty of 8,000 euros per day of delay for three months, refused the damages provision and awarded the CSE 2,000 euros in costs.

Causal attribution. Established by the order itself; L'Informé, which published it, and AFP, which consulted it, report the same operative terms.

  • linforme.files.sirius.press(opens in new tab) supports · French
    Page 12: "ORDONNONS la suspension du projet de réorganisation de la Société GISI et du projet de licenciement collectif (des 8 secrétaires de rédaction) en découlant, incluant la suspension des processus de reclassement, jusqu'à ce qu'il soit procédé à la réalisation des tests en situation réelle et à l'élaboration de numéros 0"; "PRONONÇONS à l'encontre de la société GISI une astreinte provisoire de 8 000 euros par jour de retard pendant une durée de trois mois"; "DISONS n'y avoir lieu à référé sur la demande de condamnation de la société GISI au paiement d'une provision à valoir sur des dommages et intérêts"; "une somme de 2 000,00 €"; "FAIT AU PALAIS DE JUSTICE DE CRETEIL, le 15 septembre 2026." Page 1: "N° RG 26/00991".
  • linforme.com(opens in new tab) supports · French
    "la suspension du projet de réorganisation (...) et du projet de licenciement collectif (des 8 secrétaires de rédaction)"; "8 000 euros par jour de retard sur trois mois"; "En revanche, les dommages et intérêts réclamés ont été rejetés."
  • cbnews.fr(opens in new tab) supports · French
    "La justice a suspendu mardi en référé un projet de suppression de 8 postes au sein du groupe de presse Gisi"; "Il a par conséquent suspendu le plan jusqu'à la réalisation de tests complets."
Documented The judge found that carrying out the generative-AI project and the dismissal of all the sub-editor posts on an approximate basis, without real-situation testing or participation of the staff concerned, appeared to present a serious and characterised risk to the physical and mental health of several categories of Gisi staff. The order also records that Gisi had not shown prevention measures, although its 2025 risk register listed three AI-related risks, including stress linked to AI-related job insecurity.

Causal attribution. The court's own finding of a risk created by how the AI-based reorganisation was to be carried out; no individually diagnosed injury is reported.

  • linforme.files.sirius.press(opens in new tab) supports · French
    Page 10: "sans aucune participation des salariés concernés, ni réalisation en situation réelle, la société GISI a évalué à environ 70 % la part des tâches des SR réalisées par l'outil IA"; "que la mise en œuvre du projet de développement de l'IA générative et du projet de licenciement de l'ensemble des emplois de SR sur cette base approximative et non étayée par une mise en situation". Page 11: "réelle paraît dans ces conditions représenter un risque grave et caractérisé sur la santé physique et mentale de plusieurs catégories de salariés de la société GISI."; "stress lié à l'insécurité de l'emploi lié à l'intelligence artificielle"; "mais ne les a pas côtés".
  • cbnews.fr(opens in new tab) supports · French
    "un risque grave et caractérisé sur la santé physique et mentale de plusieurs catégories de salariés"
  • linforme.com(opens in new tab) supports · French
    "des risques de surcharge de travail (...) et une baisse de la qualité du travail fourni, de l'autonomie et du conflit de valeur, de la perte de sens et de l'altération du collectif."
Documented Gisi (127 staff, 92 of them journalists according to the order, 91 according to Gisi) planned to remove its eight sub-editor posts and create two chef d'édition posts for the tasks its in-house generative-AI tool DIGI could not automate, estimating that the tool would perform about 70% of sub-editor tasks. The project was presented to the CSE on 4 May 2026 and formal consultation opened on 12 May 2026, after an earlier référé order of 15 July 2025, confirmed on appeal on 21 May 2026, had required Gisi to suspend use of AI tools until the CSE was consulted.

Causal attribution. Facts recited in the order; AFP reports the same plan from the company.

  • linforme.files.sirius.press(opens in new tab) supports · French
    Page 2: "La société GISI emploie 127 salariés dont 92 journalistes (91 selon la société GISI)."; "un outil dénommé DIGI"; "Le projet de la société GISI prévoit la suppression de 8 postes de secrétaires de rédaction (SR) et la création de 2 postes de chefs d'édition reprenant une partie des missions des SR, à savoir celles ne pouvant être automatisées par l'outil DIGI"; "Le 4 mai 2026 le CSE était convié à une réunion dite R0 de présentation du projet."; "Le 12 mai 2026 la société GISI convoquait le CSE à une première réunion d'information/consultation sur deux projets"; "obtenait le 15 juillet 2025 une ordonnance de référé du tribunal judiciaire de Créteil enjoignant à la société GISI de suspendre l'utilisation des outils d'IA jusqu'à l'achèvement de la consultation du CSE"; "Par un arrêt du 21 mai 2026 la cour d'appel de Paris confirmait l'ordonnance de référé du 15 juillet 2025". Page 10: "la société GISI a évalué à environ 70 % la part des tâches des SR réalisées par l'outil IA".
  • bfmtv.com(opens in new tab) supports · French
    "Au sein de Gisi, 8 postes de SR sont menacés."; "la société estimant que 70% des tâches des SR peuvent être réalisées par l'IA."
Reported Some 250 journalists across Infopro Digital's 26 titles struck in spring 2026 against the owner's plan to cut 19 sub-editor posts as a consequence of the AI deployment. After the order, Gisi's management told AFP it reserved the possibility of an appeal, and its president said the tests would continue with complete issues.

Causal attribution. AFP's reporting of the strike and of management's comments; L'Informé carries management's written reply. One AFP origin plus the company's own statements.

  • cbnews.fr(opens in new tab) supports · French
    "Les quelque 250 journalistes de ces 26 titres au total avaient lancé une grève au printemps pour s'opposer au projet de leur propriétaire de supprimer 19 postes de secrétaires de rédaction en conséquence de ce déploiement."
  • liberation.fr(opens in new tab) supports · French
    "Nous allons poursuivre les tests et faire des numéros complets"; "la direction de Gisi a indiqué se réserver la possibilité de faire appel."
  • linforme.com(opens in new tab) supports · French
    "nous suspendons le projet le temps de finaliser ces tests."
Reported Digital Watch, citing Stratégies, reports that five of the eight affected sub-editors had already received letters inviting them to pre-dismissal interviews, and that newsroom posts with training were offered to all of them, some of whom declined.

Causal attribution. A secondary summary of Stratégies, which could not be read; reported only.

  • dig.watch(opens in new tab) supports · English
    "with five of the eight affected journalists having already received pre-dismissal interview letters"; "newsroom positions accompanied by training were offered to all affected editorial secretaries, although some declined them."
Documented Before the court Gisi argued that the project concerned eight posts, under 7% of its staff, that the risk alleged was supposed rather than proven and that no work overload had been established. It said 38 meetings and workshops had been held with editorial teams to design and test the tool, and that all the staff concerned could be redeployed, in particular to the chef d'édition posts.

Causal attribution. The order documents that Gisi made these submissions; the court did not accept them as defeating the CSE's application.

  • linforme.files.sirius.press(opens in new tab) supports · French
    Page 6: "La société GISI rappelle que le projet concerne la suppression de 8 postes de secrétaires de rédaction représentant moins de 7 % des effectifs ; que le risque invoqué est supposé et non avéré ; qu'aucune surcharge de travail n'est établie"; "Elle précise que 38 réunions et ateliers ont été organisés avec les équipes éditoriales pour concevoir et tester l'outil"; "l'ensemble des salariés concernés pourrait bénéficier d'un reclassement en particulier sur les postes de chef d'édition"
Reported According to the CSE's submissions recorded in the order, Gisi's timetable provided for consulting employees from late July to mid-September 2026 and for dismissals from mid-October 2026.

Causal attribution. The CSE's account of the company's timetable, as summarised in the order; the order does not make a finding on it.

  • linforme.files.sirius.press(opens in new tab) supports · French
    Page 4: "qu'elle est caractérisée au regard du calendrier de la société GISI qui prévoit la consultation des salariés de fin juillet à mi-septembre 2026 et des licenciements à compter de mi-octobre 2026"

Sources

6 sources inspected, from 4 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Tribunal judiciaire de Créteil, référé order of 15 September 2026 (RG 26/00991), CSE of Gisi v. SAS Gisi, as published by L'Informé (watermarked scan of 12 pages, no text layer). Re-fetched on 2026-10-17 and all 12 pages read as page images in French; the research agent (an AI) transcribed and translated the passages relied on. Pages 4 to 7 record the parties' submissions, which the order summarises; the parties' own filings and the expert report were not available. Applies to s1.

L'Informé, 15 Sep 2026, updated 16 Sep 2026 with Infopro Digital's reply; read in French by the research agent (an AI). On 2026-10-17 the served page showed only the opening lines (subscriber page); the passages relied on are from the fuller page captured on 2026-09-19 and re-read today. L'Informé published the order. Applies to s2.

CB News, 16 Sep 2026, AFP dispatch; re-read in French on 2026-10-17 by the research agent (an AI). AFP states it consulted the decision. Applies to s3.

BFM Business with AFP, 16 Sep 2026; re-read in French on 2026-10-17 by the research agent (an AI). Same AFP dispatch, adding a definition of the sub-editor role. Applies to s4.

Libération, 16 Sep 2026, AFP; the site returned HTTP 403 on 2026-10-17, so the MSN content-API copy saved on 2026-09-19 was re-read in French by the research agent (an AI). Same AFP dispatch, adding staff-representative reactions given to L'Informé. Applies to s5.

Digital Watch Observatory, 17 Sep 2026; re-read in English on 2026-10-17. A secondary summary attributing the pre-dismissal-letter and redeployment details to Stratégies, whose own article was not readable from this host. Applies to s6.

Event countries: France. Affected-person countries: France. Court countries: France.

The order describes Gisi as a French professional-press company registered at the Créteil trade register and its titles (L'Usine nouvelle, LSA, L'Argus de l'assurance) as the newsrooms concerned; the court is the Tribunal judiciaire de Créteil.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-17: Published as a consequential response to AI adoption at work: the court order documents an employer's collective dismissal plan for eight sub-editors whose tasks a generative-AI tool was to take over, and the court's finding that carrying it out without real-situation tests appeared to present a serious and characterised risk to the health of several categories of staff. The order (read in full), L'Informé and the AFP dispatch were read; no affected staff member is named.

People described

The eight secrétaires de rédaction (sub-editors, journalists) at Gisi whose posts were subject to the collective dismissal plan; the court's health-risk finding also covers other categories of Gisi staff (rédacteurs, typographes, maquettistes) without a count

People reported harmed in this case

At least 5 people

0 AI participants · 5 other people harmed

Additional affected people are described without a reliable count.

Five counted: Digital Watch, citing Stratégies, reports that 'five of the eight affected journalists' had received pre-dismissal interview letters, a concrete step of the dismissal procedure. The other three sub-editors were subject to the same suspended dismissal plan and were offered redeployment (AFP, from the company), and the court's health-risk finding extends to 'plusieurs catégories de salariés' without a number. These are not counted because no adverse step specific to them is reported: partial.

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

Tags

#work#journalism#dismissal-plan#generative-ai#newsroom-automation#france#creteil#interim-court-order#occupational-health

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). Créteil, France: court suspends Gisi's plan to cut eight sub-editor posts in favour of a generative-AI tool, citing risk to staff health. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-gisi-infopro-digital-creteil-ai-dismissals-suspended

BibTeX

@misc{2026_gisi_infopro_digital_creteil_ai_dismissals_suspended,
  title = {Créteil, France: court suspends Gisi's plan to cut eight sub-editor posts in favour of a generative-AI tool, citing risk to staff health},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-gisi-infopro-digital-creteil-ai-dismissals-suspended}
}

Related cases

Medium Unidentified AI tool

Paraná labour court annuls expert report carrying a hidden instruction aimed at AI and fines the court-appointed expert, report says

A labour court in Castro, Paraná (9th Region Labour Court), annulled a court-appointed expert's report after the employer, in a motion for clarification, reported a hidden sentence at the foot of a page instructing artificial intelligence to contest the report only superficially and not to question the files it cited, according to Diário de Justiça. The expert confirmed the text but said it came from teaching material about AI and was inserted by accident; the court's IT section concluded that it had been formatted deliberately to be invisible. The judge said AI had not been used to write the judgment and that the text did not directly influence it, but annulled the report, later submissions and the judgment, ordered a new examination by another expert without AI tools, fined the expert 5% of the value of the case for bad-faith litigation, cancelled the expert's fees and removed the expert from the court's register. The decision, dated 12 October 2026, can be challenged.

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.

Medium GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 5 (reported)

Massachusetts: fired teacher asks court to vacate an arbitration, saying the arbitrator improperly used AI tools to judge her AI-detector evidence

A kindergarten teacher at a public elementary school in Concord, Massachusetts, was dismissed in August 2025 after an unsatisfactory evaluation. In arbitration she argued that some of the principal's evaluations may have been produced with AI, relying on GPTZero estimates; the principal denied using AI beyond grammar checks. According to the arbitration decision as reported by The Concord Bridge, the arbitrator stated in an appendix that he used two AI tools, GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 5, to research whether GPTZero was reliable, checked some of the sources they supplied, concluded that GPTZero's results deserved no weight, and upheld the dismissal on 27 August 2026. On 28 September 2026 the teacher asked Suffolk Superior Court to vacate the decision, alleging that the AI-assisted research was an improper investigation outside the hearing record that the parties were not told about or allowed to challenge. These are allegations in a complaint; the district declined to comment and no court has ruled.

High Unidentified image tool

Jeju: police refer a middle-school student over secretly filming teachers and making sexual deepfake composites; teachers dispute victim count and legal aid

Jeju Dongbu police announced on 23 September 2026 that a student at a middle school on Jeju had been referred to prosecutors without detention on 17 September for violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (filming with a camera or similar device). The student's phone was voluntarily submitted by his guardians and forensically examined; the examination found footage relating to some teachers and some sexual composites, and the student admitted the conduct. News1 reported that the student was booked for filming a teacher's body with his phone during a school field trip around mid-July 2026, that the offending had continued for several months with multiple victims, and that police found no indication the composites had been distributed. Police told Seoul Shinmun there were more victim teachers than the one first reported but withheld the number to avoid secondary harm, and that no student at the school was a victim; the Jeju teachers' union questioned whether the full scope of harm had been established. According to the union, two months on the victim teachers were receiving hospital treatment and counselling while teaching daily, gave police statements on 14 September without a lawyer, attended the regional teachers' rights protection committee on 17 September without institutional support, wrote the criminal complaint themselves, and were offered 3.3 million won in legal fees for all of them together, payable after the case ends; two requests to meet the superintendent were not accepted. On 29 September one of the victim teachers gave a press interview at the Jeju Teachers' Union office. She said that early in the investigation she had seen on the student's phone material showing other teachers and current students, had made a list of the people and types of harm, and that the material shown to her at the police victim examination was considerably less than what she had seen; Yonhap-chain outlets quote her as saying the students she recognised numbered 10 to 20 and that a graduate had suffered worse deepfakes. She said investigators asked the school only to identify the perpetrator and never requested material to identify the students in the footage, and that the school sent parents a letter premised on there being no student victims. Police replied that phone forensics had been thorough, that every act beyond social norms had been identified and proven, and that one student victim had been confirmed, a student at a different school. The teachers were notified on 22 September that the case had gone to the prosecution and on 24 September that it had been sent to the court's juvenile division as a juvenile protection case, before they had submitted further evidence and a victim opinion. The teacher said the original complaint had also asked police to examine whether physical contact in 2025 was forcible molestation and whether repeated approaching and waiting in 2026 was stalking, and Halla Ilbo reports that such conduct is said to date from 2025. Yonhap-chain reports describe the charged victims as five teachers. The same day the education office briefed on legal-aid rules (up to 6.6 million won per instance when a teacher is sued, 3.3 million won per case when a teacher files a complaint; office lawyers cannot act as a teacher's private counsel), said it had linked the teachers to the national Digital Sexual Crime Victim Support Center, announced an integrated support system through a hotline, and its section head said the office was sorry that early support had not been felt. The KTU Jeju branch (28 September) and the Jeju Teachers' Union (14 and 29 September) demand a victim-support system, per-teacher legal fees paid in advance and a dedicated support team. On 6 October 2026 Seogwipo Broadcasting reported, citing people in education and a tipster, that the education authority had finally rejected the victim teachers' application for lawyer fees for an additional criminal complaint, saying in a written opinion that with a police investigation already under way a further complaint could hardly stop or prevent the infringement of their teaching, so the support requirements were not met; critics contrast this with full legal-cost support in earlier sexual-offence cases.

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