{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-11T07:08:35.148Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"ai-hallucination","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-uk-upper-tribunal-immigration-adviser-google-ai-mode-fake-case-in-appeal-grounds-regulator-self-report","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'he was the person responsible for the case and drafting of the grounds of 17th March 2025 in this matter.'; 'provide an explanation for the fact that the case Horleston v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 654 cited in the grounds of appeal to the Upper Tribunal is not available on BAILII'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Grounds of appeal dated 17 March 2025, drafted by the adviser, cited a case (Horleston v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 654) that the Upper Tribunal could not find, under the citation of an unrelated case; the tribunal issued a show cause notice.","causal_attribution":"Established by the judgment's own record of the show cause notice and the adviser's response."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'We confirm unequivocally that no AI large language model (such as ChatGPT) was used in drafting the grounds of appeal.'; 'In absence of an explanation and with how AI operates, I cannot dismiss the fact that the case was an AI creation as there is no other explanation.'; 'his best guess was that he had inadvertently used the “AI Mode” of a Google search by clicking on this on the bar under the search topic.'; 'concluded himself that it was probable that this had happened because of the inadvertent use of an AI large language model'; 'As far as the Panel could establish there had never been a reported case called Horleston but Google AI nevertheless can, depending on the question posed, produce information such as panels of Court of Appeal judges who sat on this non-existent case'; 'By asking Google AI the same question in slightly different ways, we were able to elicit various different compositions of the bench which decided that fictitious case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The adviser first denied using an AI large language model, later said he could not dismiss that the case was an AI creation, and at the hearing gave as his best guess that he had inadvertently used Google's 'AI Mode'; the tribunal found he had concluded it was probable the fake case came from inadvertent AI use, and the panel elicited varying benches for the fictitious case from Google AI.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal documents what the adviser said and its own test of Google AI; the source of the case in the drafting rests on his conclusion and best guess, so the claim is reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'reported himself to the IAA and to the SRA for having unknowingly inserted a non-existent case in grounds of appeal'; 'has already done this and there is no need for us to do so. If he had not done this we wish to make it clear that we would have made a referral'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The adviser reported himself to the IAA and the SRA for having unknowingly inserted a non-existent case, and the tribunal made no referral for that reason, stating it would otherwise have referred him.","causal_attribution":"Established by the judgment's findings and its stated decision on referral."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'he had put client emails he had drafted explaining Home Office decisions into ChatGPT to try to improve them and he had uploaded Home Office decision letters to this platform to summarise them for clients.'; 'He informed us that he now realises that this is a data breach and will inform the clients that he has done this, as well as the IAA and the SRA.'; 'to put client letters and decision letters from the Home Office into an open source AI tool, such as ChatGPT, is to place this information on the internet in the public domain, and thus to breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The adviser told the tribunal he had put client emails explaining Home Office decisions into ChatGPT and uploaded Home Office decision letters to it to summarise them, called this a data breach he would disclose to the clients, the IAA and the SRA; the tribunal said such uploads breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege.","causal_attribution":"The uploads rest on the adviser's own account as recorded by the tribunal; the tribunal's statement on confidentiality is its own observation. The clients' number and whether they were told are not stated."}],"effects":[{"label":"non-existent case, probably from Google AI Mode by his own account, placed in appeal grounds he drafted","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"self-reported to the IAA and the SRA; the tribunal would otherwise have referred him","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/81","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full judgment text read on Find Case Law (HTTP 200); no translation.","independence_group":"ukut-2026-81-judgment"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Whether the false case actually came from Google AI Mode; the judgment records the adviser's best guess and conclusion, with no search history or output","What effect, if any, the false case had on the appellant's permission application","How many clients' emails or decision letters were put into ChatGPT and whether they were informed","The outcome of the IAA and SRA self-reports"],"geography":{"basis":"Event: the grounds were filed with the First-tier and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), heard at Field House, and the adviser practises under the UK regulators IAA and SRA (judgment). Court: the Upper Tribunal. The adviser's and clients' countries of residence are not stated.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published from the full Upper Tribunal judgment: it documents the false case in grounds the adviser drafted and his self-reports to two regulators, and records his conclusion that the case probably came from inadvertent AI use and his best guess that the tool was Google AI Mode, which the panel's own Google AI test illustrates. The AI source is attributed to his account; his separate account of uploading client documents to ChatGPT is context. The adviser is described by role; the anonymised appellant is not counted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The judgment records the adviser's best guess that the non-existent case came from his inadvertent use of Google's 'AI Mode', and finds that he concluded it was probable the case was included because of inadvertent use of an AI large language model; the panel reproduced Google AI generating different benches for the same fictitious case. The output reached him through his own search (communicated_with) and went into the grounds that led to the show cause notice and his self-reports. This rests on his account as recorded by the tribunal; he first denied AI use. His separate account of putting client emails and Home Office decision letters into ChatGPT is described as context and is not part of this case's harm.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"UK Upper Tribunal: immigration adviser gives Google AI Mode as his best guess for a non-existent case in grounds he drafted; he self-reported to regulators","summary":"In the first of two matters decided together in [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), promulgated on 17 November 2025, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) examined grounds of appeal dated 17 March 2025 that cited a non-existent Court of Appeal case under the citation of an unrelated equal-pay case. The adviser who drafted them first denied using AI, then told the tribunal his best guess was that he had inadvertently used Google's 'AI Mode', and the tribunal recorded that he had concluded it was probable the case came from inadvertent AI use; the panel itself got Google AI to produce varying benches for the fictitious case. He reported himself to the Immigration Advice Authority and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and the tribunal said it would otherwise have referred him. He also told the tribunal that he had put client emails and uploaded Home Office decision letters into ChatGPT to summarise them, which he called a data breach he would disclose to the clients; the tribunal said such uploads breach client confidentiality and waive privilege.","incidentDate":"2025-03-17","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-11-17","aiSystem":"Google search 'AI Mode', identified by the adviser as his best guess for the source of the false case","aiProduct":"Google AI Mode (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Upper Tribunal's judgment, an immigration adviser placed a non-existent case in appeal grounds, which the tribunal found he had concluded probably came from inadvertent AI use (his best guess: Google AI Mode); he self-reported to the IAA and the SRA, and the tribunal said it would otherwise have referred him.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One counted person: the adviser, who used the AI and faced the regulatory consequence. His clients whose emails and decision letters he said he put into ChatGPT belong to a separate, undated matter described as context and are not counted. The appellant in the matter is not counted because no consequence of the false case for the appeal is stated.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/81","primarySourceLabel":"Find Case Law, [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), UK v SSHD (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid), promulgated 17 November 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-11T03:13:21.379148+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T03:13:21.379148+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-hallucination","fabricated-citations","legal","immigration","tribunal","google-ai-mode","united-kingdom","communicated-with"]}]}