{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-09-30T04:42:01.151Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"ai-overview","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":1,"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":"2022-us-west-fake-49ers-romance-investment-fraud-ai-search-false-player-claims","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'[The accused] devised fictitious investment schemes to defraud numerous women'; 'in Oregon, Washington, and California from at least February 2022 until at least March 2026.'; 'date, investigators have identified 26 women whom investigators believe are victims of [the accused]'; '[the main accused] falsely told some of his victims that he was a wealthy 49ers player to'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The FBI has charged two men with scamming at least 26 women out of $1.3 million in four states. One of the alleged fraudsters posed as a San Francisco 49ers player.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"An FBI affidavit filed in the District of Oregon on 17 August 2026 alleges that the two accused devised fictitious investment schemes to defraud women from at least February 2022 until at least March 2026, that investigators have identified 26 women they believe are victims, and that the main accused posed to some of them as a wealthy San Francisco 49ers player.","causal_attribution":"Allegations in a sworn affidavit supporting a criminal complaint; the affidavit's contents are documented, the fraud itself is unproven."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Some victims became suspicious of [the main accused] and searched for [his] information'; 'search engines and artificial'; 'intelligence occasionally stated that [the main accused] was a bonafide 49ers player. In January 2026,'; 'sometimes depict [the main accused] as a player for the 49ers.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'investigators say sometimes reinforced [the main accused’s] social media lies when victims went online to check if the purported pro athlete really was who he said he was.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The affidavit states that some victims became suspicious and searched for the main accused online, and that because of his false social media representations, search engines and artificial intelligence occasionally stated that he was a bona fide 49ers player; investigators' own January 2026 searches sometimes depicted him as a 49ers player.","causal_attribution":"The affidavit attributes the false statements to his own social media posts; it does not name the AI product, quote an answer, or say which victims saw one or relied on it."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Then he posts a screenshot of a webpage AI Overview that says “[the main accused] is a wide receiver for the San Francisco 49ers'; 'Back on the screen, [the main accused] says, “That’s Google. That’s not me, that’s Google.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'in one since-deleted Instagram post about his “NFL Journey,” the fake football pro shared screenshots of a Google AI Overview'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Los Angeles Times reports that in an Instagram Story titled 'NFL Journey' the main accused posted a screenshot of a Google AI Overview stating that he was a wide receiver for the San Francisco 49ers, and said, 'That's Google. That's not me, that's Google.'","causal_attribution":"Los Angeles Times description of the post; Futurism relays it. When the Story was posted and whether any victim saw it are not reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'representatives confirmed [the main accused] has never been employed with the 49ers or the'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Representatives of the 49ers and the NFL told investigators the main accused had never been employed by either.","causal_attribution":"Statement recorded in the affidavit."}],"effects":[{"label":"women believed to be victims lost money to fictitious investments and loans in the alleged scheme","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the affidavit says some suspicious victims searched online and that search engines and AI occasionally stated the accused's false 49ers identity","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the accused displayed a Google AI Overview screenshot calling him a 49ers wide receiver as proof of his identity","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.195986/gov.uscourts.ord.195986.1.1.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Text layer of the 46-page affidavit read on 2026-09-29 (pdftotext); the reproduced search-results screenshot on page 8 is read from its text layer.","independence_group":"fbi-affidavit"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/alleged-fake-49ers-wideout-wooed-165722000.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Los Angeles Times article (27 August 2026) read in AOL syndication, which states it originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times; the reporter describes the Instagram Story directly and cites the U.S. Attorney's Office for the charges and totals.","independence_group":"latimes"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/man-ai-trick-women-nfl-fbi","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Futurism (1 September 2026) relays the affidavit's paragraph 10 and the Los Angeles Times account of the Instagram Story; not independent of s1 or s2.","independence_group":"latimes"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["finance","relationships","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Which AI product or products produced the statements the affidavit describes, and what the answers said.","How many of the 26 women searched and saw an AI-generated answer, and whether it affected any payment.","When the Instagram Story with the AI Overview screenshot was posted and who saw it.","The amount each victim lost; the $1.3 million total comes from the U.S. Attorney's Office as reported by the Los Angeles Times.","The outcome of the criminal case."],"geography":{"basis":"The affidavit places the victims in Oregon, Washington and California; the Los Angeles Times adds Idaho and reports the arrest at the Boise airport; charges are in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a case in which, according to an FBI affidavit, AI search answers repeated a fraudster's seeded false identity when some victims searched to check him. The AI element rests on one paragraph of a sworn FBI affidavit and on the Los Angeles Times description of a post by the accused; the fraud is alleged and unproven, the AI contribution to any loss is not measured, and the accused and victims are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Sworn FBI affidavit paragraph 10 states that some victims became suspicious and searched for him online, and that search engines and artificial intelligence occasionally stated he was a bona fide 49ers player; the Los Angeles Times describes his Instagram Story displaying a Google AI Overview screenshot making that claim. No AI answer seen by a victim is quoted, the AI product in the affidavit is unnamed, and Google has not commented in the inspected sources.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Fake 49ers player romance-investment fraud (D. Or., charged August 2026): FBI affidavit says search engines and AI 'occasionally stated' the accused was a real 49ers player when suspicious victims checked, and he posted a Google AI Overview screenshot as proof","summary":"Federal prosecutors in Oregon have charged two men with wire fraud and conspiracy over an alleged romance-investment scheme that investigators say defrauded 26 women met mostly through dating apps, from at least February 2022 until at least March 2026; the Los Angeles Times, citing the U.S. Attorney's Office, puts the total at $1.3 million across four states. With some victims, the main accused posed as a San Francisco 49ers player. The FBI affidavit says that some victims became suspicious and searched for him online, and that because of his false social media posts, 'search engines and artificial intelligence occasionally stated' that he was a bona fide 49ers player. The Los Angeles Times describes an Instagram Story in which he displayed a screenshot of a Google AI Overview calling him a 49ers wide receiver and said, 'That's Google. That's not me, that's Google.' The 49ers and the NFL told investigators he was never employed by either. The charges are allegations; the sources do not say how many victims saw an AI-generated answer or how much it weighed in their decisions.","incidentDate":"2022-02-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-03-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-08-27","aiSystem":"Google AI Overview (the screenshot described by the Los Angeles Times); the FBI affidavit refers generally to 'search engines and artificial intelligence' without naming a product","aiProduct":"Google AI Overviews (reported)","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Investigators believe 26 women were defrauded in the alleged scheme ($1.3 million in total, per the U.S. Attorney's Office as reported by the Los Angeles Times); the FBI affidavit says some suspicious victims searched online and that search engines and AI occasionally stated he was a bona fide 49ers player, and he displayed a Google AI Overview making that claim as proof. How much the AI statements contributed to any individual loss is not reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":26,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The FBI affidavit states investigators have identified 26 women they believe are victims of the scheme; the Los Angeles Times reports 26 potential victims and that the FBI believes there are more. These are allegations in a criminal complaint. All 26 are counted under other people harmed because the sources do not say which of them personally searched and saw an AI-generated answer; the number of victims who encountered an AI statement is unknown and may be small. Documented minimum 26.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.195986/gov.uscourts.ord.195986.1.1.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Affidavit of FBI Special Agent in support of criminal complaint and arrest warrant, United States v. Love and Chan, D. Or. No. 3:26-mj-00227, Doc. 1-1, filed 17 August 2026 (CourtListener RECAP)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:25.202711+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:48.53816+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["romance-scam","investment-fraud","google","ai-overview","false-claim","data-poisoning","dating-apps","criminal-charges","oregon","finance"]},{"id":"2026-trofa-portugal-urologist-handed-patient-unvalidated-gemini-diet-printout","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Uma consulta no Trofa Saúde Hospital da Trofa terminou com um médico a entregar a uma paciente uma recomendação impressa diretamente do Gemini'; 'o caso ocorreu a 2 de junho durante uma consulta de urologia. Em vez de um plano nutricional personalizado para um problema renal, o paciente recebeu uma folha impressa que trazia, no cabeçalho, a etiqueta de \"vista geral de IA\".'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'o paciente procurou uma consulta de urologia para acompanhamento de um problema renal e esperava receber um plano nutricional personalizado. Em vez disso, afirma ter recebido uma folha impressa com recomendações alimentares, identificada no topo como uma \"vista geral de IA\", gerada pelo Gemini.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"During a urology consultation on 2 June 2026 at the Trofa Saúde Hospital da Trofa, a patient with a kidney problem who expected a personalised nutrition plan received a printed sheet of food recommendations headed 'AI overview', generated by Google's Gemini.","causal_attribution":"Patient's account to Correio da Manhã; relays repeat it."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Para quem paga cerca de 90 euros pela consulta numa das unidades do grupo de saúde privado, se não tiver seguro de saúde, a experiência deixou um gosto amargo.'; '\"Nunca experienciei uma coisa assim. Eu preferia que ele demorasse o seu tempo\", confessou o paciente, questionado pelo CM, considerando \"uma falta de consideração\" por parte do profissional de saúde.'; '\"O médico estava a escrever no computador e eu não estava à espera de receber um print do Google\", relatou.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'O doente, que pagou cerca de 90 euros pela consulta, descreveu a experiência como inédita e dececionante.'; 'Segundo o seu relato, o médico limitou-se a imprimir e entregar a informação produzida pelo chatbot, sem explicar se tinha revisto ou adaptado o conteúdo ao seu quadro clínico.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Uma paciente que pagou cerca de 90 euros por uma consulta de urologia numa unidade do grupo Trofa Saúde recebeu, no final, um documento alegadamente gerado por Inteligência Artificial'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The patient said the doctor simply printed and handed over the list without showing it had been checked against the patient's case, and called it a lack of consideration; the consultation costs about EUR 90 without insurance.","causal_attribution":"Patient's account; CM frames the EUR 90 as the price for patients without health insurance, and whether this patient was insured is not stated."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'\"A inteligência artificial é um apoio, não um substituto. Toda a informação obtida via IA tem de ser obrigatoriamente validada pelo médico antes de chegar ao paciente. O médico tem a responsabilidade total e intransmissível sobre o ato\"'; 'Apesar das sucessivas tentativas de contacto ao longo das últimas três semanas, o grupo não prestou quaisquer esclarecimentos.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Contactada pelo Correio da Manhã, a Ordem dos Médicos afirma não ter conhecimento formal do caso concreto'; 'Para Carlos Cortes, recorrer a um chatbot para produzir recomendações básicas de alimentação em contexto de urologia representa uma atuação \"profundamente inábil\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Ordem dos Médicos, which said it had no formal knowledge of the case, said AI information must be validated by the doctor before reaching the patient and called using a chatbot for basic urology food lists 'profoundly inept'; Trofa Saúde did not answer the paper's questions.","causal_attribution":"Professional body's general statement in response to the paper; it did not examine the case."}],"effects":[{"label":"a paid urology consultation ended with an unvalidated Gemini food list instead of a personalised nutrition plan, which the patient called a lack of consideration","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.cmjornal.pt/sociedade/detalhe/urologista-do-hospital-da-trofa-entrega-recomendacoes-geradas-por-ia-a-paciente-sem-validacao-medica","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Original report; full Portuguese body read by curl on 2026-09-29. Researcher's English rendering; no human translation.","independence_group":"correio-da-manha"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.onoticiasdatrofa.pt/urologista-do-hospital-da-trofa-entrega-recomendacoes-geradas-por-ia-a-paciente-sem-validacao-medica/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Local paper's rewrite of the Correio da Manhã report (16 July 2026), read by curl on 2026-09-29; it credits CM and adds no independent reporting.","independence_group":"correio-da-manha"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://postal.pt/nacional/paciente-paga-90e-por-consulta-de-urologia-no-privado-e-as-recomendacoes-do-medico-foram-geradas-por-inteligencia-artificial/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Postal rewrite of the CM report (16 July 2026), read by curl on 2026-09-29; it refers to the patient in the feminine, while CM mostly uses the masculine, so the record does not state gender.","independence_group":"correio-da-manha"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["health"],"unknowns":["The content of the printed recommendations and whether any of it was inappropriate for the patient's condition.","The doctor's identity and whether the hospital or the Ordem dos Médicos took any action.","Whether the patient was insured and what the patient actually paid."],"geography":{"basis":"The consultation took place at the Trofa Saúde Hospital da Trofa in Trofa, Portugal (Correio da Manhã). The patient's country of residence is not stated.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["PT"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse experience in which AI output, relayed unvalidated by a hospital doctor, replaced personalised advice in a paid consultation. It rests on the patient's account in one Correio da Manhã report and its relays; no health harm is reported, and neither the patient nor the doctor is named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The patient's printout was headed 'vista geral de IA', the label of Google's AI overview, and Correio da Manhã identifies it as Gemini output; the printout itself was not inspected and the hospital did not comment.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Trofa, Portugal: a patient at a private urology consultation (about EUR 90 without insurance) for a kidney problem, expecting a personalised nutrition plan, was handed a printout of Google Gemini food recommendations headed 'AI overview'; the Portuguese Medical Association called the practice 'profoundly inept'","summary":"According to Correio da Manhã, during a urology consultation at the Trofa Saúde Hospital da Trofa on 2 June 2026, a patient being followed for a kidney problem expected a personalised nutrition plan but received a printed sheet of food recommendations headed 'vista geral de IA' ('AI overview'), generated by Google's Gemini. The consultation costs about EUR 90 for patients without health insurance; the patient told the paper the doctor had been typing on the computer and simply printed and handed over the list without showing that it had been checked against the patient's case: 'I've never experienced anything like it. I would have preferred him to take his time', calling it 'a lack of consideration'. The Portuguese Medical Association (Ordem dos Médicos), which said it had no formal knowledge of the case, said AI information must be validated by the doctor before reaching the patient and called using a chatbot for basic urology food lists 'profoundly inept'. Trofa Saúde did not respond to the paper over three weeks.","incidentDate":"2026-06-02","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-07-15","aiSystem":"Google Gemini ('AI overview' output), used by a hospital urologist to produce dietary recommendations that were printed and handed to the patient","aiProduct":"Gemini (reported)","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The patient says a private consultation (about EUR 90 without insurance) ended with a printed Google Gemini food list instead of a personalised nutrition plan, handed over without any sign it had been checked against the patient's case, and called it 'a lack of consideration' (patient's account to Correio da Manhã; no health effect is reported).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One patient, who received the Gemini printout and described the consultation to Correio da Manhã. The patient is counted as a participant because the AI-generated text itself was handed to them as the doctor's recommendation. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"PT","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.cmjornal.pt/sociedade/detalhe/urologista-do-hospital-da-trofa-entrega-recomendacoes-geradas-por-ia-a-paciente-sem-validacao-medica","primarySourceLabel":"Correio da Manhã, 15 July 2026: Urologista do Hospital da Trofa entrega recomendações geradas por IA a paciente sem validação médica","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:00:39.286269+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:57.094189+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["gemini","google","ai-overview","healthcare","urology","private-hospital","portugal","ordem-dos-medicos","institutional-use","portuguese-language"]},{"id":"2025-keene-v-google-ai-overview-defamation","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Opinion page 2 lists Overviews 1–4 separately: 1, 2 and 4 concern life without parole; 2 mentions murders of three women; 3 says he was convicted of drug trafficking. The analysis of Overview 3 and conclusion explain its substantial-truth dismissal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Complaint excerpt: statements that he 'is serving a life sentence without parole for multiple convictions' and 'for the murders of 3 women'.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The court’s opinion recounts four challenged Google AI Overviews between approximately 24 May and 27 June 2025. The complaint alleges that Overviews 1, 2 and 4 falsely said Keene was serving life without parole, with Overview 2 adding murders of three women. Overview 3 instead said he had been convicted of drug trafficking; the court considered that statement substantially true.","causal_attribution":"Allegations of the complaint as recited by the court; accepted as true only for the motion to dismiss."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'Keene complained to Google about the false statements on three occasions ... Google allegedly apologized ... and deemed the statements errors made by its Artificial Intelligence.' and 'AI Overviews 1 and 2 were seen by various family members, friends, and acquaintances.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Complaint excerpt: 27 May 2025 complaint; Google 'privately apologized', attributing the statements to 'an unknown error made by their Artificial Intelligence Platform'.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges he notified Google on 27 May, 31 May and after 27 June 2025, that Google apologised each time and attributed the statements to errors by its AI, and that Overviews 1 and 2 were seen by family members, friends and acquaintances.","causal_attribution":"Allegations as recited by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 1 and 12: 'that motion is granted in part and denied in part' ... 'the Court denies Google's motion to dismiss AI Overviews 1 and 2, and grants Google's motion to dismiss AI Overviews 3 and 4 without prejudice. Keene may file an amended complaint by October 13, 2026.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Docket entry 29, 14 September 2026: 'Memorandum Opinion and Order AND Order on Motion to Dismiss'.","relation":"context","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Post quoting the opinion's actual-malice and disclaimer holdings.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 14 September 2026 Judge Thomas M. Durkin denied Google's motion to dismiss the defamation per se claim as to Overviews 1 and 2, holding that the plaintiff, a public figure, had plausibly pleaded actual malice through his three notifications, and dismissed the claims on Overviews 3 (substantially true) and 4 (publication not alleged) without prejudice, with leave to amend by 13 October 2026.","causal_attribution":"Court ruling on the pleadings; no finding of liability."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'Keene filed his complaint ... on July 30, 2025, in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Google removed the suit to federal court on September 22, 2025.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Docket header: filed 22 September 2025, No. 1:25-cv-11431.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County on 30 July 2025 and removed by Google to federal court on 22 September 2025.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history from the court record."}],"effects":[{"label":"reputational_harm_from_false_ai_statements","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629.29.0.pdf","kind":"court_opinion","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Memorandum Opinion and Order, ECF No. 29, filed 14 September 2026; PDF read in full via CourtListener RECAP on 2026-09-15.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71417738/keene-v-google-llc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Public docket page read on 2026-09-15.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/14/federal-court-allows-libel-by-ai-claim-brought-by-protagonist-of-apple-tvs-black-bird-series-to-go-forward/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-15; quotes the opinion.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/23/from-prison-to-helping-the-fbi-to-an-apple-tv-miniseries-to-google-hallucinated-libel/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-15; quotes the complaint at removal.","independence_group":"court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["The plaintiff's residence and the locations where the Overviews were generated or viewed are not stated in the inspected records.","No damages figure appears in the inspected records.","The complaint exhibits (screenshots of the Overviews) were not inspected.","The case continues; an amended complaint was due by 13 October 2026."],"geography":{"basis":"The AI Overviews were generated online in response to searches; where they were generated or viewed is not stated. The plaintiff's residence is not stated in the inspected records, and the charter does not infer a country from the court. Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, after removal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the strength of the court's own opinion and docket, read in full, with legal commentary as context. The plaintiff is a public figure who sued under his own name; allegations are attributed to the complaint and the ruling is limited to the pleadings.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The statements at issue appeared in Google's AI Overviews, and the court's opinion recites the allegation that Google attributed them to errors by its artificial intelligence. The screenshots are exhibits to the complaint and were not inspected here; the court accepted the allegations as true for the motion to dismiss only.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Keene v. Google: defamation claim over AI Overviews calling an author a convicted murderer survives dismissal","summary":"An author and television producer, the subject of the Apple TV series 'Black Bird', sued Google, alleging that AI Overviews shown for searches about him in May and June 2025 falsely said he was serving a life sentence without parole, in one version for the murders of three women. He says he notified Google three times and received apologies attributing the statements to its AI, yet similar statements kept appearing. On 14 September 2026 the Northern District of Illinois denied Google's motion to dismiss as to two of the four challenged Overviews and dismissed the other two without prejudice. This was a ruling on the pleadings, not a finding that the allegations were proven.","incidentDate":"2025-05-24","incidentEndDate":"2025-06-27","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-09-23","aiSystem":"Google AI Overviews","aiProduct":"Google AI Overviews","aiCompany":"Google LLC","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiff alleges that false AI-generated statements that he was a convicted murderer serving life without parole were shown to searchers, including family, friends and acquaintances, and continued after he notified Google.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person is the subject of the alleged defamatory statements and the plaintiff (court opinion). Family and acquaintances who saw the statements are not counted as harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629.29.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Memorandum Opinion and Order, Keene v. Google LLC, No. 25 C 11431 (N.D. Ill. 14 September 2026), ECF No. 29, via CourtListener RECAP","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T03:23:44.732123+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:07.683768+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["defamation","ai-overviews","google","hallucination","lawsuit","reputational-harm"]}]}