{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-05T08:51:29.637Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"allegations","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":10,"coverage":{"cases":10,"countries":3,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":5,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":10,"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":"2021-atherton-california-flock-alpr-misread-plate-gunpoint-stop-lawsuit-settled","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'At about 5:30 a.m. on April 16, 2021, an automatic license plate reader (ALPR) had misread'; 'over and ordered him at gunpoint to throw his keys out of the window, get out of the car, and lie on his stomach to be handcuffed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'was stopped by local police at gunpoint, instructed to lie on the ground, and handcuffed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In April 2021 Atherton police stopped the driver at gunpoint, made him lie on the ground and handcuffed him.","causal_attribution":"The lawsuit as reported by The Almanac and police records as reported by Business Insider."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'caused the ALPR to read the “H’s” of the license plate as “M’s.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Police records show that the Flock camera confused an \"H\" for an \"M\"; officers noted that \"the Flock cameras misread\" the plate.'; 'The license plate in question was obstructed by dirt, causing one of the letters (H) to look like an M,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The license-plate reader misread the letter H on his dirt-obscured plate as M.","causal_attribution":"The driver's lawsuit (The Almanac) and police records and an Atherton police commander (Business Insider) agree on the misread and the dirt."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Records show that the case was settled on March 16, 2023, for $45,000.'; 'the Atherton police officers denied all allegations, as well as the injuries that'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'filed a lawsuit and settled with the town and police officers for $45,000.'; 'denies any wrongdoing and contends that it acted properly and lawfully.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"He sued three officers for unreasonable seizure and excessive force; the officers denied the allegations and the injuries claimed, and the case was settled on 16 March 2023 for $45,000, with the town denying wrongdoing.","causal_attribution":"Court records and the settlement agreement as reported by The Almanac; Business Insider reports the same settlement amount and the town's denial."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'matched them to the ones of a reported stolen vehicle.'; 'Atherton police followed the vehicle for several minutes but failed to visually verify what the ALPR had falsely captured, according to the suit.'; 'With the belief that they were pursuing a “high-risk felony stop,”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the suit, the reader matched the plate to a reported stolen vehicle, and officers followed the car for several minutes without visually verifying the plate before making what they believed was a high-risk felony stop.","causal_attribution":"The driver's lawsuit as reported by The Almanac."}],"effects":[{"label":"stopped at gunpoint, made to lie on his stomach and handcuffed after a license-plate reader misread his plate as a stolen car's","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/police/2024/02/12/atherton-officer-involved-in-the-arrest-of-m-a-student-also-named-in-lawsuit-over-unreasonable-seizure-and-use-of-excessive-force/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-04 from the Internet Archive 2026 capture (The Almanac, 12 February 2024, updated 16 February 2024); the live site returned HTTP 429. Draws on the amended complaint, the officers' answer and the settlement agreement.","independence_group":"atherton-2021-stop-lawsuit-records"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.businessinsider.com/flock-safety-alpr-cameras-misreads-2026-3","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-10-04 (Business Insider, 9 March 2026); full text present in the served page. Cites police records and an Atherton police commander.","independence_group":"business-insider-records-review"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The court and case number of the 2022 lawsuit; the complaint was not read.","The injuries he claimed; The Almanac says only that the officers denied them.","Whether The Almanac's unnamed automatic license-plate reader and Business Insider's Flock camera are the same device; Business Insider cites police records for the Flock identification."],"geography":{"basis":"The stop was made by Atherton, California, police (The Almanac; Business Insider), and the suit was brought against Atherton officers and settled with the town. The court is not named in the bodies read; US rests on the suit against a California town's officers.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional-use case consistent with the held Flock misread rows: the driver's lawsuit (The Almanac) and police records (Business Insider) describe a license-plate-reader misread that led Atherton officers to stop and handcuff him at gunpoint; the town settled for $45,000 while denying wrongdoing. He is not named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-04"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawsuit (The Almanac) says an automatic license-plate reader misread the dirt-obscured plate and matched it to a stolen vehicle; Business Insider, citing police records, identifies the camera as Flock's, reports that it confused an H for an M and that officers noted the Flock cameras misread the plate, and describes the cameras as AI cameras. The plate match against a stolen-vehicle record is the automated system's claim about his car; following without visual verification and the armed stop were officers' decisions.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Atherton, California: police stopped a driver at gunpoint in April 2021 and made him lie on his stomach to be handcuffed after a license-plate reader misread the letter H on his dirty plate as M and matched it to a stolen car; the town settled his lawsuit for $45,000 in 2023","summary":"At about 5:30 a.m. on 16 April 2021, according to a lawsuit reported by The Almanac, an automated license-plate reader in Atherton, California, misread the dirt-obscured plate of a driver's car, reading its letter H as M, and matched it to a reported stolen vehicle. Atherton police followed the car for several minutes without visually verifying the plate, then made a high-risk felony stop, ordering him at gunpoint to throw his keys out of the window, get out and lie on his stomach to be handcuffed. He sued three officers in 2022 for unreasonable seizure and excessive force; the officers denied the allegations and the injuries he claimed, and the case was settled on 16 March 2023 for $45,000. Business Insider, citing police records, reported in March 2026 that the misread came from a Flock camera and that officers noted the Flock cameras had misread the plate; an Atherton police commander said the plate was obstructed by dirt and that the town denies wrongdoing.","incidentDate":"2021-04-16","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-02-12","aiSystem":"Automated license-plate-reader camera in Atherton, California, identified by Business Insider from police records as a Flock Safety camera (which it describes as one of Flock's AI cameras), that misread the plate and matched it to a stolen-vehicle record","aiProduct":"Flock Safety license plate readers (reported)","aiCompany":"Flock Safety","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"He was stopped at gunpoint, made to lie on his stomach and handcuffed after a misread license-plate alert, and his lawsuit claimed injuries that the officers deny (The Almanac; Business Insider). The town settled for $45,000 while denying wrongdoing.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the driver, stopped at gunpoint and handcuffed (The Almanac; Business Insider). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_settled","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.almanacnews.com/police/2024/02/12/atherton-officer-involved-in-the-arrest-of-m-a-student-also-named-in-lawsuit-over-unreasonable-seizure-and-use-of-excessive-force/","primarySourceLabel":"The Almanac, 12 February 2024: Atherton officer involved in the arrest of M-A student also named in lawsuit over unreasonable seizure","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-04T03:31:59.236805+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-04T03:31:59.236805+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["flock","alpr","license-plate-reader","misread","wrongful-stop","gunpoint","california","atherton","justice","made-claim-about","settlement"]},{"id":"2026-us-uk-hachette-cancels-shy-girl-novel-after-ai-authorship-allegations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The Hachette Book Group said Thursday that it has canceled the publication of horror novel","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"where it was first released in November.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The US release of a horror novel has been cancelled by its publisher over concerns that AI was used to help write it.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Wildfire (in the UK) have decided to no longer continue publishing their edition","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The title has also been removed from online retailers including Amazon","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"But it took until last Thursday for Hachette to pull the book from its website","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"March 19 , the New York Times landed a big story about allegations that a hyped horror novel called Shy Girl","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Hachette Book Group said on Thursday 19 March 2026 that it had cancelled the US publication of the horror novel Shy Girl by Mia Ballard (Orbit imprint) and would not continue the UK edition (Wildfire imprint, first released in November 2025). The Guardian reports the title was also removed from online retailers including Amazon.","causal_attribution":"The cancellation is Hachette’s own announcement, relayed by several outlets. Sources link it to allegations of AI use and to a review by the publisher. Whether AI was in fact used is unresolved (claim c7)."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"readers on platforms such as Goodreads and Reddit had questioned whether sections of the text bore hallmarks of AI-generated prose.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"A widely shared Reddit thread drew hundreds of comments","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"amassed more than 1.2m views","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"one reviewer on the GoodReads website claimed the book appeared to be \"written by ChatGPT\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"In January, a Reddit post from a user who claimed to be a book editor generated significant discussion around","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"published online on January 19 by","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Readers alleged online that the novel’s text read as AI-generated: reviews on Goodreads, a widely shared Reddit thread, a January Reddit post by a user who said they were a book editor, and a YouTube video posted in January 2026 that had more than 1.2 million views.","causal_attribution":"Online opinion and analysis by readers. It is not evidence about who produced the text. Sources differ on when the earliest accusations appeared (see unknowns)."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"78.4 percent of the document is AI Generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"I soon confirmed this with two other services.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"Originality and GPTZero","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"found evidence that 78 percent of the book is AI-generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"that large parts of Shy Girl appeared to show patterns characteristic of A.I.-generated writing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"to use these reports only for guidance, not as proof of guilt","relation":"context","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"A.I. detection software, while improving, has been shown to be fallible at best","relation":"context","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"AI-detection results were reported as part of the case. A publishing consultant’s first-person account says a copy of the UK edition scored 78.4 percent AI-generated on the Pangram detector, that two other detection services gave confirming results, and that the consultant brought the findings to the New York Times. Futurism reports that the CEO of Pangram ran a test and found evidence that 78 percent of the book is AI-generated. Slate reports that the New York Times verified claims that large parts of the book appeared to show patterns characteristic of AI-generated writing.","causal_attribution":"Detector scores describe statistical patterns in a text. They do not establish who produced the text or whether a generative model was used. Detector reliability is contested in the sources, and the New York Times article that carried the verification was not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"following an investigation into the origins of the book.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the publisher confirmed it had halted publication after an internal review.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Although the publisher claimed the decision came after a thorough review of the text","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"lengthy investigation in recent weeks","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"remains committed to protecting original creative expression and storytelling","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Hachette said its decision followed a review or investigation of the book and cited its commitment to protecting original creative expression and storytelling. The Wall Street Journal report says the cancellation followed an investigation into the origins of the book, and Futurism relays a Hachette statement to the Journal that both its US and UK imprints conducted a lengthy investigation in recent weeks.","causal_attribution":"Publisher statements about its own process. The sources inspected do not report what the review or investigation found about AI use."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"concerns the day before the announcement.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"shortly after the New York Times approached the publisher with evidence of AI use.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"one Times article said that Hachette pulled the book within a day of first notification by the Times","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The New York Times asked Hachette about the AI concerns the day before the announcement, and the cancellation followed shortly after the Times approached the publisher with evidence of AI use. A consultant’s first-person account says a Times article reported that Hachette pulled the book within a day of first notification by the Times.","causal_attribution":"Timing reported by outlets that rely on the New York Times report, which was not read directly. The sequence shows what preceded the announcement and does not show what Hachette concluded."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"has denied using AI to write the book","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"hired to edit the original self-published version of the novel had used AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"my mental health is at an all time low and my name is ruined for something I didn","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Ballard has denied personally using AI to write the novel.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"my mental health is at an all time low and my name is ruined for something I didn","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"pursuing legal action","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"did not personally use AI","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"please do your research on editors before trusting them with your work","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"}],"assertion":"Ballard denied personally using AI to write the novel in an email to the New York Times and, per The Independent, in an email to the Wall Street Journal, and told the New York Times that an acquaintance hired to edit the original self-published version had used AI. Ballard wrote: \"This controversy has changed my life in many ways and my mental health is at an all time low and my name is ruined for something I didn’t even personally do\", and said legal action was being pursued.","causal_attribution":"The author’s own statements about the author’s own conduct and its effects. Ballard spoke publicly under that name in emails to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal quoted by several outlets. The acquaintance is not named in the sources and no response from that person is reported."},{"id":"c7","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"found evidence that 78 percent of the book is AI-generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"78.4 percent of the document is AI Generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"has denied using AI to write the book","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A.I. detection software, while improving, has been shown to be fallible at best","relation":"context","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"Whether, by whom and to what extent generative AI produced the text of the published novel is disputed. Detector results and reader analyses point to substantial AI-generated prose. Ballard denies personal use and attributes any AI use to a hired editor. No source inspected reports the editor’s account, an independent verification of authorship, or a finding by the publisher.","causal_attribution":"Causal attribution of the consequence to AI use rests on allegations and detector output that the author disputes. The consequence (cancellation) is a publisher decision responding to those allegations."}],"effects":[{"label":"Publisher cancelled the US edition and discontinued the UK edition of the author’s novel after allegations that it was AI-generated","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Author reports damage to name and severely worsened mental health after the controversy","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.wsj.com/business/media/publisher-pulls-shy-girl-horror-novel-after-ai-allegations-c7944702","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"wsj-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y9d44jj24o","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/mar/20/hachette-horror-novel-shy-girl-suspected-ai-use-mia-ballard","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/21/publisher-pulls-horror-novel-shy-girl-over-ai-concerns","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/novel-pulled-author-accused-ai","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://slate.com/culture/2026/03/shy-girl-mia-ballard-novel-a-i-book-horror-reddit-hachette-canceled.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"slate-shy-girl-reporting"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://thewalrus.ca/new-york-times-ai-generated-shy-girl-mia-ballard/","kind":"first_person_account","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"consultant-first-person-account"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/100037-while-ai-discourse-rages-publishing-has-more-questions-than-answers.html","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/horror-novel-reportedly-pulled-publication-133355085.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"wsj-shy-girl-report"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Whether generative AI produced any of the text, who used it and to what extent is unresolved. The author denies personal use and attributes any AI use to a hired editor. No source inspected reports that editor’s account, an independent authorship check, or what Hachette found.","The Wall Street Journal page was read as a truncated Wayback extract (three paragraphs, paywall). The New York Times article that first reported the story could not be read (HTTP 403 live and in Wayback captures). Statements attributed to the Times are read through BBC, The Guardian, TechCrunch, Futurism and Publishers Weekly.","Sources differ on when the first online accusations appeared. The Guardian says questions began in early 2026, and Futurism dates a Reddit post to January. Futurism also says accusations have swirled around the book since its self-published run last year, Slate says the rumblings began in January and even earlier, and a first-person account by a publishing consultant says the first accusations appeared online five or six months before Hachette’s July 2025 acquisition announcement and that a Reddit thread was a year old in early February 2026. No inspected source reports a consequence for the author from those earlier accusations. This record dates the event to the publisher’s decision on 19 March 2026, the first reported consequence for the author.","Detector reliability and the tested copy are contested. A Wall Street Journal opinion column on the reliability of the Pangram report was not read, and a summary of it on Wikipedia is not cited.","The author says legal action is being pursued. The target and any filing are not established by the sources inspected. A newsletter’s report of a $1 million lawsuit against Hachette had no filing or second source and is not relied on.","The US publication date is reported differently (April in BBC and Slate, 19 May in the Wall Street Journal). UK sales are reported as about 1,800 (Guardian, citing NielsenIQ) and almost 2,000 (BBC) copies. Neither is used as a harm count.","Whether existing UK copies were withdrawn or destroyed is not consistently reported. The Guardian says the title was removed from online retailers and would no longer be distributed in the UK.","The accusers on Reddit and YouTube, the consultant and the hired editor are not described individually beyond their role in the reporting."],"geography":{"basis":"Hachette cancelled the US release and discontinued the UK edition (BBC). The BBC describes the author as a US author, and The Independent, citing a Google Books author profile, reports a US residence. No court is involved in the sources inspected.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US","GB"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The publisher’s cancellation, its stated review, the online allegations, the AI-detector results and the author’s denial were read from the Wall Street Journal (truncated), BBC, The Guardian, TechCrunch, Futurism, Slate, Publishers Weekly, The Independent (via AOL) and a consultant’s first-person account. The author is named because the author spoke publicly under that name in emails to two newspapers. Every AI-related claim is attributed and AI involvement is recorded as disputed. The event is dated to the publisher’s decision on 19 March 2026, the first reported consequence for the author. Earlier reader accusations are recorded as context.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"AI-text detectors (Pangram, and per one first-person account Originality and GPTZero) scored the UK edition as largely AI-generated, and readers alleged the prose showed hallmarks of AI. The author denies personally using AI and says an acquaintance hired to edit the self-published version used it. Hachette cited a review of the text and its stance on original creative expression and did not state, in the sources inspected, what the review found. Detector reliability is contested.","status":"disputed"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US and UK: Hachette cancels the US edition of the novel Shy Girl and discontinues the UK edition after allegations it was AI-generated, with the author denying personal use of AI","summary":"On 19 March 2026 Hachette Book Group said it had cancelled the US publication of the horror novel Shy Girl by Mia Ballard (Orbit imprint) and would not continue the UK edition (Wildfire imprint, first released in November 2025). Reports say the decision followed an investigation by Hachette and came a day after the New York Times asked the publisher about online allegations that the text was largely AI-generated. The allegations came from readers on Goodreads, Reddit and YouTube and from AI-detector results, including a 78.4 percent AI-generated score on the Pangram detector that a publishing consultant says two other services confirmed. Ballard denied personally using AI in emails to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and told the New York Times that an acquaintance hired to edit the original self-published version used AI. Ballard wrote that \"my name is ruined\" and \"my mental health is at an all time low\", and said legal action was being pursued. Hachette’s public statements cite its commitment to original creative expression. The sources inspected do not report what its investigation found. Whether AI generated any of the text, and who used it, is unresolved.","incidentDate":"2026-03-19","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-19","aiSystem":"Alleged generative-AI text production in the novel (the author denies personal use and attributes any AI use to a hired editor), and AI-text detectors (Pangram, and per one account Originality and GPTZero) whose scores were used to allege AI authorship","aiProduct":"Pangram AI-text detector","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"disputed","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Hachette cancelled the US publication and discontinued the UK edition of the author’s novel. The author wrote to the New York Times that \"my mental health is at an all time low and my name is ruined for something I didn’t even personally do\" (relayed by BBC and The Guardian). The author denies personally using AI.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the author, reports harm (cancelled publication, damage to name and severely worsened mental health). The hired editor, readers who bought the book and the publisher are not counted as harmed persons.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/mar/20/hachette-horror-novel-shy-girl-suspected-ai-use-mia-ballard","primarySourceLabel":"The Guardian (20 Mar 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:16:09.707267+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:57.941496+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]},{"id":"2026-us-meta-26-employees-sue-alleging-ai-assisted-may-layoff-selection-penalized-protected-leave","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"OAKLAND DIVISION","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Filed 07/13/26","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on July 13, 2026, bringing claims against Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A group of 26 Meta employees has sued the company, claiming it used artificial intelligence systems to select people for layoffs, disproportionately targeting those on medical, parental or family leave.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 13 July 2026 twenty-six anonymous plaintiffs (Does 1 through 26) filed a complaint against Meta Platforms, Inc. in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland division, alleging employment discrimination in the May 2026 reduction in force.","causal_attribution":"The filing of the complaint is documented by the court record. The complaint establishes only the plaintiffs’ allegations."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"artificial-intelligence-assisted systems to score, rank, and select employees for inclusion","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"algorithmic productivity scoring drawn from keystroke, screen-content, mouse,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The parties dispute whether Meta utilized AI in deciding to terminate plaintiffs’","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"They claim that Meta used a number of internal AI-assisted systems to score and rank employees on a termination list.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used a set of internal AI-assisted systems to score, rank and select employees for the termination list: the Metamate internal large-language-model assistant, employee-trained \"second brain\" agents, keystroke and other activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance ranking and calibration.","causal_attribution":"These are the plaintiffs’ allegations, pleaded on information and belief and supported by plaintiff declarations that were not inspected (they are quoted in the complaint and the order). Meta disputes them (claim c4). The news reports and the court order restate the complaint and are one reporting chain with it."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"protected-leave-takers or accommodation-seekers for individualized human review. Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On information and belief, Meta did not neutralize any of the foregoing inputs for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"result was that employees who took protected leaves were disproportionately selected for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Plaintiffs are twenty-six current and former Meta employees, each of whom Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"selected for separation in the RIF, and each of whom","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"About half the plaintiffs had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that the inputs to these systems cannot be accumulated by an employee on protected medical, family or parental leave, that Meta did not neutralise them for protected leave, and that employees who took protected leave were therefore disproportionately selected for layoff. It states that each plaintiff was selected for separation in the reduction in force and had, within the 24 months before it, taken, requested or been approved for protected leave, or requested or received a disability accommodation.","causal_attribution":"Allegation of the plaintiffs. The court found on 17 July 2026 only serious questions going to the merits and no likelihood of success on that record (claim c5). Whether any AI system affected any plaintiff’s selection is unresolved."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"selection decisions in the RIF were “made by human","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"promotion history over a defined period. There was no AI-","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"was selected based on leave status, disability, or any other protected characteristic,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"“selection decision [was] made by ‘AI.’” Id. ¶ 11.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Selection decisions were made by human business leaders","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"defined period. There was no AI-assisted “scoring” or “ranking” related to employee","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"guidance does not permit AI adoption and usage metrics to be used as negative factors in","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"performance reviews in 2025 or as selection criteria in the RIF.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Meta denies the allegations. A Meta spokesperson said workforce management and organisational decisions were made by people, not AI. In declarations filed by a Meta human-resources director, Meta states that selection decisions were made by human business leaders using documented neutral criteria, that no AI-assisted scoring or ranking of employee performance was used, that no plaintiff was selected on the basis of leave status or disability, and that no selection decision was made by AI.","causal_attribution":"Meta’s statements and declarations about its own process. They are a party account and had been tested only through briefing and court hearings (claims c5 and c7), not in discovery."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"described below, the TRO is DENIED.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The parties dispute whether Meta utilized AI in deciding to terminate plaintiffs’","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, but rather a “serious question[]”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Loss of health care, employment, protected leave, and unvested restricted stock units (“RSUs”) are","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Loss of immigration status is different. Four of the plaintiffs have employment-based,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"they were not in the rooms where it happened.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 17 July 2026 the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. The order records that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in deciding to terminate the plaintiffs, finds serious questions going to the merits but no shown likelihood of success on that record, finds that loss of health care, employment, protected leave and unvested equity can be remedied in arbitration, and treats the possible loss of immigration status for four plaintiffs with Meta-sponsored visas as a potentially irreparable harm that needed more information.","causal_attribution":"A court order establishes what the court ruled and recorded. It does not establish that AI was or was not used in the selection."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On May 20, 2026, Meta began notifying the selected employees by email, beginning with","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"finalized on or about July 22, 2026 (and on or about August 20, 2026 for New York","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"laid off on May 20, 2026.” Complaint (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1] ¶ 45 (the “mass reduction in force”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Though they have been notified of their layoffs, all 26 remain employed by Meta, with separations set to begin July 22.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"Meta in May notified nearly 8,000 employees, or about 10% of its global workforce, that they were losing their jobs","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"Laid-off workers remain on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on May 20","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Meta began notifying employees selected in the reduction in force on 20 May 2026 (about 8,000 employees, roughly 10 percent of its workforce). The complaint says the plaintiffs were notified of their selection from that date, and that separations were scheduled for about 22 July 2026 (later for some plaintiffs). Meta said in court filings that laid-off workers stayed on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on 20 May.","causal_attribution":"The notification date and the scheduled separation dates come from the complaint and Meta court filings as relayed by Reuters. The sources inspected do not report whether each separation took place on its scheduled date, although Courthouse News called the plaintiffs former employees on 24 August 2026."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction conducted via videoconference. The Court","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"summarizes tentative. Argument of counsel heard. Motion taken under submission; written order","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"I have a record I have to deal with and the record at the moment does not persuade me of the merits","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"categorical denial of any impact of AI in the termination process","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"whether what plaintiffs think happened, happened","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"The court held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion on 24 August 2026, heard argument and took the motion under submission with a written order to follow. Courthouse News reports that the judge said the record at that time did not persuade the judge of the merits, that the plaintiffs’ evidence raised some potential questions about Meta’s categorical denial of any impact of AI in the termination process, and that the case turns on whether what plaintiffs think happened, happened.","causal_attribution":"The minute entry documents that the hearing occurred and the motion was taken under submission. The judge’s remarks are reported by one news outlet and the transcript was not inspected. No written ruling on the preliminary injunction was found as of 29 September 2026."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"and only Plaintiff Doe 20, hereby voluntarily dismisses","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"remain parties and continue to prosecute this action","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"Doe 20 was voluntarily dismissed from this action on August 3, 2026 pursuant to Federal","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"is made on behalf of Doe 20, and no relief is sought on Doe 20’s behalf.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"One plaintiff (Doe 20) voluntarily dismissed all of that plaintiff’s claims without prejudice on 3 August 2026 (Dkt. 33), and the notice states that Does 1 through 19 and 21 through 26 remain parties. No reason is given in the notice.","causal_attribution":"A filing by the plaintiffs’ counsel records the dismissal. It does not say whether that plaintiff was selected in the reduction in force or why the dismissal was made."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"They recognize that their claims must be arbitrated, and they have initiated arbitration proceedings","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"with the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Here, they seek a temporary restraining order:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"while they pursue their claims in private arbitration","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"from this Court only the status-quo-preserving provisional relief that Meta’s own","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"G. Reserve to the arbitral forum all relief on the merits, including but not limited to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The 17 July 2026 order records that the plaintiffs recognize their claims must be arbitrated and that they have initiated arbitration proceedings with the American Arbitration Association. The complaint says the plaintiffs seek from the court only status-quo-preserving provisional relief pending an independent audit of the selection process and arbitration of the merits, and it reserves merits relief such as reinstatement, back pay and damages to the arbitral forum.","causal_attribution":"The order records the plaintiffs’ own statement about their arbitration filings. The arbitration itself is confidential and its progress is unknown."}],"effects":[{"label":"Employees on or after protected leave allegedly disproportionately selected for layoff by an AI-assisted process that did not account for leave (disputed by Meta)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Plaintiffs notified of selection for termination on 20 May 2026, with separations scheduled from 22 July 2026 and possible loss of health coverage, unvested equity and (for four plaintiffs) work-visa status","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.25.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.42.1_1.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-court-declarations"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.46.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.49.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/26-meta-workers-sue-ai-aided-layoffs-medical-family-leave/","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-complaint"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/17/us-judge-wont-block-meta-from-laying-off-workers-w/","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"reuters-tro-coverage"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/meta-workers-claiming-ai-fired-them-unlikely-to-see-relief/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"courthouse-news-hearing"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.31.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-court-declarations"},{"id":"s10","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.33.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","health"],"unknowns":["Whether any AI system scored, ranked or selected any plaintiff is unresolved. The complaint pleads it on information and belief. Meta denies it in declarations. No discovery had occurred in the sources inspected, and the judge said on 17 July 2026 that plaintiffs were not in the rooms where the selections happened.","The sources inspected do not show how many people beyond the plaintiffs were selected because of leave, or how many of the roughly 8,000 laid-off employees were scored by any AI-assisted system. Only the plaintiffs are counted as reported harmed.","The order on the preliminary injunction motion (argued 24 August 2026, taken under submission) had not been found by 29 September 2026. The hearing remarks were read only through one news report and the transcript was not inspected.","Whether each plaintiff’s separation took place on its scheduled date (22 July 2026 for most, later for some) is not stated in the sources inspected. Reuters and CBS/AP describe the plaintiffs as still employed in July, and Courthouse News called them former employees on 24 August 2026.","One plaintiff (Doe 20) was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026 and no reason is stated. The affected count therefore uses 25.","The complaint and declarations contain individual medical, pregnancy and immigration details. They are anonymised in the public copies and are deliberately not described here.","Reuters and WSJ pages for the initial filing could not be read (HTTP 401). Reuters coverage of the 17 July ruling was read through a Spokesman-Review copy. The Law.com article was behind a subscription wall and was not cited.","The complaint alleges that data captured by a separate Meta employee-monitoring program (the Model Capability Initiative) supplied inputs to the selection process, and Meta denies that AI was used in the selection. That program’s own privacy and security consequences are a different event, recorded as 2026-meta-mci-us-employee-keystroke-and-screen-capture-for-ai-training-then-internal-data-exposure, and are not part of this record."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint states that the plaintiffs worked in California, Illinois, Washington, New York, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania and Florida and the suit is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Meta also notified employees in other countries in the same reduction in force, but no plaintiff outside the US is described.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The complaint, the court order denying the temporary restraining order, two Meta declarations, the plaintiffs’ notice of dismissal of one plaintiff and the hearing minute entry were read from the court record (CourtListener copies), with CBS/AP, Reuters and Courthouse News reports. Every AI-related statement is attributed. The plaintiffs are anonymous in the record and are not described individually. Meta denies that AI made or informed any selection decision and the court has not resolved the dispute.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used internal AI-assisted systems (Metamate, second-brain agents, activity-monitoring scoring, AI-token-usage dashboards, algorithmic ranking and calibration) to score, rank and select employees for the 20 May 2026 termination list. Meta’s declarations say selection decisions were made by human business leaders and that there was no AI-assisted scoring or ranking related to employee performance, and the court described the declarations as saying Meta did not use AI in any way with respect to the RIF. The court recorded that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in deciding to terminate the plaintiffs and found on 17 July 2026 that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the current record. On 24 August 2026 the judge said the plaintiffs’ evidence raised some potential questions about Meta’s categorical denial. No discovery had tested Meta’s account in the sources inspected.","status":"disputed"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: 26 Meta employees sue alleging an AI-assisted May 2026 layoff selection penalized workers on protected leave, Meta says people made the decisions","summary":"On 20 May 2026 Meta began notifying about 8,000 employees (roughly 10 percent of its workforce) that they had been selected for layoff. On 13 July 2026 twenty-six anonymous employees who had taken or requested medical, pregnancy, parental or family leave, or a disability accommodation, sued Meta in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used internal AI-assisted systems (including the Metamate assistant, keystroke and activity monitoring, AI-token-usage dashboards and algorithmic performance ranking) to score, rank and select employees, and that these inputs could not accumulate during protected leave, so plaintiffs on leave were disproportionately selected. Meta says workforce decisions were made by people, not AI, and that no selection decision was made by AI. On 17 July 2026 the court denied a temporary restraining order, recording that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in the terminations and finding serious questions on the merits but no shown likelihood of success. One plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026. The preliminary injunction motion was argued on 24 August 2026 and taken under submission. The plaintiffs are pursuing their merits claims in arbitration and the allegations are unproven.","incidentDate":"2026-05-20","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-07-14","aiSystem":"Meta internal AI-assisted systems alleged in the complaint: the Metamate internal LLM assistant, employee-trained \"second brain\" agents, keystroke and activity-monitoring productivity scoring, AI-token-usage dashboards and AI-assisted performance calibration (Meta denies AI was used in selecting employees for the layoff)","aiProduct":"Meta internal AI systems (reported)","aiCompany":"Meta Platforms, Inc.","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"disputed","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complaint alleges that 26 employees were selected for termination in Meta’s May 2026 reduction in force through an AI-assisted process that penalised protected leave, with separations scheduled from 22 July 2026 and asserted losses of employer-subsidised health coverage, unvested equity and, for four plaintiffs, work-visa status. Meta denies that AI was used in the selections. The court found the alleged harms other than immigration status remediable in arbitration and has not decided the merits.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":25,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The complaint states that each of 26 plaintiffs was selected for separation in the May 2026 reduction in force. One plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026 without a stated reason, so 25 active plaintiffs are counted as a documented minimum. The roughly 8,000 other employees notified in the reduction in force are not counted because no source ties their selection to the alleged AI process.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Complaint, Does 1 through 26 v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (N.D. Cal., filed 13 Jul 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:16:06.345461+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:57.733761+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]},{"id":"2025-us-eightfold-ai-match-score-applicant-screening-class-action","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"about unsuspecting job applicants and to score them from 0 to 5 for potential employers based on","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This results in a Match Score, which ranges from 0 through 5 in increments of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Employers then use these reports to sift through","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"But candidates who apply for jobs at companies that use those tools are not given notice and a chance to dispute errors","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that Eightfold collects applicant information and scores applicants from 0 to 5 by predicted likelihood of success for employers, that employers use these reports to sift applications, and that Eightfold provides no notice, access or dispute rights.","causal_attribution":"These are the plaintiffs' allegations as stated in a filing. The filing establishes only its own contents."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In or around July 2025,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"applied online via Microsoft’s website for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Manager-Responsible AI position two days after she applied, without being invited to interview.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On or around December 16, 2025,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"received an automated rejection for the Senior Technical Program","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint says one plaintiff applied to Microsoft in or around July 2025 and again around 16 December 2025, and received an automated rejection two days after the first application without an interview.","causal_attribution":"The complaint attributes the screening to Eightfold's Evaluation Tools used by the employer. No employer record or score was inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On or around December 17,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"applied online via Paypal’s website","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"was not asked to interview and was not given a job offer for any of the","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint says the other plaintiff applied to PayPal on or around 17 December 2025 for two roles and was not asked to interview or given an offer for any position applied to.","causal_attribution":"The complaint alleges Eightfold's tools were applied to this application. Reuters reports the plaintiffs believe the tools played a role. The link to any specific rejection is not established."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"is being sued in California for allegedly compiling reports used to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"On January 20, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"sued in California state court on behalf of all U.S. job seekers who applied for jobs","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Neither was hired, and both believe that Eightfold's tools played a role.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The proposed class action was filed by two women with STEM backgrounds who believe Eightfold’s AI tools hurt their careers by unfairly screening them out","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Reuters reports the plaintiffs, who are not named by this record, filed a proposed class action in California state court on 20 January 2026 on behalf of all US job seekers evaluated with the tools, and that neither plaintiff was hired and both believe Eightfold's tools played a role.","causal_attribution":"Reuters and the plaintiffs' counsel release both trace to the complaint and counsel. They are one reporting chain."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"We do not scrape social media and the like.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"said the platform operates on data shared by candidates or provided by customers.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"An Eightfold spokesperson said the platform does not scrape social media and operates on data shared by candidates or provided by customers.","causal_attribution":"Company statement to Reuters. It disputes the complaint's data-collection allegation and does not address the scoring allegation."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Document 1 Filed 03/02/26","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/24/2026.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"NOTICE OF REMOVAL Eightfold AI, Inc.'s Notice of Removal from Contra Costa Superior Court.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"MOTION to Dismiss filed by Eightfold AI Inc..","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"ORDER VACATING HEARING Re: 29 MOTION to Dismiss.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Eightfold removed the case to the US District Court for the Northern District of California on 2 March 2026 and filed a motion to dismiss. The docket shows the hearing on that motion vacated on 24 July 2026 and no ruling in the entries inspected.","causal_attribution":"Procedural facts documented by the court docket. The docket does not establish the merits."}],"effects":[{"label":"Applicants allegedly scored and screened by an undisclosed AI ranking without statutory notice or dispute rights, and not interviewed or hired","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465146/gov.uscourts.cand.465146.1.0_2.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ai-company-eightfold-sued-helping-181520410.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.outtengolden.com/newsroom/landmark-class-action-accuses-eightfold-ai-of-illegally-producing-hidden-credit-reports-on-job-applicants","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72351430/kistler-v-eightfold-ai-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"court-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether Eightfold's tools produced a score for either plaintiff or influenced either employer's decision is not established. The complaint and reports rest on the plaintiffs' allegations and belief.","The start date of the alleged practice is not stated. The incident range covers only the plaintiffs' dated applications (July to December 2025). The complaint says one plaintiff has applied to Microsoft and other employers since 2023. Earlier applications are not described and are outside this record.","Whether the defendant's tools collected social media or other third-party data about the plaintiffs is disputed by Eightfold and unresolved.","The other plaintiff's location is not stated in the sources inspected.","The outcome of the pending motion to dismiss is unknown. Docket entry 46 (24 Sep 2026, a statement of recent decision) had no readable content.","Microsoft and PayPal are not defendants. Microsoft declined comment and no PayPal response was inspected."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint states that one plaintiff lives in, applied from and was denied employment while living in Contra Costa County, California. The removed case is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The other plaintiff's location is not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The complaint was read from the copy attached to the defendant's notice of removal, with Reuters, the plaintiffs' counsel release and the court docket. The plaintiffs are described by role and not named. All allegations are attributed and remain at reported status. The AIAAIC archive entry had no description and is not cited.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges Eightfold's Match Score model scored and ranked the plaintiffs' applications for the employers. Eightfold's statement disputes the alleged data collection. No document showing a score for either plaintiff was inspected.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: two applicants sue Eightfold AI over 0-to-5 applicant scores used in hiring","summary":"Two job applicants filed a proposed class action on 20 January 2026 in California state court (removed to federal court on 2 March 2026) against Eightfold AI Inc. The complaint alleges that Eightfold's hiring tools collect applicant data and produce a 0-to-5 'Match Score' that employers use to rank candidates, without the notice, access and dispute rights the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a California statute require. One plaintiff says she applied to Microsoft in or around July 2025 and again in December 2025 and received an automated rejection two days after the first application. The other says she applied to PayPal in December 2025. Both say they were not interviewed or hired and believe Eightfold's tools played a role. Eightfold says it does not scrape social media and operates on data candidates or customers provide. The allegations are unproven and Eightfold filed a motion to dismiss (no ruling appears in the docket entries inspected).","incidentDate":"2025-07-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-17","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-01-21","aiSystem":"Eightfold AI talent-evaluation tools including the 'Match Score' applicant ranking model","aiProduct":"Eightfold Match Score","aiCompany":"Eightfold AI Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complaint alleges that two applicants were scored by Eightfold's tools, not interviewed and not hired, and that they received none of the disclosures or dispute rights the statutes require. The plaintiffs believe the tools played a role in their rejections. Eightfold's involvement in any particular rejection is not established.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Two plaintiffs each allege they were scored and not hired. The proposed class of all US applicants evaluated with the tools is not counted because no class has been certified and no other applicant's experience is reported.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465146/gov.uscourts.cand.465146.1.0_2.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Notice of removal with the state-court complaint, plaintiffs v. Eightfold AI Inc. (N.D. Cal., filed 2 Mar 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:41.995961+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.000724+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-us-neh-humanities-grant-mass-termination-chatgpt-dei-screening","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"The Mass Termination is DECLARED unlawful,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"was unlawful because it was undertaken in violation of the First Amendment","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the resulting terminations were ultra vires","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the termination, in early April 2025, of more than 1,400 grants,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing, implementing, or giving any effect to the Mass Termination.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 7 May 2026 the court declared the April 2025 mass termination of NEH grants (more than 1,400 grants, over $100 million) unlawful, unconstitutional and ultra vires, and permanently enjoined its enforcement.","causal_attribution":"The declaration rests on the First Amendment, equal protection and lack of statutory authority. It does not rest on a finding that ChatGPT was inaccurate."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Does the following relate at all to DEI? Respond factually in less than 120 characters. Begin with ‘Yes.’ or ‘No.’ followed by a brief explanation.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"did not provide ChatGPT with a definition of “DEI”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"it enlisted the help of ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"two employees of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) used ChatGPT to determine whether previously approved National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants should be canceled","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"A DOGE staff member used ChatGPT with a standardized prompt asking whether each grant description related at all to DEI, without defining DEI for the model.","causal_attribution":"The opinion recites deposition testimony and the spreadsheet. The prompt text is a quotation of the court record."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"thereby combining DOGE’s AI-generated classifications with NEH staff recommendations.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"did not know ChatGPT had been used","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The ChatGPT outputs were combined with NEH staff ratings into the lists used to select grants for termination, and the NEH acting chair testified to not knowing ChatGPT had been used.","causal_attribution":"The court ties the ChatGPT-generated rationales to the lists presented to the NEH chair. The acting chair's account is deposition testimony as recited by the court."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"were terminated on that basis and that basis alone.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Of the 1,163 grant proposals DOGE analyzed via ChatGPT for DEI-related content, 1,057 were flagged, and just 42 were kept","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The opinion states that 1,057 grants were identified as DEI-related through the DOGE review process and terminated on that basis alone.","causal_attribution":"The opinion attributes the identification to a process that combined keyword searches and ChatGPT rationales. The opinion says ChatGPT rationales were generated in a second-stage review of grants NEH staff had labelled \"N/A\" and were merged with NEH ratings. It does not apportion the 1,057 between NEH ratings and ChatGPT. Fortune attributes all 1,057 flags to ChatGPT from a spreadsheet exhibit."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Yes. This description highlights how the plastics industry influenced municipal government officials to favor plastics","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Nevertheless, ChatGPT classified the project as “DEI,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The utter lack of reasoning behind so many of its “rationales”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court describes ChatGPT classifying projects as DEI on the basis of short descriptions, including a project on the plastics industry and municipal building codes, with rationales the court found lacking.","causal_attribution":"The court characterises the outputs. Whether each terminated grant was flagged by ChatGPT is not stated for the individual plaintiffs."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The individual plaintiffs are scholars and writers who received NEH grants for specific research and writing projects and whose awards were terminated before the completion of their funded work.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"allege concrete professional, financial, and scholarly harms","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"That funding was terminated effective April 2, 2025, resulting in the loss of the fellowship itself.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"individual grantees whose awards were terminated suffered a concrete economic injury sufficient to confer Article III standing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Seven individual grantees whose NEH awards were terminated before completion allege professional, financial and scholarly harm, including lost funding, and in one case loss of a fellowship that depended on NEH funding.","causal_attribution":"The harms are the plaintiffs' allegations as summarised by the court, and the standing holding is recited from the court's earlier preliminary injunction opinion. The link between ChatGPT and the termination of these seven specific awards is not stated in the inspected passages."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"DOGE officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select, or direct the termination of NEH grants","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court declared that DOGE officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select or direct the termination of NEH grants.","causal_attribution":"A legal declaration in the judgment."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Yes. Improving HVAC systems enhances preservation conditions for collections, aligning with the goal of providing greater access to diverse audiences. #DEI,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"We were able to recoup about 70% of the original award through the grant termination clause,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A North Carolina history museum's $349,000 HVAC grant was flagged by ChatGPT as DEI and terminated after the project had begun, and the museum director says it recouped about 70% of the award through the termination clause.","causal_attribution":"Organisation-level example from one outlet and one interview. It is not counted as harm to a person."}],"effects":[{"label":"Individual grantees lost or had interrupted NEH funding when their awards were terminated in a mass termination that relied on a ChatGPT DEI screen","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/NEH.sj_.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"sdny-opinion-2026-05"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/research/2026/03/11/how-doge-gutted-neh-22-days","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://fortune.com/2026/03/19/doge-cancelled-350000-hvac-grant-dei-lawsuit-elon-musk/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.artforum.com/news/doge-allegedly-used-chatgpt-to-cancel-humanities-grants-1234745040/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","education","public_services"],"unknowns":["Whether ChatGPT reviewed or flagged the specific grants of the seven individual plaintiffs is not stated in the passages inspected.","The dates on which ChatGPT was used are not stated beyond the second stage of review beginning on 12 March 2025 and terminations sent 1 to 3 April 2025. The incident dates are the bounded series between those points.","The number of individual people (as opposed to organizations) whose awards were terminated is not stated.","The opinion separates grants marked \"DEI\" from grants terminated without a DEI mark (its Biden-Era Subclass). It does not say which group any of the seven individual plaintiffs' grants belonged to.","Whether funding has been restored is unknown. The judgment states it does not require immediate payment.","Appeal status of the May 2026 judgment is unknown.","The New York Times article listed in the AIID entry returned HTTP 403 and was not read. The opinion is 143 pages and was read through its factual sections, the standing recital and the judgment, not every legal section."],"geography":{"basis":"The opinion describes terminations by the US federal agency NEH and by DOGE staff of grants to scholars, writers and institutions, and describes the individual plaintiffs as holding positions at US universities. The court is a US federal district court (S.D.N.Y.).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"A federal court opinion (7 May 2026), Inside Higher Ed and Fortune were read. Claims about the court record are documented by the opinion. Individual grantee harms are the plaintiffs' allegations as summarised by the court. Individual plaintiffs and DOGE staff are not named in public fields.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The federal court opinion finds that a DOGE staff member submitted grant descriptions to ChatGPT with a DEI yes/no prompt and that the outputs were folded into the lists used to select grants for termination. The opinion does not state whether each of the seven individual plaintiffs' grants was reviewed or flagged by ChatGPT.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: National Endowment for the Humanities grants terminated after DOGE staff used ChatGPT to flag projects as DEI-related","summary":"In March and early April 2025 (the opinion gives no date for the ChatGPT step), a DOGE staff member working with the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) submitted short grant descriptions to ChatGPT with a prompt asking whether each project related at all to DEI, and the answers were combined with NEH staff ratings into lists of grants to terminate. More than 1,400 NEH grants (over $100 million) were terminated in notices sent 1 to 3 April 2025. A federal district court found the mass termination unlawful in May 2026 and described the ChatGPT step in its findings. Seven individual grantees who sued report lost or interrupted funding for their research and writing projects. The opinion does not state whether ChatGPT reviewed those seven grants.","incidentDate":"2025-03-12","incidentEndDate":"2025-04-03","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-08","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used through a standardized DEI yes/no prompt","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court opinion describes seven individual grantee plaintiffs whose NEH awards were terminated before completion, and reports their allegations of lost funding, interrupted research and leave from employment taken in reliance on the awards. Individual counts beyond these seven are not established in the inspected sources.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"unclear","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":7,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"The court opinion names seven individual grantee plaintiffs whose awards were terminated. It states the terminations reached more than 1,400 grants awarded to scholars, writers, research institutions and other humanities organizations, and does not give a count of individual people. The opinion does not state whether these seven grants were flagged by ChatGPT. Organizations, members of plaintiff associations and the wider class are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/NEH.sj_.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"S.D.N.Y. opinion and order granting summary judgment, 7 May 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:29.039734+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.404135+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2024-us-otter-notetaker-recorded-non-users-meetings-privacy-suit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'participated in a Zoom meeting in California on February'; '24, 2025, where the Otter Notetaker was used by a meeting participant to transcribe the'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in California in March 2025'; 'used Zoom to communicate with a medical professional, and'; 'Illinois on January 10, 2025 and May 19, 2025 where the Otter Notetaker was used to'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in Washington state in March'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state who'; 'participated in virtual meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their'; 'consent to record, transcribe, and store the contents of their communications.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the'; 'allegations concerning the named Plaintiff’s personal knowledge, experiences, expectations, or'","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'who alleges his privacy was \"severely invaded\" upon realizing Otter was secretly recording a confidential conversation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Seven people who were not Otter account holders allege that, on Zoom or Microsoft Teams calls (six give dates between March 2024 and May 2025), another participant used Otter Notetaker and Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations without their consent; the calls include one with a medical professional and meetings with a financial professional.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs attribute the recording to Otter's product design, which they say lets the notetaker record without every participant's consent; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'other personal information for its own commercial use, including to train its automatic speech'; 'The Illinois Plaintiffs allege that, during their virtual meetings, Otter'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter claims that before the audio of meetings is fed into its machine learning systems to help improve an AI speech recognition feature, it is \"de-identified,\"'","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter keeps their conversational data on its servers and uses it to train its speech-recognition and machine-learning models, and that it captured the Illinois plaintiffs' voiceprints; Otter's policy, as reported by NPR, says it trains on transcripts with users' permission and de-identifies audio.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'felt frustrated, embarrassed, and stressed to learn that his'; 'conversation was recorded without his consent, and his information, voice, and'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One California plaintiff alleges that he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn that his conversation had been recorded without his consent.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs as a consequence of Otter's recording."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ ECPA claim is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ BIPA claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'The motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend as to Count 2'; 'The motion is DENIED in all other respects.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 13 August 2026 the court denied Otter's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, holding that the alleged interception and retention of private conversations was a concrete injury, let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, and dismissed some other claims.","causal_attribution":"Procedural ruling on the pleadings; no finding that Otter recorded anyone unlawfully."}],"effects":[{"label":"the plaintiffs say Otter's notetaker recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations on calls they joined, without their consent, including a medical call and calls with a financial professional","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the plaintiffs say their conversations stay on Otter's servers for training its models and that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"one plaintiff says he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn he had been recorded","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.35.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 35, filed 5 December 2025; RECAP PDF (68 pages) read on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200), plaintiffs' experience sections read in full. Plaintiffs' allegations, not findings.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part, ECF 68, 13 August 2026 (Judge Eumi K. Lee); RECAP PDF read in full on 2026-09-29. Rules on the pleadings and accepts the allegations as true for that purpose; it makes no finding of fact.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.80.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Otter.ai's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 80, 17 September 2026; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29, plaintiff-experience paragraphs and responses read.","independence_group":"otter-answer"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Brewer v. Otter.ai, Inc., original Class Action Complaint, ECF 1, filed 15 August 2025; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.npr.org/2025/08/15/g-s1-83087/otter-ai-transcription-class-action-lawsuit","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"NPR, 15 August 2025, read live on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200). Reports the original complaint and summarises Otter's privacy policy; says neither side responded to requests for comment.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.79.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order, ECF 79, 16 September 2026; read on 2026-09-29. Procedural facts only.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","work","health","finance"],"unknowns":["Whether Otter's product notified the plaintiffs on their calls that the notetaker was present, and what the other participants' Otter settings were.","Whether the plaintiffs' conversations were in fact used to train Otter's models, and in what form.","The exact date of one Illinois plaintiff's meetings, which the complaint places only within the limitations period."],"geography":{"basis":"The consolidated complaint places the plaintiffs' calls in California, in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois, and in Washington state; the order describes the plaintiffs as individuals from California, Illinois and Washington state. The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a bounded series of concrete privacy harms reported by identified people in a pending federal suit: each named plaintiff describes a call on which another participant's AI notetaker recorded and transcribed them without consent. The account rests on the plaintiffs' pleadings and the court's ruling on them; Otter denies the allegations. Plaintiff names are omitted.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Each plaintiff alleges that the Otter Notetaker, an AI transcription assistant, was used on their call and recorded and transcribed it; the relation recorded is that the AI produced speaker-attributed transcripts and, the complaint alleges, voiceprints identifying each speaker, a record of who said what (ECF 35 paras 10-11). Otter admits it offers an AI meeting assistant called Otter Notetaker but says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' calls and denies the allegations.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"United States: seven people who say they did not hold Otter accounts say Otter's AI Notetaker recorded and transcribed their Zoom and Teams meetings without their consent, including a medical call and calls with a financial professional, and kept the data to train its models; a federal court let their core privacy claims proceed","summary":"Seven people in California, Illinois and Washington state are suing Otter.ai in a consolidated class action in the Northern District of California. Each says another meeting participant used Otter's AI Notetaker on a Zoom or Microsoft Teams call they joined, and that Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversation without their consent; six of them date their calls between March 2024 and May 2025. They say they were not Otter account holders. The calls they describe include a medical consultation, meetings with a financial professional and work discussions. They allege that Otter keeps the recordings and uses them to train its speech-recognition models, that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs, and one of them says learning of the recording left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed. On 13 August 2026 the court found that the alleged interception of private conversations was a concrete injury and let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, while dismissing some claims. Otter's answer to the consolidated complaint, filed on 17 September 2026, says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' experiences and denies the allegations.","incidentDate":"2024-03-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-19","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-08-15","aiSystem":"Otter Notetaker, Otter.ai's AI meeting assistant, joined to Zoom and Microsoft Teams calls by another participant's Otter account","aiProduct":"Otter Notetaker","aiCompany":"Otter.ai, Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter recorded, transcribed and kept their private conversations on calls they joined without their consent, including medical and financial discussions, used them to train its models and took voiceprints, and one plaintiff says learning this left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed (plaintiffs' allegations in a pending suit; Otter denies them).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":7,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The court order says 'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state' who participated in meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their consent; each describes their own call in the consolidated complaint. They were not Otter account holders (one says only that to her knowledge she did not create an account), so they are counted as other people. The proposed class members are not counted. Documented minimum 7.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Order granting motion to dismiss in part, In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, No. 5:25-cv-06911-EKL (N.D. Cal.), 13 August 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:04:08.493618+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:54.438217+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["otter-ai","ai-notetaker","meeting-transcription","privacy","wiretap","bipa","voiceprint","training-data","class-action","non-user"]},{"id":"2026-orelien-goncourt-selection-removed-ai-detector-accusation","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Le 21 septembre, le compte « Balance ton Claude », jusque-là peu connu, affirme avoir soumis plusieurs extraits de C’était ça ou mourir au logiciel américain Pangram, spécialisé dans la détection de textes potentiellement générés par intelligence artificielle. Certains passages auraient obtenu des scores allant jusqu’à 100 % de probabilité de génération par IA.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Les premières accusations ont été portées lundi par un compte anonyme sur X, mettant en avant le verdict du détecteur d'IA Pangram. L'essayiste Samuel Fitoussi a confirmé vendredi être derrière ce compte, Balance ton Claude, assurant n'être qu'un des membres d'un collectif.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The accusation began when an anonymous X account, Balance ton Claude, said it had run excerpts of the novel through the Pangram AI-detection software, with some passages scoring up to 100 per cent probability of AI generation; essayist Samuel Fitoussi later said he was one of the people behind the account.","causal_attribution":"Account of how the accusation arose, as reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'L'Académie Goncourt a annoncé, vendredi 25 septembre, la \"suppression\" du roman C'était ça ou mourir de Thélyson Orélien de sa première sélection'; 'L'ouvrage \"est selon toute vraisemblance très largement le produit d'une intelligence artificielle\", justifie-t-elle après plusieurs jours de polémique, expliquant se reposer sur le \"résultat convergent de plusieurs analyses de chercheurs et journalistes dignes de foi\".'; 'L'Académie Goncourt justifie également sa décision par \"des plagiats dont son auteur s'est rendu coupable au fil du temps et qui viennent d'être révélés\", qui ne concernent pas son roman mais au moins une nouvelle et des articles publiés au Canada.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'L'Académie Goncourt a annoncé vendredi qu'elle retirait le roman de l'auteur canado-haïtien Thélyson Orélien de sa sélection pour le prix Goncourt en raison des accusations de plagiat et d'utilisation de l'intelligence artificielle (IA) le visant.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 25 September 2026 the Académie Goncourt removed the novel from its first selection, stating that it is in all likelihood very largely the product of an artificial intelligence on the basis of several analyses by researchers and journalists, and also citing plagiarism by the author in older texts published in Canada that do not concern the novel.","causal_attribution":"The Académie's stated reasons combine AI analyses and plagiarism findings; the weight given to the Pangram results is not stated. The communiqué itself was not read directly."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'L'écrivain canado-haïtien conteste avoir eu recours à l'intelligence artificielle, et a dénoncé jeudi une \"volonté\" de le \"faire taire\".'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Il explique que son style, marqué notamment par les répétitions et certains rythmes propres à son univers linguistique et culturel, pourrait être interprété à tort par des outils automatisés.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Orélien denies using artificial intelligence to write the novel and says its repetitions and rhythms reflect his linguistic and cultural background and may be misread by automated tools.","causal_attribution":"The author's denial; the Académie and the accusers maintain the contrary. No decisive evidence either way is reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Les éditions du Boréal, basées à Montréal, ont annoncé suspendre \"les activités promotionnelles\" autour du livre'; '\"Malheureusement, il nous est impossible à ce stade-ci d'infirmer ou de confirmer les allégations auxquelles l'auteur fait face\", a expliqué Boréal'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Au Canada, les Éditions du Boréal ont suspendu les activités promotionnelles entourant le roman'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"His Montreal publisher, Éditions du Boréal, suspended promotional activities around the book, saying it could neither confirm nor refute the allegations.","causal_attribution":"Publisher statement as reported; the suspension followed both the AI and plagiarism allegations."}],"effects":[{"label":"novel removed from the Goncourt prize selection after accusations, based partly on AI-detector scores, that it was largely AI-generated","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"publisher suspended promotion of the book pending the allegations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.franceinfo.fr/culture/livres/le-roman-de-thelyson-orelien-supprime-de-la-selection-du-prix-goncourt-en-raison-de-soupcons-de-recours-a-l-intelligence-artificielle-et-d-accusations-de-plagiats_8209475.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read live in French on 2026-09-28; bylined 'franceinfo avec AFP'. Quotes the Académie communiqué. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"goncourt-communique-afp"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.rts.ch/info/culture/livres/2026/article/thelyson-orelien-l-essayiste-samuel-fitoussi-dit-avoir-lance-la-polemique-29367142.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read live in French on 2026-09-28 (25 September 2026). No wire credit visible in the saved text but the account parallels the AFP copy; treated as the same chain. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"goncourt-communique-afp"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.juno7.ht/thelyson-orelien-polemique-ia-goncourt-pangram/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read live in French on 2026-09-28 (26 September 2026). A Haitian synthesis of published reporting with no independent sourcing; treated as the same chain. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"goncourt-communique-afp"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://t24.com.tr/dunya/odullu-yazarin-romanina-yapay-zek-suclamasi-adayliktan-cikarildi,1350116","kind":"news_relay","access":"read","language":"tr","translation_note":"Read live in Turkish on 2026-09-28 (27 September 2026); relay of the same reporting. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"goncourt-communique-afp"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Whether generative AI was used to write the novel; the author denies it.","Which analyses by researchers and journalists the Académie relied on, and how much weight it gave the Pangram scores relative to the plagiarism findings.","The novel's status on the Femina, Médicis and Renaudot lists after the Goncourt decision.","The author's own account of personal or financial effects beyond the public statements reported."],"geography":{"basis":"The decision was taken by the Académie Goncourt for the French literary prize (franceinfo) while the author was in France promoting the book (RTS). The author is described as Canadian-Haitian and his publisher is in Montreal, but his country of residence is not stated in the read sources, so no affected-person country is recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["FR"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case (an AI-detection tool's output about his text launched public accusations of AI authorship, and the Académie Goncourt then removed his novel, citing unnamed analyses finding it probably AI-generated as well as separate plagiarism). AI authorship is disputed and unproven, and the decision also rested on separate plagiarism findings; the record states both. The author is a public figure; all read sources derive from the same public statements and AFP-led reporting.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-28"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Pangram AI-detection software was used by the accusing account to score excerpts of the novel as AI-generated (franceinfo; RTS; juno7). That generative AI was used to write the novel is disputed: the author denies it. The Académie relied on unspecified analyses by researchers and journalists, not solely on Pangram.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"France: the Académie Goncourt removes Thélyson Orélien's bestselling novel from its prize selection, saying it is in all likelihood largely AI-generated, days after an anonymous X account publicised Pangram AI-detector scores; the author denies using AI, and the Académie also cites separate plagiarism in his older texts","summary":"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. Whether AI was used to write the novel is disputed; AI-detector reliability is itself contested in the coverage.","incidentDate":"2026-09-21","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-25","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-25","aiSystem":"Pangram, an AI-text detection tool, used by the Balance ton Claude account to score excerpts of the novel (juno7; RTS; franceinfo); the alleged use of a generative-AI model to write the novel is denied by the author and unproven","aiProduct":"Pangram AI-text detector","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"disputed","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The author's novel was removed from the Goncourt prize selection and his publisher suspended its promotion after public accusations, based partly on AI-detector scores, that the book was largely AI-generated; he denies using AI and the Académie also cited separate plagiarism (franceinfo with AFP; RTS; juno7).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the author Thélyson Orélien, whose novel was removed from the selection (franceinfo; RTS). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"FR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.franceinfo.fr/culture/livres/le-roman-de-thelyson-orelien-supprime-de-la-selection-du-prix-goncourt-en-raison-de-soupcons-de-recours-a-l-intelligence-artificielle-et-d-accusations-de-plagiats_8209475.html","primarySourceLabel":"franceinfo (with AFP), 25 September 2026: Le roman de Thélyson Orélien supprimé de la sélection du prix Goncourt en raison de soupçons de recours à l'intelligence artificielle et d'accusations de plagiats","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-28T03:31:42.415125+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:48.719742+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-detection","ai-detector-accusation","literary-prize","goncourt","pangram","france","disputed","made-claim-about"]},{"id":"2026-st-louis-county-gatlin-facial-recognition-wrongful-arrest-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Jan 13, 2025 | COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants ... filed by Christopher Gatlin'; 'Jan 29, 2025 | AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant Matthew Shute, St. Louis County, Surescan Technology, LLC, The City of Saint Louis, Matthew Welle, Cody Goodwin'; 'Oct 15, 2025 | MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of St. Louis's Motion to Dismiss Count 9 (Doc. 22 ) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Matthew Welle's Motion to Dismiss Counts 2-5 and 10-12 (Doc. 25 ) is granted in part in that Count V is hereby dismissed, and denied in all other respects.'; 'Aug 13, 2026 | SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants'; 'Aug 25, 2026 | SUMMONS Returned Executed filed by Christopher Gatlin. Amazon Web Services, Inc. served on 8/18/2026'; 'Aug 27, 2026 | ANSWER to 105 Amended Complaint'; 'Sep 8, 2026 | ORDER granting 115 Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer ... due no later than September 21'; 'Sep 17, 2026 | MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Plead ;Proposed extension date September 28, 2026 by Defendant Amazon Web Services'; 'Aug 31, 2026 | ADR COMPLIANCE REPORT ... The parties did not achieve a settlement.'; 'Jul 23, 2026 | AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER ... Jury Trial set for 11/1/2027 09:00 AM ... Pretrial Conference set for 10/27/2027'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Christopher Gatlin alleged Thursday in an amended complaint that his arrest and indictment were the product of shoddy police work, poor training, police misconduct, and the use of a defective facial recognition program developed by Amazon for law enforcement use, known as the Rekognition program.'; 'Gatlin originally filed the lawsuit in January 2025, but amended the complaint to name Amazon as a defendant'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Amazon has until Sept. 28 to file a response to the suit's allegations.'; 'Gatlin sued in January of this year. His suit lists 14 counts against the various defendants'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Gatlin filed a civil-rights suit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on 13 January 2025 against St. Louis County, the City of St. Louis and named officers (an amended complaint of 29 January 2025 also named Surescan Technology, LLC, dismissed on 8 May 2025); on 15 October 2025 the court denied the City's motion to dismiss and granted Welle's motion only as to Count V; on 13 August 2026 the court granted leave for a second amended complaint adding Amazon Web Services, which was served on 18 August 2026; the county, its officers, the city and Welle answered on 27 August 2026; AWS's response deadline was extended to 21 September 2026 and AWS moved on 17 September for a further extension to 28 September (no ruling on the docket when read); a July 2026 mediation did not settle; a pretrial conference is set for 27 October 2027 and a jury trial for 1 November 2027.","causal_attribution":"Court docket entries; the Surescan dismissal is docket entry 31 (8 May 2025); the 28 September date is AWS's requested extension (motion of 17 September, unruled when read) and the Post-Dispatch's report; the trial date is from the amended case management order of 23 July 2026 (the earlier 23 August 2027 date in the 5 May 2026 order was superseded)."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'Eight months later, in August 2021, Shute and one of the other officers, St. Louis Officer Matthew Welle, revisited the case and uploaded a \"grainy surveillance photo\" from the bus into SMRT.'; 'The program spit out a list of names. On that list: Gatlin.'; 'Gatlin was charged with first-degree assault and held in jail for almost two years.'; 'Gatlin's public defender filed a motion to suppress the photo identification, arguing it was unconstitutionally suggestive, and the judge agreed'; 'On March 14, 2024 — more than two years after Gatlin's arrest — prosecutors dismissed the charges.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'Biometric Update reported that Gatlin was arrested on August 14, 2021, and remained incarcerated for roughly 17 months while his case was pending.'; 'St. Louis County Judge Brian May suppressed the witness identification in February 2024 after finding officers had not followed accepted impartial-lineup procedures, and prosecutors dismissed the charges the following month, Biometric Update reported.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'A man who was wrongfully arrested and held in the St. Louis County Jail for two years sued Amazon Web Services LLC along with the city and county over their allegedly improper use of facial recognition technology.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Christopher Gatlin, arrested by police in St. Louis, Missouri (August 2021)'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Gatlin was arrested in August 2021 (13 August per the Post-Dispatch's 'four days' after the 9 August lineup; 14 August per Biometric Update via Hoodline) for a December 2020 assault on a security guard at the St. Charles Rock Road MetroLink station after two officers of a joint county-city MetroLink team uploaded a grainy bus surveillance photo into the St. Louis Mugshot Recognition Technology System and the guard, after prompting, picked Gatlin from a photo lineup; he was charged with first-degree assault and held roughly 17 months to almost two years; the identification was suppressed as unconstitutionally suggestive and prosecutors dismissed the charges on 14 March 2024.","causal_attribution":"The Post-Dispatch's own account of the investigation and the suit, Biometric Update via Hoodline, Bloomberg Law and the ACLU; the jail duration is stated differently by each (roughly 17 months while pending; almost two years; two years) and the arrest date differs by a day."},{"id":"c3","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'in a statement, the company said its terms of service prohibit the use of its facial recognition technology in criminal investigations.'; '\"We expect our customers to comply with those terms,\" the company said in an unsigned statement.'; 'it said it would \"fully investigate\" any additional information that comes out during litigation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'The company told Biometric Update that its terms of service prohibit the use of Rekognition's face-comparison feature by police departments in connection with criminal investigations. Amazon's current Rekognition documentation also states the technology does not support images that are too blurry or grainy for a human to recognize a face'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Amazon says its terms of service prohibit the use of its facial recognition technology in criminal investigations, that it expects customers to comply and that it will fully investigate any information that emerges in the litigation; Biometric Update adds that Rekognition's documentation excludes images too blurry or grainy for a human to recognise a face.","causal_attribution":"Amazon's statements to the Post-Dispatch and to Biometric Update (via Hoodline)."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Gatlin, who now lives outside of Missouri, says he suffers from mental health issues since he was released.'; 'No one has been charged with Feldman's assault.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Gatlin says he has suffered from mental health issues since his release; the assault victim, who was not the person the officers were pursuing in this suit, continues to suffer lasting injury and no one has been charged with the assault.","causal_attribution":"Gatlin's own account to the Post-Dispatch."}],"effects":[{"label":"arrested and jailed roughly 17 months to almost two years on a first-degree assault charge dismissed in March 2024, after officers acted on a facial-recognition match from a grainy bus photo and a suggestive photo lineup; lasting mental-health effects reported","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69538618/gatlin-v-welle/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (CourtListener docket 69538618, descending and ascending entry pages). Entry text quoted; the pleadings themselves were not opened (no free RECAP PDFs listed).","independence_group":"courtlistener-docket"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/amazon-facial-id-tech-targeted-in-st-louis-false-arrest-suit","kind":"legal_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (Bloomberg Law News, 14 August 2026). Only the opening paragraphs before the subscriber wall were rendered; the cited passages are from them.","independence_group":"bloomberglaw"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/more-than-a-dozen-wrongful-arrests-due-to-police-reliance-on-facial-recognition-technology","kind":"advocacy_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (ACLU, 14 April 2026). Lists Gatlin among fourteen known facial-recognition wrongful arrests.","independence_group":"aclu"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/09/st-louis-county-man-jailed-in-case-involving-facial-id-match-sues/","kind":"news_aggregator","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (Hoodline, 25 September 2026). Aggregates the Post-Dispatch, Biometric Update, IDTechWire and Bloomberg Law; used here mainly for the Biometric Update passages (17 months, 14 August 2021 arrest, Judge May, February 2024 suppression), which were not read directly.","independence_group":"hoodline-aggregating-stltoday-biometricupdate"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-courts/article_21ae18eb-d1d4-44e8-9e8f-0c6f3c92b94d.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-26 (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 25 September 2026). The page delivered the article body in the Lee/BLOX ROT47 obfuscation; decoded locally (bodies/stltoday-gatlin-decoded.txt) and read in full: the assault, the investigation, the SMRT upload, the body-camera lineup, the dismissal date, the suit's counts and Amazon's statement.","independence_group":"stltoday"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Whether the mugshot system's match was the sole basis for the arrest or how it was weighed against the lineup identification; the complaint's allegations have not been tested.","The exact arrest date (13 August 2021 per the Post-Dispatch's account; 14 August per Biometric Update via Hoodline) and the length of detention (roughly 17 months while pending per Biometric Update; almost two years per the Post-Dispatch; two years per Bloomberg Law).","The size of the mug-shot database (more than 500,000 per the suit as reported by the Post-Dispatch; more than 250,000 per Biometric Update via Hoodline).","Whether Rekognition was in fact the engine behind SMRT during the 2021 search; Amazon disputes intended use, and AWS had not yet answered when the docket was read.","The contents of the second amended complaint and the 15 October 2025 order, which were not opened.","The plaintiff's current state of residence (outside Missouri)."],"geography":{"basis":"The assault and the arrest concerned the St. Charles Rock Road MetroLink station in north St. Louis County and the plaintiff was jailed in St. Louis County (Post-Dispatch; ACLU: 'arrested by police in St. Louis, Missouri'); the suit is in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (docket). The plaintiff now lives outside Missouri (Post-Dispatch); his state of residence is not given.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case in which a facial-recognition system's match about a person contributed, on the plaintiff's account, to a wrongful arrest and roughly 17 months to almost two years' detention: the litigation is documented on the federal docket, the arrest, lineup and dismissal are reported by the Post-Dispatch (read in full), Biometric Update via Hoodline and Bloomberg Law, and the ACLU lists the case. The allegations against the police and Amazon remain allegations.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-26"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges, and the Post-Dispatch, Biometric Update and IDTechWire reporting summarised by Hoodline describes, that officers uploaded the bus photo into the St. Louis Mugshot Recognition Technology System and built the investigation around its match; Bloomberg Law reports the amended complaint's allegation that the system used Amazon's Rekognition. No court finding on the system's role is reported; the ACLU lists the case as a facial-recognition wrongful arrest.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"St. Louis County, Missouri: Christopher Gatlin was arrested in August 2021 after officers ran a grainy bus surveillance photo through a regional facial-recognition system and was held roughly 17 months (Post-Dispatch and Bloomberg Law: about two years) on a first-degree assault charge dismissed in March 2024; his federal civil-rights suit (filed January 2025) was amended in August 2026 to add Amazon Web Services, whose Rekognition technology the complaint says underpinned the match","summary":"Christopher Gatlin was arrested on 14 August 2021 for an assault at the St. Charles Rock Road MetroLink station after a joint St. Louis County and city team uploaded a grainy, blurry surveillance photograph from a bus into the St. Louis Mugshot Recognition Technology System, a facial-recognition tool that searches stored mug shots (more than 500,000 uploaded, the suit says per the Post-Dispatch; more than 250,000 per Biometric Update via Hoodline), and built the investigation around the resulting match together with a witness identification; he was charged with first-degree assault and held roughly 17 months (the Post-Dispatch says almost two years), a county judge suppressed the witness identification as unconstitutionally suggestive, and prosecutors dismissed the charges on 14 March 2024 (Post-Dispatch; Hoodline citing Biometric Update; Bloomberg Law). Gatlin sued St. Louis County, the City of St. Louis and named officers in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on 13 January 2025; on 15 October 2025 the court denied the city's motion to dismiss and granted a detective's motion only as to one count; on 13 August 2026 the court allowed a second amended complaint adding Amazon Web Services, which the complaint says supplied the Rekognition program the system used; the county, city and officers answered on 27 August 2026, AWS's response was extended to 21 September 2026 and on 17 September it moved for a further extension to 28 September (no ruling on the docket when read), and a jury trial is set for 1 November 2027 (CourtListener docket). Amazon told the Post-Dispatch that its terms of service prohibit the use of its facial recognition technology in criminal investigations and that it would fully investigate any information that emerges in the litigation. The ACLU lists Gatlin among fourteen people known to have been wrongfully arrested in the US because police relied on erroneous facial-recognition results.","incidentDate":"2021-08-14","incidentEndDate":"2024-03-14","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-01-13","aiSystem":"St. Louis Mugshot Recognition Technology System (SMRT), a regional facial-recognition tool created by St. Louis County with an Amazon Rekognition credit in June 2018 and loaded with more than 500,000 mug shots according to the suit (Post-Dispatch; Biometric Update via Hoodline gives more than 250,000)","aiProduct":"St. Louis mugshot recognition (SMRT)","aiCompany":"Amazon Web Services (Rekognition, per the amended complaint as reported)","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","legal_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Gatlin was jailed for roughly 17 months to almost two years on a first-degree assault charge dismissed in March 2024 after the identification evidence was suppressed; his suit attributes the arrest to reliance on a facial-recognition match from an unusable photograph together with a suggestive lineup (the complaint's allegations as reported by the Post-Dispatch, Bloomberg Law and Hoodline; the ACLU lists the case as a wrongful arrest). He told the Post-Dispatch he has suffered from mental health issues since his release.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person arrested and jailed, the plaintiff (docket; Hoodline; ACLU). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MO","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69538618/gatlin-v-welle/","primarySourceLabel":"CourtListener docket, Gatlin v. Welle, 4:25-cv-00043 (E.D. Mo.), read 26 September 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-26T04:07:10.387911+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:58:41.366922+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","wrongful-arrest","police","rekognition","amazon","lawsuit","civil-rights","missouri","st-louis","made-claim-about"]},{"id":"2026-evans-santos-v-draftkings-ai-personalization-gambling-addiction","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"EVANS VS DRAFTKINGS INC. ETAL\"; \"Filing Date: Friday , July 24th, 2026\"; \"Case ID: 260702927\"; \"Case 2:26-cv-07168 Document 1-3 Filed 09/16/26\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"docketNumber \"2:26-cv-07168\", court \"paed\", dateFiled \"2026-09-16\", \"NOTICE OF REMOVAL by CROWN PA GAMING, INC., DRAFTKINGS INC.\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Christopher Evans filed a product-liability complaint against DraftKings Inc. and Crown PA Gaming in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on 24 July 2026 (Case ID 260702927); the defendants removed it to the E.D. Pa. on 16 September 2026 as 2:26-cv-07168.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court record (state docket report and federal removal filing)."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHESTER COUNTY\"; \"29 Jul 2026 03:54 PM\"; \"MICHAEL SANTOS,\"; \"2026-07200-TT\"; \"Case 2:26-cv-07176 Document 1-3 Filed 09/16/26\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"docketNumber \"2:26-cv-07176\", court \"paed\", dateFiled \"2026-09-16\", \"NOTICE OF REMOVAL by FANDUEL INC., FLUTTER ENTERTAINMENT, PLC, BETFAIR INTERACTIVE US LLC, FANDUEL GROUP PARENT LLC, FANDUEL PA LLC\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Michael Santos filed a complaint against DraftKings, Crown PA Gaming, FanDuel Inc. and FanDuel's affiliates in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas on 29 July 2026 (2026-07200-TT); the FanDuel defendants removed it to the E.D. Pa. on 16 September 2026 as 2:26-cv-07176.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court record."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"He began using the DraftKings applications in or around August 2017\"; \"Plaintiff has wagered over $2,100,000.00 with net losses of approximately $81,000.00\"; \"constantly received targeted promotions, personalized push notifications, and incentives like prop bets and free credits intended to repetitively lure him back into the gambling applications\"; \"also had a VIP account manager, who would send him promotional offers, bonuses, and perks\"; \"He soon began suffering from depression and anxiety and stopped going outside altogether in favor of gambling all day\"; \"creating financial strain that has placed him into debt and resulted in the repossession of his vehicle\"; \"resulted in his wife separating from him\"; \"was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Evans pleads that since about August 2017 he wagered over US$2,100,000 on DraftKings' apps with net losses of about US$81,000, constantly received targeted promotions and personalised push notifications and had a VIP account manager, developed depression and anxiety and was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020, stopped going outside, fell into debt, had his vehicle repossessed and separated from his wife.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegations in a pending complaint; untested."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"has wagered over $1,164,000.00 with net losses of approximately $58,000.00\"; \"has wagered nearly $7,000 on FanDuel with losses of nearly $1,500\"; \"constantly received targeted advertisements, personalized push notifications, and incentive-based emails from DraftKings intended to repetitively lure him back into the gambling app\"; \"despite Plaintiff expressly stating he did not want to continue gambling\"; \"max out multiple credit cards and accrue debt so significant that it forced him to sell his house\"; \"has received formal diagnoses of depression and anxiety\"; \"drove Plaintiff MICHAEL SANTOS to suicidal ideation\"; \"voluntarily placed himself on a self-exclusion list with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Santos pleads that he wagered over US$1,164,000 on DraftKings with net losses of about US$58,000 and nearly US$7,000 on FanDuel with losses of nearly US$1,500, received targeted advertisements, personalised push notifications and incentive emails, had a VIP manager who kept offering bonus bets after he said he wanted to stop, maxed out multiple credit cards and was forced to sell his house, received diagnoses of depression and anxiety, experienced suicidal ideation, and self-excluded with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegations in a pending complaint; untested."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"Defendants utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users and continuously lure them back to their sports gambling apps\"; \"data science and machine learning to help optimize conversion\"; \"recommendation engines\"; \"Defendants operate sophisticated AI-powered engagement platforms that, on information and belief, employ the precise personalization mechanisms the study identifies as risk-generating\"; \"Limit or eliminating artificial intelligence to track individual\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"\"Defendants utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users\"; \"Limiting or eliminating artificial intelligence to track individual\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Both complaints allege that the defendants combine artificial intelligence with tracking of personalised user data to addict users and lure them back, that DraftKings' 10-K discloses machine-learning recommendation engines, and, on information and belief, that the defendants operate AI-powered engagement platforms; both ask the court to limit or eliminate the use of artificial intelligence to track individual users.","causal_attribution":"The contents of the pleadings are established by the record; the truth of the AI allegations is not."}],"effects":[{"label":"two plaintiffs plead gambling addiction, six-figure wagering with net losses of about US$81,000 and US$58,000, debt, family breakdown, depression and suicidal ideation, attributed to AI-driven personalization","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662095/gov.uscourts.paed.662095.1.3.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-17 and 2026-09-19: Exhibit A to the notice of removal in Evans v. DraftKings Inc., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07168 (47 pages: the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas docket report and the complaint of 24 July 2026), from the CourtListener RECAP archive.","independence_group":"evans-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662118/gov.uscourts.paed.662118.1.3.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-19: Exhibit A to the notice of removal in Santos v. DraftKings Inc., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07176 (53 pages: the complaint filed and attested in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas on 29 July 2026), from the CourtListener RECAP archive.","independence_group":"santos-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74801358/evans-v-draftkings-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket metadata read on 2026-09-19 through the CourtListener v4 search API (saved as cl-evans.json): case name, docket number 2:26-cv-07168, court E.D. Pa., filed 2026-09-16, cause 28:1332 diversity product liability, removal notice by Crown PA Gaming and DraftKings.","independence_group":"courtlistener-evans-docket"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74803784/santos-v-draftkings-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket metadata read on 2026-09-19 through the CourtListener v4 search API (saved as cl-santos3.json): docket number 2:26-cv-07176, court E.D. Pa., filed 2026-09-16, removal notice by FanDuel Inc., Flutter Entertainment, Betfair Interactive US, FanDuel Group Parent and FanDuel PA.","independence_group":"courtlistener-santos-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","health","relationships","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether AI or machine-learning systems, rather than human account managers and conventional marketing, generated the promotions and notifications the plaintiffs describe; the 'AI-powered engagement platforms' allegation is pleaded on information and belief.","The defendants' responses; no answer, motion or ruling is recorded as of 2026-09-19.","When Santos began gambling on the apps and his current financial position.","Whether the plaintiffs also gambled on other operators' products."],"geography":{"basis":"Both plaintiffs are Pennsylvania residents (Philadelphia; Coatesville, Chester County) per the complaints; suits filed in Pennsylvania state courts and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case: two pending complaints, read in full from the court record, allege that an operator's AI-driven personalization and engagement systems fostered gambling addiction with quantified losses, debt, family breakdown, psychiatric diagnoses and suicidal ideation. Filing facts are documented; the harms and the AI involvement are the plaintiffs' allegations and are recorded as such. Plaintiffs are identified only by the public case captions.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaints allege that the defendants' AI and machine-learning personalization systems tracked the plaintiffs' play and targeted them with promotions and notifications, and quote DraftKings' 10-K on machine-learning recommendation engines; the 'AI-powered engagement platforms' allegation is pleaded on information and belief. Nothing in the record yet establishes that AI systems made the targeting decisions about these two users, so the relation (a system making decisions about the person) is recorded as alleged.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Pennsylvania: two men sued DraftKings (one also FanDuel) alleging that AI-driven personalization, targeted promotions and VIP handling fostered gambling addiction; they plead net losses of about US$81,000 and US$58,000, debt, family breakdown, depression and, in one case, suicidal ideation","summary":"Christopher Evans (Philadelphia; complaint filed 24 July 2026 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas) and Michael Santos (Coatesville, Chester County; complaint filed 29 July 2026 in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas) sued DraftKings and its Pennsylvania affiliate; Santos also sued FanDuel and its parents. Both product-liability complaints, filed by the same law firm, allege that the defendants' sports-betting, daily-fantasy and casino apps are designed to addict, and that the companies 'utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users', operating 'AI-powered engagement platforms' (pleaded on information and belief) and, per DraftKings' 10-K as quoted, 'data science and machine learning' recommendation engines. Evans pleads that since about August 2017 he wagered over US$2.1 million with net losses of about US$81,000, received constant targeted promotions and personalised push notifications and a VIP account manager, developed depression and anxiety and was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020, stopped going outside, fell into debt, had his vehicle repossessed and separated from his wife. Santos pleads over US$1.164 million wagered on DraftKings with net losses of about US$58,000 plus small FanDuel losses, targeted advertising and a VIP manager who kept offering bonus bets after he said he wanted to stop, maxed-out credit cards, the forced sale of his house, diagnoses of depression and anxiety, suicidal ideation, and self-exclusion with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023. Both cases were removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 16 September 2026 (2:26-cv-07168 and 2:26-cv-07176). The allegations are untested.","incidentDate":"2017-08-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-07-24","aiSystem":"DraftKings' and FanDuel's sportsbook, daily-fantasy and online-casino apps and their alleged AI and machine-learning personalization, recommendation and engagement systems (as pleaded; the complaints quote DraftKings' 10-K on 'data science and machine learning' and 'recommendation engines')","aiProduct":"DraftKings and FanDuel apps","aiCompany":"DraftKings Inc. (and Crown PA Gaming); FanDuel Inc. and affiliates (Flutter Entertainment) in the Santos suit","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","psychiatric_deterioration","relationship_disruption","property_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"As pleaded: gambling addiction with net losses of about US$81,000 (Evans) and about US$58,000 plus small FanDuel losses (Santos), debt, a repossessed vehicle and marital separation (Evans), maxed-out credit cards, a forced house sale, diagnosed depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation (Santos), attributed by the plaintiffs to the defendants' AI-driven personalization and engagement design.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":2,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two named plaintiffs, each pleading his own gambling addiction and losses as a user of the apps. Exact count of two; family members mentioned in the complaints are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662095/gov.uscourts.paed.662095.1.3.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Evans v. DraftKings Inc. et al., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07168, Notice of Removal Exhibit A (Philadelphia CCP complaint filed 24 July 2026), via CourtListener RECAP","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-20T03:19:52.470392+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:36.906135+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["gambling","sports-betting","algorithmic-personalization","engagement-design","product-liability","lawsuit","united-states","pennsylvania","draftkings","fanduel","institutional-use"]},{"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"]}]}