{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-09-30T04:41:17.861Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"amazon","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":2,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":2},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-mochi-owner-reports-amazon-buy-for-me-orders-partner-distrust","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Official system-description article: AI checkout and agent operation.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Amazon states that Buy for Me uses AI to complete purchases on customers' behalf at brand websites.","causal_attribution":"The inspected reporting describes this account. Claims remain attributed and causation is alleged; multiple reports of the same victim or police/court account are one independence group."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Modern Retail body: Mochi Kids order history and cancellations.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The owner said Buy for Me orders began in November 2025, some were fulfilled before discovery, and she later cancelled orders.","causal_attribution":"The inspected reporting describes this account. Claims remain attributed and causation is alleged; multiple reports of the same victim or police/court account are one independence group."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Modern Retail body: wholesale partner contact and owner's distrust statement.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A wholesale partner challenged the Amazon listings, and the owner said she had to reassure it and described distrust.","causal_attribution":"The inspected reporting describes this account. Claims remain attributed and causation is alleged; multiple reports of the same victim or police/court account are one independence group."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Modern Retail body: owner's deliberate decision not to sell on Amazon and response to unexpected listings.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The owner said she had intentionally avoided selling on Amazon and found the unexpected catalogue listings frustrating.","causal_attribution":"The inspected reporting describes this account. Claims remain attributed and causation is alleged; multiple reports of the same victim or police/court account are one independence group."}],"effects":[{"label":"Owner-reported cancellation work after unwanted agent orders","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Owner-reported wholesale partner distrust","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Owner-reported loss of choice about selling through Amazon","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.modernretail.co/technology/brands-are-upset-that-buy-for-me-is-featuring-their-products-on-amazon-without-permission/","kind":"journalistic","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"modern-retail-merchant-interviews"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/retail/amazon-shopping-app-buy-for-me-brands","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"amazon-buy-for-me-design"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","finance"],"unknowns":["The exact first order day, cost of cancellations and final opt-out outcome are unknown.","No actual breach penalty, lost contract or net financial loss is established. The agent acted for shoppers, with no supported listed relation to the harmed owner."],"geography":{"basis":"The owner and business are explicitly based in Salt Lake City, Utah, United States.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"An inspected source describes a concrete person-level adverse experience connected to the specified AI use. Statements remain attributed, private identities are minimized, and unknown dates, counts and technical details are preserved.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-30"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The official description establishes Buy for Me's AI-agent purchasing function, and the owner reports actual orders. The article does not establish that every catalogue-listing step used AI.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Mochi Kids owner reports unwanted Amazon AI-agent orders and partner distrust","summary":"Mochi Kids' owner told Modern Retail that she received about sixteen Buy for Me orders from November 2025, fulfilling some before discovering their Amazon origin. She said she had chosen to avoid Amazon and subsequently cancelled orders. A wholesale partner that prohibited Amazon sales contacted her after finding its products listed, and she had to explain she had not intentionally listed them. She described distrust. Amazon says its AI purchasing service supports an email opt-out; the source establishes no net financial loss.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-01-06","aiSystem":"Amazon Buy for Me shopping agent","aiProduct":"Amazon Buy for Me","aiCompany":"Amazon","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","loss_of_autonomy"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Owner-reported unwanted agent orders, cancellation work and a strained wholesale relationship","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One interviewed owner describes the adverse business experience. Sixteen orders and 4,000 products are not harmed-person counts; the unnamed partner is not separately counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"agent","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.modernretail.co/technology/brands-are-upset-that-buy-for-me-is-featuring-their-products-on-amazon-without-permission/","primarySourceLabel":"Modern Retail, 6 January 2026, merchant interview; Amazon system description","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-30T01:11:49.060335+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:24:51.955539+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-bobo-owner-reports-unwanted-amazon-buy-for-me-orders","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Official article sections How Buy for Me works and Leveraging AI: checkout process and AI design.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Amazon states that Buy for Me uses AI agents to complete purchases on customers' behalf at other brands' websites.","causal_attribution":"The inspected reporting describes this account. Claims remain attributed and causation is alleged; multiple reports of the same victim or police/court account are one independence group."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Modern Retail body: Bobo discovery and later unavailable-product orders.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The owner said Buy for Me orders included unavailable or removed products and required cancellations and refunds after her late-December discovery.","causal_attribution":"The inspected reporting describes this account. Claims remain attributed and causation is alleged; multiple reports of the same victim or police/court account are one independence group."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Modern Retail body: owner catalogue-control account and Amazon response.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"She said she had not opted in and requested removal; Amazon says businesses can opt out by email.","causal_attribution":"The inspected reporting describes this account. Claims remain attributed and causation is alleged; multiple reports of the same victim or police/court account are one independence group."}],"effects":[{"label":"Owner-reported unwanted agent orders, cancellation work and refunds","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Owner-reported loss of control over marketplace participation","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.modernretail.co/technology/brands-are-upset-that-buy-for-me-is-featuring-their-products-on-amazon-without-permission/","kind":"journalistic","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"modern-retail-merchant-interviews"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/retail/amazon-shopping-app-buy-for-me-brands","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"amazon-buy-for-me-design"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","finance"],"unknowns":["The first order day, total administrative cost and net financial loss are unknown.","The cause of catalogue and image errors is unknown; the AI acted on customers' behalf, and no listed relation to the harmed owner is directly established."],"geography":{"basis":"The owner and business are explicitly based in Palm Springs, California, United States.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"An inspected source describes a concrete person-level adverse experience connected to the specified AI use. Statements remain attributed, private identities are minimized, and unknown dates, counts and technical details are preserved.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-30"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Amazon's own description establishes the AI purchasing design, while the owner reports concrete Buy for Me transactions through her store. Scraping, catalogue errors and the wrong image are not independently established as AI-generated acts.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Bobo Design Studio owner reports unwanted Amazon AI-agent orders and refunds","summary":"Bobo Design Studio's owner told Modern Retail that Amazon's Buy for Me service exposed her catalogue and placed orders through her Shopify store without her opting in. In late December 2025 she discovered orders for unavailable or removed products and cancelled purchases and issued refunds. She described loss of control and pursued an opt-out. Amazon says Buy for Me uses AI agents to place purchases for customers and says businesses can opt out. The source of an incorrect product image is unknown; it is not attributed to AI generation.","incidentDate":"2025-12-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-01-06","aiSystem":"Amazon Buy for Me shopping agent","aiProduct":"Amazon Buy for Me","aiCompany":"Amazon","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","loss_of_autonomy"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Owner-reported unwanted agent orders, cancellation work, refunds and loss of catalogue control","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One interviewed business owner describes the operational burden and loss of control. Orders, products, survey replies and customers are not counts of harmed people.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"agent","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.modernretail.co/technology/brands-are-upset-that-buy-for-me-is-featuring-their-products-on-amazon-without-permission/","primarySourceLabel":"Modern Retail, 6 January 2026, merchant interview; Amazon system description","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-30T01:11:45.802533+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:24:51.739514+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"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":"2018-portland-alexa-private-conversation-sent","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Opening account and paragraph reporting the recipient identifying their household conversation (L628-L632).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"An Echo sent a Portland couple’s private conversation to a contact without their intended instruction.","causal_attribution":"Family account relayed from KIRO, acknowledged by Amazon; logs were not independently inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Update and second update: Amazon’s explanation and its statement that the explanation came from device logs (L90-L92).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Amazon attributed the transmission to a sequence of misinterpreted speech commands.","causal_attribution":"Provider explanation, not an independently reproduced technical finding."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"NPR transcript, final two sentences.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The couple unplugged their Alexa devices after discovering the disclosure.","causal_attribution":"Reported response to the disclosure."}],"effects":[{"label":"The couple’s household audio was disclosed to another person without authorization.","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/05/amazon-confirms-that-echo-device-secretly-shared-users-private-audio/","kind":"journalism","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English article and both updates read directly. Family reporting originates with KIRO; Amazon supplied Ars a statement.","independence_group":"kiro-amazon-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.tomsguide.com/us/alexa-record-conversation%2Cnews-27269.html","kind":"journalism","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English article body read directly, excluding related-story cards. Relays KIRO and carries an Amazon statement.","independence_group":"kiro-amazon-account"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.kcur.org/2018-05-25/oregon-couple-unplugs-alexa-after-private-conversation-is-recorded","kind":"broadcast_transcript","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English NPR transcript read directly. Explicitly credits KIRO; no additional independent witness.","independence_group":"kiro-amazon-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["privacy","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The exact day is unknown: the 24 May account says two weeks earlier, so only May 2018 is recorded.","The recording and device logs were not inspected.","Later remedies and any further consequences are unknown."],"geography":{"basis":"Tom’s Guide identifies the couple’s home as Portland, Oregon. No court proceeding is cited.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Concrete adverse experience with a core person relation. Claims remain attributed to their sources. Technical and causal limits are recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-25"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The incident concerns Alexa’s speech recognition and messaging action, with Amazon acknowledging the transmission.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["acted_on_behalf"]},"name":"Portland couple’s private conversation sent to a contact by Alexa","summary":"A Portland couple discovered that their Echo had sent a household conversation to a contact. They unplugged their devices. Amazon acknowledged the incident and attributed it to speech being misinterpreted as commands.","incidentDate":"2018-05-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2018-05-24","aiSystem":"Amazon Alexa on Echo","aiProduct":"Amazon Alexa","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The couple’s household audio was disclosed to another person without authorization.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":2,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The two people whose conversation was disclosed. The recipient is not counted as harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/05/amazon-confirms-that-echo-device-secretly-shared-users-private-audio/","primarySourceLabel":"Ars Technica, 24 May 2018, with Amazon updates","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-25T03:28:57.688532+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:46.732408+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-review"]}]}