{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-05T08:53:26.574Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"appeal","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"core","evidence":"","year":"unknown","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":2,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-openai-deactivated-chatgpt-account-for-cyber-abuse-android-developer-building-remote-support-tool-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I build Android apps and run a small company in Pakistan'; 'I was building a remote ADB support tool'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says they build Android apps, run a small company in Pakistan, and were building a remote ADB support tool when the account was deactivated.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The account was deactivated for'; 'I pay $200 a month, and the account holds 62,500 credits I can no longer reach'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says the account was deactivated for \"Cyber Abuse\", that they pay $200 a month, and that the account holds 62,500 credits they can no longer reach.","causal_attribution":"Poster links the deactivation to their ChatGPT questions about ADB and remote connections; OpenAI did not say what was flagged."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It was rejected with no explanation, and the reply said no further appeals would be considered'; 'The case was closed and they told me they would not respond'; 'A support agent then replied with a generic message telling me to appeal again'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says the appeal was rejected with no explanation, support closed the case, and the Informal Dispute Resolution form produced a generic message telling them to appeal again.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'An automated system made the call'; 'I wrote it as if I knew no person looked'; 'A support tool and a RAT share most of the plumbing'; 'neither of them said what was flagged beyond the words'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The post says an automated system made the decision; in a later reply the poster says they wrote as if they knew no person had looked, that they do not know this, and that a support tool and a remote-access trojan share most of their plumbing.","causal_attribution":"Poster attributes the decision to automation and qualifies that attribution in a reply."}],"effects":[{"label":"paid ChatGPT account deactivated for \"Cyber Abuse\", with 62,500 credits out of reach (poster's account)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"appeal, support and dispute routes closed without a stated reason (poster's account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1wxaawk/openai_deactivated_my_account_for_cyber_abuse/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-05: full self-text and 31 comments (8 by the poster), retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID. The poster handle is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-openai-cyber-abuse-adb-poster"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","finance"],"unknowns":["What OpenAI flagged, and whether a person reviewed the deactivation or the appeal.","When the account was deactivated, and whether it or the credits were later restored or refunded.","What the prompts contained beyond the poster's description."],"geography":{"basis":"The poster says they \"build Android apps and run a small company in Pakistan\", recorded as the affected person's country on that statement; the poster does not separately say where they live. No event country is recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["PK"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter's public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of a paid AI account being deactivated with no stated reason and no working appeal route, described with attribution, with the poster's own qualification recorded and without corroboration. The poster's handle is not recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The account is for an AI product, and the poster says the deactivation followed their ChatGPT conversations about a remote support tool. The poster states that an automated system made the decision and later concedes they do not know whether a person reviewed it.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"First-person forum account: a poster who says they build Android apps and run a small company in Pakistan writes that OpenAI deactivated their $200-a-month ChatGPT account for \"Cyber Abuse\" while they were building a remote support tool, and that the appeal, support and dispute routes all closed without a stated reason","summary":"In a public post to r/OpenAI on 4 October 2026, a person who says they build Android apps and run a small company in Pakistan writes that OpenAI deactivated their ChatGPT account for \"Cyber Abuse\" while they were asking about ADB, remote connections and networking for a customer support tool. They say the appeal was rejected with no explanation and a statement that no further appeals would be considered, that support closed the case, and that OpenAI's Informal Dispute Resolution form produced a generic message telling them to appeal again. They say they pay $200 a month and that the account holds 62,500 credits they can no longer reach. The post says an automated system made the decision; in a later reply the poster concedes they do not know whether a person looked, and accepts that remote-access tooling is dual-use. OpenAI's reasons are not known and the account is uncorroborated.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-04","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, on an account the poster says costs $200 a month, and OpenAI's account enforcement and appeal process; the poster first called the decision automated and later said they do not know whether a person looked","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The poster says OpenAI deactivated their paid ChatGPT account for \"Cyber Abuse\" during ordinary development work, leaving 62,500 credits out of reach on a $200-a-month plan, and that the appeal, support and dispute routes closed without a stated reason (first-person account, uncorroborated; the poster concedes they do not know whether a person reviewed the decision).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the poster. The company's staff and customers are not counted because no harm to them is described. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1wxaawk/openai_deactivated_my_account_for_cyber_abuse/","primarySourceLabel":"r/OpenAI, 4 October 2026: \"OpenAI deactivated my account for \"Cyber Abuse\" while I was building a remote ADB support tool. Appeal rejected with no explanation.\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:16:16.171676+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:16:16.171676+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","openai","chatgpt","account-deactivation","cyber-abuse-flag","appeal","no-stated-reason","pakistan","communicated-with"]},{"id":"2026-lewes-rape-trial-stayed-complainant-ai-cross-examination-prep","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The download revealed two documents which contained a summary record of what C had recalled of events on the night in question, followed by a series of questions in the form of a cross-examination of C’s account, together with suggested answers.'; 'C was asked who they had been communicating with, to which C responded: \"I had put stuff into AI to help me prepare myself for the court\".'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'There then follows several pages of text containing the promised summary, together with 24 highly pertinent questions and suggested answers'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A download of the complainant's phone during the Lewes trial revealed two documents containing a summary of the complainant's recollection of the night in question and a series of cross-examination questions with suggested answers, and the complainant said 'I had put stuff into AI to help me prepare myself for the court'.","causal_attribution":"Established by the judgment's account of the trial record."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'this appeal has proceeded on the basis that the documents were generated by AI in response to prompts from C. We do not know the nature of those prompts.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Although the defence did not accept that the documented questions and answers were generated by AI, as opposed to being contained in a communication from a real person'","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Please make sure someone is with you or available to you today.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The documents were generated by AI in response to the complainant's prompts.","causal_attribution":"The complainant's statement, accepted as the working basis of the appeal; the defence did not accept it and the court made no finding on the product or prompts."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'It is a prosecution appeal against the Recorder’s ruling, part-way through trial, staying proceedings as an abuse. Upon the prosecution giving notice of its intention to appeal, accompanied by the usual prosecution undertaking, the jury was discharged.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'this is evidence of coaching, whether or not done by AI or someone else.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The ruling stayed proceedings after the complainant was found to have used AI to help prepare for court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Recorder held that the documents amounted to witness coaching, that the defendant could not have a fair trial, and stayed the proceedings as an abuse of process part-way through the trial; the jury was discharged when the prosecution gave notice of appeal.","causal_attribution":"The judgment records that the stay was granted because of the documents the complainant attributed to AI."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Date: Thursday 4th June 2026'; 'Accordingly, we give leave, we allow the appeal and reverse the ruling below.'; 'As the allegations are now of some age, the re-trial should be listed at the earliest opportunity.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Hay’s decision has been reversed, and a retrial has been ordered for listing “at the earliest opportunity,” per the Gazette.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 4 June 2026 the Court of Appeal reversed the stay, holding that the trial process could deal with any prejudice, and directed that the retrial be listed at the earliest opportunity because the allegations were now of some age.","causal_attribution":"Established by the judgment."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'All witnesses, whether for the prosecution or defence, should be firmly discouraged from resorting to the use of AI to prepare for giving evidence.'; 'their use of AI may open up further lines of enquiry, exposing their online activity to an unwelcome, wider-ranging and potentially more intrusive investigation and examination for the purposes of disclosure'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Court of Appeal said witnesses should be firmly discouraged from using AI to prepare their evidence, and that for sexual-offence complainants such use may expose their online activity to wider and potentially more intrusive investigation.","causal_attribution":"General guidance in the judgment; it does not describe a further consequence to this complainant."}],"effects":[{"label":"the trial was stayed part-way through as an abuse of process and the jury discharged after the complainant's AI-prepared cross-examination documents were treated as witness coaching","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"a retrial of allegations described as now of some age was required after the stay was reversed","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2026/918","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full judgment text read by curl on 2026-09-29 from the National Archives Find Case Law service. The court excluded identifying detail and anonymised both parties.","independence_group":"fgd-judgment"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/court-of-appeal-calls-for-ai-regulation-in-criminal-proceedings-after-trial-collapses/5127513.article","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Law Society Gazette report of 28 July 2026 (Bianca Castro), read by curl on 2026-09-29. It reports the judgment and is grouped with it.","independence_group":"fgd-judgment"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/international/uk-trial-halts-over-witness-ai-use-court-of-appeal-judges-flag-regulation-concerns/394434","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Canadian Lawyer, read by curl on 2026-09-29; attributes its account to the Law Society Gazette.","independence_group":"fgd-judgment"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["When the trial and the Recorder's stay took place (before the 4 June 2026 appeal hearing).","Which AI product was used and what the complainant's prompts were.","Whether the retrial has taken place and its outcome.","The complainant's own account of the effect of the stay; no statement from the complainant was read."],"geography":{"basis":"The trial took place at Lewes Crown Court and the appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice in London (judgment). Where the complainant lives, and where the AI was used, is not stated.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published from the Court of Appeal judgment as a concrete adverse consequence of a person's AI use: the complainant's trial was stayed and must be retried. The judgment and all press coverage are one reporting chain. The complainant and defendant are anonymous by law and no identifying detail is recorded; the complainant's pronouns follow the judgment's neutral usage.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complainant told the court the material came from putting things into AI, and the Court of Appeal proceeded on the basis that the documents were AI-generated in response to the complainant's prompts. The defence did not accept that they were AI-generated rather than written by a real person, and the product and prompts are unknown.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Lewes Crown Court, England: a rape trial was stayed part-way through and the jury discharged after documents on the complainant's phone, which the complainant said came from putting material into AI to prepare for court, were treated as witness coaching; the Court of Appeal reversed the stay on 4 June 2026 and ordered a retrial","summary":"During a rape trial at Lewes Crown Court, a download of the complainant's phone revealed two documents containing a summary of the complainant's recollection of the night in question and 24 questions in the form of a cross-examination, with suggested answers. Asked about them, the complainant said: 'I had put stuff into AI to help me prepare myself for the court'. The trial judge (a Recorder) held that this was witness coaching, found that the defendant could not have a fair trial and stayed the proceedings as an abuse of process; the jury was discharged when the prosecution gave notice of appeal. On 4 June 2026 the Court of Appeal (R v FGD [2026] EWCA Crim 918) reversed the stay, holding that the trial process could deal with any prejudice, and directed a retrial at the earliest opportunity because the allegations were 'now of some age'. The defence did not accept that the documents were AI-generated; the appeal proceeded on that basis. The court warned that witnesses should be firmly discouraged from using AI to prepare their evidence and that, for complainants in sexual-offence cases, doing so may expose their online activity to wider and more intrusive investigation.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-07-28","aiSystem":"An unidentified AI chatbot; the complainant told the court 'I had put stuff into AI to help me prepare myself for the court'. The judgment does not name the product and says the court does not know the prompts used.","aiProduct":"Unidentified chatbot","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complainant's rape trial was stayed part-way through and the jury discharged because documents the complainant said came from AI preparation were treated as witness coaching; the Court of Appeal reversed the stay and ordered a retrial of allegations it described as 'now of some age' (R v FGD [2026] EWCA Crim 918).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the complainant, whose trial was stayed and must be retried (judgment). The defendant is not counted; the stay was in the defendant's favour and no harm to the defendant from the AI use is reported. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2026/918","primarySourceLabel":"R v FGD [2026] EWCA Crim 918, Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), judgment of 4 June 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:00:29.036322+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:44.047133+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["witness-coaching","criminal-trial","court-of-appeal","lewes-crown-court","england","sexual-offence-complainant","trial-stayed","communicated-with"]}]}