{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-05T07:28:31.890Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"appeal","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":1,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":3,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-shanghai-voice-actor-ai-synthesised-voice-company-promotion-appeal-ruling","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'2026年9月29日，上海市第一中级人民法院依法审结上海首例人工智能合成语音引发的自然人声音权益保护纠纷案件，判决平台运营方构成声音侵权，赔偿权利人经济损失5万元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'上海市第一中级人民法院依法判决：驳回上诉，维持原判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'驳回上诉，维持原判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'经上海市第一中级人民法院二审，于2026年9月29日驳回上诉，维持原判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 29 September 2026 the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court concluded a voice-rights case arising from AI-synthesised speech, described as the first in Shanghai, holding that the platform operator infringed and must pay 50,000 yuan for economic loss; the appeals were dismissed and the first-instance judgment upheld.","causal_attribution":"Court outcome as relayed by outlets citing the court; the judgment was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'2025年1月'; '从好友处了解到'; 'A公司在其互联网推广拉新活动中疑似使用了'; '该活动使用的自己声音疑似AI合成，于是对相关音频进行了公证以固定证据'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In January 2025 the voice actor learned from a friend that Company A appeared to be using the voice actor's voice in an online user-acquisition promotion, judged the audio to be AI-synthesised and had it notarised before suing.","causal_attribution":"The claimant's case as summarised in the court account."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'其从未与A公司进行过合作和任何授权，A公司擅自使用其声音构成侵权，遂要求A公司停止侵权并赔偿经济损失30万元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The voice actor said there had been no cooperation with or authorisation of Company A and asked the court to stop the use and award 300,000 yuan.","causal_attribution":"The claimant's position as summarised in the court account."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A公司辩称，案涉音频确为该公司开发的AI生成，但具体的来源和投喂的素材因前员工离职无法确认'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Company A said the audio was generated by AI the company had developed, but that its source and the material fed to the system could not be confirmed because a former employee had left.","causal_attribution":"The company's defence as summarised in the court account; the company denied using the voice actor's voice."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'在28个共振峰声学指标中'; '有24个偏离度小于10%，其中16个小于5.36%，两者较为相似及高度相似的部分达到90%'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A forensic comparison found that 24 of 28 formant indicators deviated by less than 10 percent and that the parts rated fairly or highly similar reached 90 percent.","causal_attribution":"Forensic opinion as summarised in the court account."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A公司的行为构成人工智能生成声音侵权'; '赔偿5万元'; '双方均不服一审判决，提起上诉'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'并向长宁区人民法院提出起诉'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The first-instance court awarded 50,000 yuan and both sides appealed; the Legal Daily report carried on Sina Finance says the claim was filed in the Changning District People's Court.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history as relayed from the court account."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'未经自然人同意，使用自然人的声音作为训练语料，模仿该自然人的音色、语调和发音风格等生成能够识别该自然人的合成人声，应当认定侵害自然人声音权益'; '应承担举证不能的不利后果'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appeal court held that using a person's voice as training material without consent to generate an identifiable synthetic voice infringes that person's voice rights, and that Company A bore the consequence of failing to prove the lawful source of its material.","causal_attribution":"The appeal court's reasoning as relayed; it rests on a presumption from similarity and access, because the company did not produce its training records."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'涉案语音上架持续时间较短，属流程播报提示音效'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appeal court noted that the audio was online for a short time and was a process prompt sound in the promotion.","causal_attribution":"The appeal court's reasoning on the amount, as relayed."}],"effects":[{"label":"courts reported to have found a voice actor's voice identifiable in AI-synthesised audio used without consent in a company promotion","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://news.ifeng.com/c/8woTv1MjTRx","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"The Paper's article as carried on ifeng, read in the original Chinese on 2026-10-05 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. Relays the Shanghai High People's Court WeChat account; the judgment itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"shanghai-no1-intermediate-court-release"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20260929A0C6NK00","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Southern Metropolis Daily N Video on Tencent News, read in Chinese on 2026-10-05 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. The reporter cites the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court; same court account as s1.","independence_group":"shanghai-no1-intermediate-court-release"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://finance.sina.com.cn/jjxw/2026-09-29/doc-initpatz6144930.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Legal Daily article carried on Sina Finance, read in the original Chinese on 2026-10-05 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. Same court account with the first-instance court named and a judge's commentary.","independence_group":"shanghai-no1-intermediate-court-release"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["Which company and which speech-synthesis product were involved; the court account anonymises both.","When the promotion began and how long the audio was in use.","Whether the company used the voice actor's recordings as training material; the court presumed it because the company did not prove otherwise.","The dates of the filing and of the first-instance judgment.","Where the voice actor lives."],"geography":{"basis":"The case was decided by the Changning District People's Court and the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court in China. The reports anonymise the company and the app and do not say where the company is based, where its online promotion ran or where the voice actor lives, so no event or affected-person country is recorded.","court_countries":["CN"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): the Shanghai courts found that a company imitated a voice actor's voice with AI-synthesised audio in a promotion without consent and awarded 50,000 yuan. One reporting chain (the court's release, read in three Chinese outlets); the parties are anonymised by the court.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"In the court account, the company said the audio was generated by AI it had developed, and both courts found AI-generated voice infringement. The audio imitated the voice actor's voice (depicted_or_impersonated). The company denied using the voice actor's recordings; the appeal court relied on a forensic similarity report and on the company's failure to prove the source of its training material.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Shanghai: an appeal court upheld a 50,000 yuan award to a voice actor after finding that AI-synthesised audio in a company's online promotion was identifiable as the voice actor's voice","summary":"Chinese outlets reported on 29 September 2026, citing the Shanghai courts, that the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court had concluded what it called Shanghai's first voice-rights case arising from AI-synthesised speech. According to the court's account, a voice actor who publishes work on an app learned from a friend in January 2025 that a company appeared to be using the voice actor's voice in an online user-acquisition promotion, judged the audio to be AI-synthesised, had it notarised and sued for 300,000 yuan. The company said the audio was generated by AI it had developed but that the training material could not be confirmed, and denied using the voice actor's voice. A forensic comparison rated about 90 percent of the measured features as fairly or highly similar. The first-instance court awarded 50,000 yuan and both sides appealed. The appeal court held that the company had put an identifiable synthetic voice to commercial use without consent, dismissed the appeals and upheld the award.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-29","aiSystem":"AI speech synthesis developed by the defendant company (anonymised as Company A in the court account), which the courts found had generated audio imitating the voice actor's voice for an online promotion","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's account as relayed by Chinese outlets, the Shanghai courts found that AI-synthesised audio used in a company's online promotion was identifiable as a voice actor's voice and had been used without consent, causing economic loss, and awarded 50,000 yuan.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the voice actor who brought the claim (court account relayed by The Paper, Southern Metropolis Daily and Legal Daily). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://news.ifeng.com/c/8woTv1MjTRx","primarySourceLabel":"The Paper via ifeng, 29 September 2026: AI took a voice actor's voice, company ordered to pay 50,000 yuan","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:16:35.611187+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:16:35.611187+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["voice-cloning","voice-rights","voice-actor","court-ruling","shanghai","china","depicted-or-impersonated"]},{"id":"2025-chandler-arizona-ai-victim-video-sentencing-vacated","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'FILED 09-30-2026'; 'AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART'; 'we affirm the manslaughter conviction but vacate the sentence for manslaughter, and remand for resentencing'; 'term of 10.5 years’ imprisonment on the count of manslaughter'; 'during a road rage confrontation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'An Arizona appeals court has upheld the manslaughter conviction of a man who fatally shot another driver during a road rage confrontation, but it has ordered a new sentencing hearing after finding a judge improperly relied on an AI-generated video portraying the victim.'; 'The court affirmed his conviction but vacated his 10.5-year prison sentence and sent the case back to Superior Court for resentencing.'; 'The case will return to Maricopa County Superior Court for a new sentencing hearing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'will have to be resentenced after the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated his sentence for a 2021 road rage killing in Chandler due to an AI video of the victim affecting the judge'; 'manslaughter conviction is upheld, but the 10 1/2-year sentence is vacated, and he will be resentenced.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 30 September 2026 the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the manslaughter conviction of a defendant who shot and killed a man during a road-rage confrontation, vacated his 10.5-year manslaughter sentence and remanded for resentencing.","causal_attribution":"The disposition stated in the opinion itself, also reported by two Arizona newsrooms, which date the killing to 2021, place it in Chandler and describe the victim as another driver."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶53: 'consideration of the AI video so prejudiced'; 'as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair'; 'Accordingly, we vacate the sentence for manslaughter and remand for resentencing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'In its decision announced Wednesday, the state Court of Appeals said the sentencing judge was prejudiced by the AI video, which made his decision fundamentally unfair.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'consideration of the AI video so prejudiced'; 'as to render the sentencing procedure'; 'improperly allowed at a sentencing hearing an artificial intelligence-generated video in which the victim is depicted talking about forgiveness and addressing the defendant directly.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The appeals court held that the sentencing judge's consideration of the AI video so prejudiced the defendant as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair.","causal_attribution":"Holding of the appeals court, read in the opinion; also reported by AZFamily and by the ABA Journal citing Reuters."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It included some real footage of the victim, but also had an AI-generated version of him delivering statements about his beliefs, forgiveness and his family.'; 'picture and voice profile'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'using a previously recorded video, a picture and a script written by'; 'sister. That video was played during the sentencing.'; 'was sentenced to 10 1/2 years in prison last year'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"¶36: 'recreated through AI that use[d] [his] picture and [his] voice profile'; ¶50: 'created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The video, made by the victim's family and played at the sentencing hearing in 2025, used the victim's picture and voice profile and combined some real footage with an AI-generated version of the victim delivering statements about his beliefs, forgiveness and his family, from a script written by his sister.","causal_attribution":"Description of the video by ABC15 and AZFamily; the opinion confirms the picture and voice profile, the embedded real footage and the sister's authorship, and does not state the date of the hearing."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶41: 'I loved that AI. Thank you for that'; 'I feel that that was genuine; that his obvious forgiveness of'; 'For that reason I find the presumptive term [of 10.5 years in prison] is appropriate. That’s more than the State asked for.'; ¶38: 'she asked the sentencing judge to impose a slightly mitigated sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'The sentencing judge later said he \"loved\" the AI video and described it as \"genuine.\"'; 'The judge specifically referenced what he viewed as the victim'; 'the presumptive 10.5 years in prison for manslaughter'; 'a longer sentence than the nine years requested by prosecutors'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'obvious forgiveness'; 'expressed in'; 'before handing down the punishment'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The sentencing judge said he loved the AI video, described it as genuine and referred to the forgiveness it expressed, then imposed the presumptive 10.5-year term, longer than the nine years prosecutors had requested.","causal_attribution":"The sentencing transcript as quoted in the appeals opinion; also reported by ABC15 and AZFamily."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶53: 'video footage of the victim was permissible, allowing the presentation of the AI video constituted fundamental error'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'The appeals court specifically said the real video footage of the victim was permissible. Its ruling was focused on the AI-generated portions that portrayed the victim saying things he never actually said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appeals court said the embedded real video footage of the victim was permissible and that allowing the presentation of the AI video was fundamental error.","causal_attribution":"Stated in the opinion; ABC15 summarises the ruling as focused on AI-generated portions that portrayed the victim saying things he never said."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'He says the new sentence could range from seven to ten and a half years, and the case could still reach the state supreme court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The defense attorney said the new sentence could range from seven to ten and a half years and that the case could still reach the Arizona Supreme Court.","causal_attribution":"Statement by the defense attorney to ABC15."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶1: 'remand for resentencing because the AI video was not reliable'; ¶45: 'only evidence bearing a “minimal indicia of reliability” may be considered at sentencing'; ¶50: 'does not reflect actual events'; 'presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister'; ¶51: 'It erases the interpretive distance between the family’s belief about what the victim would have said and the victim’s own voice and opinions'; 'No disclaimer could cure that error.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The opinion gives unreliability as the ground: only evidence bearing minimal indicia of reliability may be considered at sentencing, and the AI video, apart from the embedded real footage, does not reflect actual events and presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim's sister, erasing the distance between the family's belief about what the victim would have said and the victim's own voice; the court wrote that no disclaimer could cure that error.","causal_attribution":"Reasoning of the appeals court, read in the opinion."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶34: 'did not object to the AI video at sentencing, we review only for fundamental error'; ¶52: 'While the record does not reflect precisely how the AI video factored into the sentencing calculus, there is no question it played a role.'; ¶48: 'No Arizona case has addressed the admissibility of an'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'no Arizona case has addressed the admissibility of an AI-generated depiction of a victim offered as victim impact evidence'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The defendant had not objected to the AI video at sentencing, so the court reviewed for fundamental error; the opinion says the record does not reflect precisely how the video factored into the sentencing calculus and that there is no question it played a role, and that no Arizona case had addressed an AI-generated depiction of a victim offered as victim impact evidence.","causal_attribution":"Stated in the opinion. The opinion does not find that the sentence would have been shorter without the video."},{"id":"c9","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶36: 'recreated through AI that use[d] [his] picture and [his] voice profile'; 'is a true representation of who [he] was'; 'not how the courtroom portrayed [him]'; 'I believe in forgiveness and in God who forgives.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The opinion records that the AI rendering of the victim explained that it was a version of him recreated through AI using his picture and voice profile, said the video was a true representation of who he was and not how the courtroom portrayed him, and told the defendant that he believed in forgiveness and in God who forgives.","causal_attribution":"The appeals court's account of the video played at sentencing."},{"id":"c10","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶37: 'the maximum sentence authorized by the jury verdict'; ¶40: 'impose a mitigated term of 7 years’ imprisonment'; ¶13: 'concurrent, presumptive term of 2.25 years’ imprisonment on the count of endangerment'; ¶1: 'argument that the court erred in precluding text messages obtained from the victim’s phone'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The opinion records that the attorney for the victim's family asked for the maximum sentence authorized by the verdict and defense counsel for a mitigated seven-year term, and that the judge also imposed a concurrent 2.25-year term for endangerment; the court affirmed the conviction after rejecting a challenge to the exclusion of text messages from the victim's phone.","causal_attribution":"The appeals court's account of the sentencing record and its own disposition."},{"id":"c11","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'We were disappointed of course'; 'She says her family is now prepared to go through a second sentencing hearing.'; 'during the spring 2025 sentencing in Maricopa County Superior Court'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The victim's sister told FOX 10 Phoenix on 1 October 2026 that the family was disappointed by the ruling, and FOX 10 reports that the family is prepared to go through a second sentencing hearing; FOX 10 places the original sentencing in spring 2025.","causal_attribution":"Statement by the victim's sister to FOX 10 Phoenix and FOX 10's own description."}],"effects":[{"label":"sentencing procedure found fundamentally unfair because the judge considered an AI-generated video of the victim; 10.5-year sentence vacated and resentencing ordered","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.abc15.com/news/arizona-appeals-court-throws-out-sentence-after-judge-relied-on-ai-generated-victim-video","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-02 (ABC15 Arizona, published 30 September 2026 and updated 1 October 2026 according to the page metadata). Own reporting with interviews of the victim's sister and the defense attorney.","independence_group":"abc15"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.azfamily.com/2026/10/01/court-appeals-vacates-chandler-road-rage-sentence-due-ai-victim-video/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-02 (AZFamily, published 30 September 2026 at 5:36 PM MST). Own report of the ruling.","independence_group":"azfamily"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/arizona-appeals-court-says-judge-wrongly-permitted-ai-generated-victim-video","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-02 and re-read on 2026-10-05 (ABA Journal, 1 October 2026), which relays a Reuters story and quotes the opinion; Reuters itself returned HTTP 401.","independence_group":"reuters"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/30/state_v._horcasitas.pdf","kind":"court_opinion","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English on 2026-10-05: the published opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CR 25-0191, filed 30 September 2026 (16 pages), from the copy stored by CourtListener. The Arizona courts' own address for the file returned HTTP 403. The case caption, and so this address, carries the defendant's surname; the record text does not.","independence_group":"arizona-court-of-appeals-opinion"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-manslaughter-sentencing-vacated-due-use-ai-victim-impact-statement","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-05 (FOX 10 Phoenix, published 30 September 2026, updated 1 October 2026). Quotes the opinion and carries its own 1 October interview with the victim's sister.","independence_group":"fox10phoenix"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The day of the 2025 sentencing hearing (FOX 10 Phoenix places it in spring 2025).","The AI tools used to make the video; the opinion does not identify them.","How far the video affected the length of the sentence: the opinion says the record does not reflect precisely how it factored in.","The outcome of resentencing and whether either party seeks review by the Arizona Supreme Court."],"geography":{"basis":"The sentencing took place in the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona, and the appeal was decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One (opinion; ABC15; AZFamily). The defendant's residence is not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse consequence of an AI-generated depiction used in a criminal proceeding: an appeals court found that the video made a sentencing fundamentally unfair and vacated the sentence. Two independent Arizona newsrooms report the ruling; names of the deceased victim, his family and the defendant are left out of the summary and claims. Updated on 2026-10-05 after the published opinion was read in full: the disposition, the holding, the judge's quoted remarks and the court's account of the video are now recorded from the opinion itself, and a FOX 10 Phoenix interview with the victim's sister is added.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The appeals opinion describes an artificial intelligence video rendering of the victim, recreated from his picture and voice profile and played at sentencing with embedded real footage; ABC15, AZFamily, FOX 10 Phoenix and the ABA Journal (relaying Reuters) describe the video as AI-generated by the victim's family from a family-written script. The tools are not identified. The AI-generated likeness depicted the deceased victim and, according to the opinion, addressed the defendant. The AI-generated video depicted the deceased victim: the opinion describes it as recreating his appearance and voice and as presenting a family-written statement as coming directly from him. The person counted as harmed is the defendant, whose sentencing the appeals court held unfair; the rendering addressed him and did not depict him.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Arizona: an appeals court vacates a manslaughter sentence after finding that an AI-generated video of the deceased victim, played by his family at sentencing, made the procedure fundamentally unfair","summary":"At a 2025 sentencing hearing in Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona, the family of a man killed in a 2021 road-rage shooting in Chandler played a video that combined real footage with an AI-generated likeness and voice of the victim delivering a script written by his sister, including statements of forgiveness addressed to the defendant. The judge said he loved the video, described it as genuine and referred to the forgiveness it expressed, then imposed the presumptive 10.5-year term for manslaughter, longer than the nine years the prosecutor had requested. On 30 September 2026 the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but vacated the sentence, holding that the AI video was not reliable and that the judge's consideration of it so prejudiced the defendant that the sentencing procedure was fundamentally unfair. The opinion says the record does not show precisely how the video factored into the sentence, and that there is no question it played a role. The case returns to the trial court for resentencing.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-30","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tools used by the victim's family to generate a likeness and voice of the deceased victim from a recorded video, a picture and a written script","aiProduct":"Unidentified video tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Arizona Court of Appeals held, in a published opinion of 30 September 2026, that the sentencing judge's consideration of an AI-generated video of the victim prejudiced the defendant and made the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair, vacating his 10.5-year sentence and ordering resentencing.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the defendant whose sentencing the appeals court found fundamentally unfair. He did not use the AI tool, so he is counted among people harmed through others' use. The victim's family is not counted because no harm to them from the AI video is reported. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AZ","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.abc15.com/news/arizona-appeals-court-throws-out-sentence-after-judge-relied-on-ai-generated-victim-video","primarySourceLabel":"ABC15 Arizona, 30 September 2026: \"Arizona appeals court throws out sentence after judge relied on AI-generated victim video\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-02T03:20:58.232078+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:07:18.611095+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-video","deepfake","victim-impact-statement","courts","sentencing","arizona","justice","others-use"]},{"id":"2025-us-manhattan-airbnb-damage-claim-photos-disputed-as-manipulated-guest-refunded","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"the host told Airbnb that she had caused more than £12,000 worth of damage, and submitted pictures of an apparently cracked coffee table as part of his case.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Airbnb initially told her “after careful review of the photos”, she would have to reimburse the host a total of £5,314. She appealed against the decision.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The host told Airbnb the guest had caused more than 12,000 pounds of damage, submitted pictures including an apparently cracked coffee table, and Airbnb initially told the guest after reviewing the photos that she must reimburse 5,314 pounds.","causal_attribution":"The Guardian relays the guest's account of the host's claim and Airbnb's first decision. Airbnb's ruling and the photos were not inspected. New York Post and Fox Business rewrite this account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"A close examination of two pictures of the coffee table appears to show differences in the damage, leading the woman to believe they were digitally manipulated or generated by AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"He did not respond to a request for comment.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Guardian reports that a close examination of two pictures of the coffee table appears to show differences in the damage, leading the guest to believe they were digitally manipulated or generated by AI. The host did not respond to the Guardian.","causal_attribution":"Guest's belief and the Guardian's description of her comparison. The photos were not inspected and no forensic finding was reported. Whether an AI tool was used is not established."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Airbnb said he had been warned for violating its terms and told he would be removed if there was another similar report. The company told him that it could not verify the images he submitted as part of his complaint.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We have taken action with the host, and we are reviewing the original handling of this case.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Airbnb told the host it could not verify the images he submitted, warned him for violating its terms and said he would be removed if there was another similar report.","causal_attribution":"Airbnb statements to the Guardian and to Fox Business. Airbnb did not state a finding that the images were AI-generated. The company's review of the photos is described only as 'careful review' with no mention of AI tools."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Five days after Guardian Money raised questions about the case with Airbnb, the woman was told it had accepted her appeal and credited her account with £500.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the company offered an £854 refund – a fifth of the cost of her booking. She refused to accept this","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"was refunded the full cost (£4,269) of her booking, and a negative review that the host had placed on her profile was taken down.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Airbnb apologised and said there would be a review into how her case was handled.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"After Guardian Money asked Airbnb about the case, Airbnb accepted the appeal, credited 500 pounds, then refunded the full booking cost of 4,269 pounds after the guest refused a partial offer, the host's negative review on her profile was taken down (the Guardian does not say by whom), and Airbnb apologised.","causal_attribution":"The Guardian relays the guest's account and Airbnb's statements. The refund and review removal were not documented by Airbnb records seen here."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"experience fell below our usual high standards.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"assure them that they will not be charged for the reported damage","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Airbnb said the guest's experience fell below its usual standards and that she would not be charged for the reported damage.","causal_attribution":"Airbnb's own statement to Fox Business."}],"effects":[{"label":"Guest told to reimburse the host on the strength of photos she says were manipulated; reversed on appeal","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/aug/02/airbnb-guest-damage-claim-refund-photos","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"guardian-report"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://nypost.com/2025/08/06/lifestyle/airbnb-guest-accused-of-causing-16k-in-property-damage-claims-host-used-ai-to-create-fake-photos/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"guardian-report"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/airbnb-apologizes-superhost-allegedly-ai-doctored-photos-claim-16k-fake-damages","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"airbnb-statement-to-fox"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","finance"],"unknowns":["Whether the host's photos were altered, and by what tool, is unknown: no forensic finding, host statement or Airbnb finding on AI is reported.","Airbnb's own review of the photos is described only as a 'careful review'. No source says Airbnb used an AI system to assess them.","The stay dates, the day of the damage claim and the outcome date are not stated beyond 'earlier this year' and the Guardian's 2 August 2025 date.","Whether the guest paid any part of the reimbursement before the appeal succeeded is not stated.","The US outlets give the claim as about 16,000 dollars (Fox Business) and the Guardian as more than 12,000 pounds. The inspected sources do not itemise the claim."],"geography":{"basis":"The Guardian places the apartment in Manhattan, New York, and describes the guest as London-based. Airbnb's location and the Guardian's publication are not used.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"The Guardian report and two rewrites were read in full. The host and guest are not named and the apartment address is not given. The AI element rests on the guest's belief and Airbnb's statement that it could not verify the images. Claims stay at reported status.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The guest says differences between two photos of one table lead her to believe they were manipulated or AI-generated. Airbnb told the host it could not verify the images. The host did not respond, and no source shows an AI tool was used. Fox Business and the New York Post headlines state AI use more strongly than the Guardian body supports.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Manhattan Airbnb: guest says host's damage-claim photos were manipulated or AI-generated, Airbnb first ordered payment then refunded her","summary":"The Guardian reported on 2 August 2025 that a London-based academic who rented a Manhattan apartment through Airbnb in 2025 was accused by the host of more than 12,000 pounds of damage, supported by photos including a cracked coffee table. She says differences between two photos of the table show they were digitally manipulated or AI-generated. Airbnb first told her to reimburse 5,314 pounds after reviewing the photos, then, five days after Guardian Money asked about the case, accepted her appeal, credited 500 pounds and, after she refused an 854-pound offer, refunded her booking cost of 4,269 pounds, and the host's negative review of her was taken down. Airbnb apologised. Airbnb told the host it could not verify the images he submitted and warned him. The host did not respond to the Guardian. No source establishes that AI was used.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-08-02","aiSystem":"None identified (guest suspects the host's damage-claim photos were digitally manipulated or AI-generated; no tool or forensic finding is reported)","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Guardian reports Airbnb initially told the guest to reimburse the host 5,314 pounds on the strength of the host's photos and the host placed a negative review on her profile; Airbnb later refunded her booking cost in full and the review was taken down.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One guest reported subjected to the damage claim. Other Airbnb customers who might face similar claims are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/aug/02/airbnb-guest-damage-claim-refund-photos","primarySourceLabel":"The Guardian (2 Aug 2025)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:51.915494+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.206649+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2026-aarons-chatgpt-fabricated-testimony-sanction","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1a","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Order passages quoted by Ars: contempt, $5,000 to the Client Protection Fund in 30 days, referral.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Reuters wire: 'on Sept 9' — fine, contempt, referral, and the Sandoval caption.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"ABA Journal, 24 Aug: the $5,000 contempt anticipated from the 21 Aug show-cause hearing (pre-order; advance reporting, context only).","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"By written order of 9 September 2026, the New Mexico Supreme Court held Stephen Aarons in direct contempt, fined him $5,000 payable to the State Bar Client Protection Fund within 30 days, and referred him to the disciplinary board.","causal_attribution":"The contempt, fine and referral are quoted by Ars Technica and confirmed by the Reuters wire; the ABA Journal's hearing-day account anticipated but could not confirm the later written order. The order PDF itself was not retrieved in this review."},{"id":"c1b","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Ars: removal, bar pending referral, briefs struck, reassignment (Kim Chavez Cook appointed 2 Sep).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order also removed Aarons from the case, barred him from appearing before the court pending the disciplinary-board referral, struck the filed briefs and reassigned the appeal to the public defender (Kim Chavez Cook, appointed 2 September 2026).","causal_attribution":"Single-chain detail from Ars Technica's account of the order; the Reuters wire does not carry these elements."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Ars passages: Rev.com transcript plus record into ChatGPT (o3); the named fabricated witnesses and false attributions; the admission of non-verification.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"ABA Journal: 'admits stupidity over AI errors' at the show-cause hearing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Reuters headline account: 'ChatGPT invented fake police testimony in murder appeal, New Mexico high court says'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Aarons used ChatGPT (OpenAI o3) on a Rev.com transcript and the case record to draft the brief, which contained fabricated witnesses and testimony — officers 'Michelle Amarillo' and 'Sanchez', Manal Al-Jibury, Teresa Marquez, and false testimony attributed to Danny and Linda Stanton and Mariah Chavez — and misdescribed real precedents; he admitted at the hearing that he had not verified the output.","causal_attribution":"The fabrication and the admission are established by the attorney's own statements at the hearing and the court's findings as reported; no source reports a denial."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Ars: substitution of the public defender (Kim Chavez Cook, appointed 2 Sep); the court's remark about the client.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The client, Oscar Renee Sandoval, suffers a delayed appeal: the briefs were struck, Aarons was removed, and the public defender was substituted (appointed 2 September 2026); the court told Aarons 'your client is the one suffering'.","causal_attribution":"Single-chain detail from Ars Technica's account of the order; the delay's length is not stated."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Reuters wire via Straits Times: Sandoval caption, life sentence February 2025, Doña Ana County.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Ars: brief filed ~Aug 2025; State's motion to strike weeks later.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The underlying case is the murder appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval, sentenced to life in February 2025 in Doña Ana County for killing his partner Shiereen Al-Jibury; the brief was filed around August 2025 and the State moved to strike weeks later.","causal_attribution":"Background context, attributed to the wire and Ars; the docket number was not confirmed in this review."}],"effects":[{"label":"attorney sanctioned for ChatGPT-fabricated testimony; client's appeal delayed","claim_id":"c1a","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/09/chatgpt-using-lawyer-punished-for-citing-fake-testimony-from-made-up-witnesses/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (11 Sep 2026, Brodkin). Quotes the 9 September order and the 21 August hearing; names the fabricated witnesses.","independence_group":"ars"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/chatgpt-invented-fake-police-testimony-in-murder-appeal-new-mexico-high-court-says","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (11 Sep 2026); Straits Times carrying the Reuters wire.","independence_group":"reuters"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/criminal-defense-attorney-admits-stupidity-over-ai-errors-but-still-receives-sharp-rebuke-from-his-states-high-court","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (24 Aug 2026). Post-hearing report citing the Santa Fe New Mexican; the fine and contempt were anticipated from the hearing, not yet the written order.","independence_group":"aba-journal"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The 9 September 2026 order PDF was not directly inspected (nmcourts.gov search empty; form-based case lookup); the claims about it rest on two chains quoting it.","The underlying docket number is unconfirmed.","The disciplinary-board process and its outcome are pending.","The full set of fabricated or misdescribed citations beyond the named examples is not reported.","The ChatGPT product tier and whether the firm had verification policies are not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"Events: Santa Fe, New Mexico practice and the Doña Ana County murder case. Affected persons: the attorney and his client, both in New Mexico. Court: New Mexico Supreme Court.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an own-use, work-context adverse consequence with a dated, quantified sanction and an admitted, judicially found AI link. This applies the charter's individual-review rule to the AI-sanction class; the retired ordinary_task_failure gate and a class-level ruling are not required. Aarons is a public officer of the court sanctioned by a public order and is named; his client's name appears in the public caption of the appeal. In a 2026-09-15 second pass the original compound first claim was split: the corroborated contempt/fine/referral stand as c1a, and the Ars-only order elements (removal, bar, struck briefs, reassignment) stand as reported c1b. person_relations recorded in the same pass.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The AI link is admitted and judicially found: Aarons fed a Rev.com transcript and the record into ChatGPT (OpenAI o3), and the court's order addresses the fabricated content in the filed brief; he admitted at the show-cause hearing that he had not verified the output.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"New Mexico Supreme Court fines attorney Stephen Aarons $5,000 and removes him from a murder appeal over ChatGPT-fabricated testimony","summary":"Santa Fe defense attorney Stephen Aarons used ChatGPT (OpenAI's o3) on a Rev.com transcript and the record to draft briefing in the murder appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval; the brief contained fabricated witnesses and testimony (including police officers 'Michelle Amarillo' and 'Sanchez' and invented testimony attributed to real people) and misdescribed real precedents. After a 21 August 2026 show-cause hearing at which Aarons admitted he had not verified the output, the New Mexico Supreme Court's written order of 9 September 2026 held him in direct contempt, fined him $5,000 payable to the State Bar Client Protection Fund within 30 days, removed him from the case, barred him from appearing before the court pending a disciplinary-board referral, struck the filed briefs and reassigned the appeal to the public defender.","incidentDate":"2025-08-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-09","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-08-24","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI o3)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A dated, quantified professional sanction for the attorney who relied on ChatGPT's output: $5,000 fine, direct-contempt finding, removal from the case, a bar on appearing before the court pending a disciplinary-board referral, and struck briefs; his client's appeal is delayed as a result.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two documented harmed people. The user: Aarons, sanctioned (court order reported by Ars Technica and Reuters). Another person's use consequence: his client Sandoval, whose appeal is delayed by the struck briefs and the substitution of counsel (Ars quotes the court's 'your client is the one suffering'). No further harmed persons are reported; the victim's family is not counted (no harm to them is reported).","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/09/chatgpt-using-lawyer-punished-for-citing-fake-testimony-from-made-up-witnesses/","primarySourceLabel":"Ars Technica (11 Sep 2026) — quotes the 9 Sep order and the 21 Aug show-cause hearing","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T06:16:05.506355+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:22.660417+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","justice","legal-profession","sanction","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","own-use","new-mexico"]}]}