{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T10:13:49.598Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"australia","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"core","evidence":"","year":"","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":2,"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":"2022-australia-federal-court-civil-penalty-for-ai-generated-deepfake-intimate-images-of-six-women","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'the respondent posted 12 non-consensual deepfake intimate images of six persons ordinarily resident in Australia online'; 'On 15 November 2022, [the respondent] uploaded to [the named website] a moving visual image'; 'On 27 May 2023, [the respondent] uploaded to [the named website] a moving visual image'; 'did not receive (and was aware that he had not received) consent from any of Depicted Persons 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'he posted deepfake nude images of six different women to a website'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Between 15 November 2022 and 27 May 2023 the respondent posted 12 non-consensual deepfake intimate images, described as moving visual images, of six people ordinarily resident in Australia to a website accessible worldwide, without their consent.","causal_attribution":"Agreed facts accepted by the court as true; ABC reports the same finding. The judgment introduction gives 19 May 2023 as the end date, while the agreed facts and penalty orders include 27 May 2023."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'created each of the deepfake images described below by following the same process: a. locating an image of the depicted person online; b. uploading the image to a webpage that allowed him to create semi-naked or naked images of the person; c. saving the generated image'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"He made each image by locating a photo of the person online, uploading it to a webpage that allowed him to create semi-naked or naked images of the person, and saving the generated image.","causal_attribution":"Agreed facts in the judgment; the tool is not named and its technique is not described."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'this cruel, destructive and anti-social misuse of easily accessible AI tools'; 'for making a series of AI-generated deepfakes of prominent women'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The eSafety Commissioner called this kind of deepfake abuse a misuse of easily accessible AI tools, and Information Age reported the images as AI-generated deepfakes.","causal_attribution":"The regulator that investigated the case, quoted by Information Age; the technical basis for the AI description is not stated beyond the agreed generation steps (c2)."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'each of the Depicted Persons ordinarily resides in Australia and made a complaint about the images'; 'I am absolutely horrified about being caught up in this. Even though it is clearly a fake video, I feel violated, vulnerable and completely without agency'; 'the contraventions of s 75 are likely to have caused the Depicted Persons’ hurt and distress'; 'likely to have exacerbated that hurt and distress for Depicted Person 1 and Depicted Person 2'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Even though it is clearly a fake video, I feel violated, vulnerable and completely without agency'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Each of the six complained to eSafety; one complainant said she was horrified and, although it was clearly a fake video, felt violated, vulnerable and without agency; the court found the posts were likely to have caused the women hurt and distress, exacerbated for two women whose images stayed online for almost a year.","causal_attribution":"The court's finding, based on the complaints, the respondent's admission and expert evidence; the women gave no evidence of the extent of their loss."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'I am not a resident of Australia. The removal notice means nothing to me. Get an arrest warrant if you think you are right.'; 'Some of the images [the respondent] posted online were retaliatory against individuals who were involved in the issuing of the Removal Notice.'; 'From around 3 November 2023, [the respondent] cooperated with eSafety in relation to removing the images'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'it meant nothing to him as he was not an Australian resident'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"He refused eSafety's May 2023 removal notice and remedial direction, saying the notice meant nothing to him as he was not a resident of Australia; he admitted that some later images were retaliation against people involved in issuing the notice; the images were removed only after he gave eSafety his log-in details from about 3 November 2023, following his arrest on other matters.","causal_attribution":"Agreed facts in the judgment; AAP reports the same reply."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'This comes to a total of $343,500.'; 'The Commissioner says that this is the first proceeding involving the imposition of a civil penalty under the Act.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'to pay a $343,500 penalty plus costs'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 26 September 2025 the court ordered penalties totalling A$343,500 and part of the Commissioner's costs, in what the Commissioner said was the first proceeding to impose a civil penalty under the Online Safety Act.","causal_attribution":"Court orders in the judgment."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'was fined $25,000 for contempt of court, after admitting he breached three court orders made as part of the case'; 'he forwarded the documents to eSafety Commission staff and 49 other email addresses, including media outlets'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'to not publish the orders as they contained the names of the women targeted'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"In December 2023 he was fined A$25,000 for contempt after admitting he breached three orders in the case, including by forwarding the orders, which identified the women, to eSafety staff and 49 other email addresses, including media outlets.","causal_attribution":"Reported by ABC and Information Age from the court record; the contempt judgment was not inspected."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'was found guilty of 17 offences by a jury on Tuesday'; 'digitally altered photographs of several women and girls he found on public websites in a way that depicted them either entirely or partially nude'; 'has been sentenced to two years in jail, which he has already served'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"In a separate criminal trial, a Brisbane jury convicted the same man in September 2026 of 17 offences over photos of women and girls, including students and staff of a Brisbane private school, that he digitally altered to depict them nude and emailed to the school and others, and that he was sentenced to two years in jail, which he had already served.","causal_attribution":"ABC report of a different proceeding, given as context only; whether its victims overlap with the six women is not established."}],"effects":[{"label":"women depicted without consent in generated deepfake intimate images posted online, which the court found likely caused them hurt and distress","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca1191","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 through an Internet Archive capture (web.archive.org/web/2025id_/...) because the court site returned HTTP 403; no translation. Full judgment with the agreed facts.","independence_group":"federal-court-judgment-2025-fca-1191"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-26/qld-deepfake-pornography-federal-court-charge/105822448","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200); no translation. ABC report of the hand-down, with the earlier contempt fine.","independence_group":"abc-report-of-judgment"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/26/man-fined-34000-for-deepfake-pornography-of-prominent-australian-women-in-first-of-its-kind-case","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200); no translation. AAP copy published by The Guardian (the Sydney Morning Herald carries the same AAP text).","independence_group":"aap-report-of-judgment"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2025/australian-man-fined--350k-for-making-ai-deepfakes.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200); no translation. Information Age report, including the eSafety Commissioner's LinkedIn statement.","independence_group":"information-age-report"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/107106098","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200); no translation. ABC report of the separate 2026 criminal trial; the short URL resolves to the full article.","independence_group":"abc-report-of-criminal-trial"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["Which web tool generated the images and how it worked.","How many people viewed the images while they were online.","Whether any of the six women are among the victims in the separate 2026 Brisbane criminal case.","The extent of each woman's loss beyond the hurt and distress the court found likely; the women gave no evidence on it."],"geography":{"basis":"The judgment says each depicted person ordinarily resides in Australia and the Federal Court of Australia decided the case. Where he was when he posted the images is not stated (he told eSafety he was not resident in Australia), and the website was accessible worldwide, so the event country is left unknown.","court_countries":["AU"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["AU"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): the Federal Court found, on admitted facts, that a man posted 12 non-consensual deepfake intimate images of six women that he generated by uploading their photos to an image-creation webpage, found the posts likely caused them hurt and distress, and imposed A$343,500 in penalties. The court record documents the generation, posting, complaints and penalty; the AI description is the regulator's.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The agreed facts accepted by the Federal Court state that the respondent uploaded each woman's photo to a webpage that allowed him to create semi-naked or naked images of her and saved the generated image, then posted those images; the court found the posts likely caused the women hurt and distress. The images depicted the women (depicted_or_impersonated). The eSafety Commissioner, whose office investigated the case, called this kind of deepfake abuse a misuse of easily accessible AI tools. The tool is not named and its technique is not described.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Australian Federal Court orders man to pay A$343,500 for posting AI-generated deepfake intimate images of six women, in eSafety's first civil penalty case","summary":"On 26 September 2025 the Federal Court of Australia ordered a man to pay civil penalties of A$343,500 plus costs, in what the eSafety Commissioner said was the first proceeding to impose a civil penalty under the Online Safety Act 2021. On facts he admitted, he posted 12 non-consensual deepfake intimate images of six women ordinarily resident in Australia to a deepfake website between November 2022 and May 2023. He made each one by uploading a photo of the woman found online to a webpage that created semi-naked or naked images and saving the generated image. He refused eSafety's removal notice, so two images stayed online for almost a year, and he admitted posting some later images in retaliation against people involved in issuing the notice. Each woman complained to eSafety, and the court found the posts were likely to have caused them hurt and distress. The eSafety Commissioner called this kind of deepfake abuse a misuse of easily accessible AI tools.","incidentDate":"2022-11-15","incidentEndDate":"2023-05-27","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-09-26","aiSystem":"Unidentified web tool to which the poster uploaded a photo of each woman and which generated semi-naked or naked images (agreed facts in the judgment); the eSafety Commissioner called this kind of deepfake abuse a misuse of easily accessible AI tools","aiProduct":"Unidentified video tool","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Federal Court's findings on admitted facts, six women were depicted without consent in generated deepfake intimate images posted online, two for almost a year, and the posts were likely to have caused them hurt and distress; one complainant said she felt violated, vulnerable and without agency.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":6,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Six Depicted Persons, each of whom complained to eSafety (judgment, agreed facts and [11]). Exact 6. People who viewed the images are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"AU","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca1191","primarySourceLabel":"Federal Court of Australia, [2025] FCA 1191 (eSafety Commissioner civil penalty case), judgment of 26 September 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:08:18.073387+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:08:18.073387+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepfake","intimate-image-abuse","civil-penalty","online-safety-act","esafety-commissioner","australia","depicted-or-impersonated"]},{"id":"2026-australia-fair-work-commission-orders-former-aldi-worker-to-pay-costs-after-ai-drafted-claim-argued-wrong-date","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'he was notified of his dismissal on 26 March 2026, being 3 days short of 6 months employment'; 'notified of his dismissal at approximately 4:00pm on 26 March 2026'; 'At 10:02pm the same day'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The applicant was notified of his dismissal on 26 March 2026, three days short of the six-month minimum employment period, and lodged an unfair dismissal application that evening.","causal_attribution":"Facts recorded by the Commission; the date of notification was never disputed."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'application was obviously prepared using AI. It contained AI drafting notes including'; 'every email and document filed in the proceedings was drafted using AI'; 'conceded that he did use Artificial Intelligence to generate his written submissions'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Commission found that his application was obviously prepared using AI and contained AI drafting notes, that every email and document he filed was drafted using AI, and he conceded using AI to generate his written submissions.","causal_attribution":"The Commission's findings and the applicant's concession recorded in the decision."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'AI generated materials have focused on a different and irrelevant date, being the date the dismissal took effect'; 'AI-driven written submissions filed ahead of the hearing addressed the wrong question'; 'the High Court cases cited were real cases rather than hallucinations'; 'In the morning of Friday 31 July 2026 I took the time to write to'; 'sent to the parties in the afternoon of Friday 31 July 2026'; 'two further AI generated submissions that again addressed the wrong end date'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the decision, his AI-generated materials argued about the date the dismissal took effect, an irrelevant date, and addressed the wrong question, including after the Commission explained the correct test to him twice on 31 July 2026; the High Court cases they cited were real.","causal_attribution":"The Commission's own description of the AI-generated materials; whether a different tool or human adviser would have produced the same argument is not established."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'costs from 31 July 2026 in the amount of $1230'; 'is now $1230 worse off than he was before he started'; 'relied heavily on artificial intelligence to start and continue his unfair dismissal claim acted unreasonably by continuing his claim'; 'decision to continue his claim in the face of clear and specific information from the Fair Work Commission was ill-advised'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'told the former ALDI store assistant to pay $1,230 toward the supermarket'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 19 August 2026 the Commission ordered him to pay A$1,230 of Aldi's costs for the period from 31 July 2026, finding that continuing the claim after the warnings was unreasonable.","causal_attribution":"The order is established by the decision itself."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'adopted AI as his quasi-legal advisor and then blindly submitted AI generated outputs as his own material'; 'Using AI to assist in drafting correspondence and even submissions is not, of itself, unreasonable'; 'responsibility to properly assess for himself whether he was eligible'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Commission said it was quite possible he had adopted AI as his quasi-legal adviser, but held that using AI to draft submissions is not of itself unreasonable and that assessing his eligibility was his responsibility.","causal_attribution":"The Commission's assessment of the AI's role is stated as a possibility; it attributes the costs to his own unreasonable continuation."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2026/12125) was lodged against this decision'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"An appeal was lodged against the costs decision.","causal_attribution":"A note on the published decision; the appeal outcome is unknown."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'first written submissions addressed the same wrong question'; 'did not know any better about the test to be applied under s.383'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Commission noted that Aldi's first written submissions addressed the same wrong question, and accepted that before 31 July 2026 he did not know the correct test.","causal_attribution":"Context recorded by the Commission that limits the weight placed on the AI output before the warnings."}],"effects":[{"label":"self-represented former worker ordered to pay A$1,230 of his former employer's legal costs","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc3144.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 from fwc.gov.au (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"fwc-2026-fwc-3144-decision"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/worker-must-pay-aldis-costs-after-running-dismissal-claim-on-ai/587691","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 (HTTP 200); a trade-press report of the same decision, so it shares the decision's independence group.","independence_group":"fwc-2026-fwc-3144-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the applicant used; the decision names none.","Whether the AI tool or the applicant chose the argument about the effective date of dismissal.","The outcome of the appeal lodged against the costs decision (C2026/12125), and whether the costs have been paid."],"geography":{"basis":"The applicant was employed at an Aldi supermarket by ALDI Stores and brought his claim in Australia's Fair Work Commission, which decided it in Sydney. Where he lives is not stated and is not used.","court_countries":["AU"],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the Fair Work Commission's decision itself records that a dismissed worker's AI-drafted application and submissions argued an irrelevant date, that he continued after two warnings, and that he was ordered to pay A$1,230 in costs. The decision was read in full. The AI's causal role is the Commission's stated possibility; the Commission placed responsibility on the applicant.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-18"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Fair Work Commission's decision finds that the applicant's unfair dismissal application was obviously prepared using AI and quotes the AI drafting notes it contained, records his concession that he used AI to generate his written submissions, and finds that every email and document he filed was drafted using AI (communicated_with). It finds that those AI-generated materials argued an irrelevant date and addressed the wrong question, including after two warnings, and that his continuation of the claim caused the costs it ordered. The decision says it is quite possible he adopted AI as his quasi-legal adviser and places the responsibility on him. No product is named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Fair Work Commission orders former Aldi worker to pay A$1,230 costs after his AI-drafted unfair dismissal claim kept arguing the wrong date","summary":"On 19 August 2026 a Deputy President of Australia's Fair Work Commission ordered a self-represented former Aldi store worker to pay A$1,230 towards Aldi's legal costs. The decision records that his unfair dismissal application, lodged on the evening he was told of his dismissal on 26 March 2026, was obviously prepared using AI and still contained AI drafting notes, and that every email and document he filed was drafted using AI. He was notified of his dismissal three days short of the six-month minimum employment period. According to the decision, his AI-generated materials kept arguing about a different, irrelevant date (when the dismissal took effect), including after the Commission explained the correct test to him twice by email on 31 July 2026. He discontinued at the hearing on 5 August 2026. The Deputy President found that continuing after those warnings was unreasonable and said it was quite possible he had adopted AI as his quasi-legal adviser, while stating that using AI to draft submissions is not of itself unreasonable and that the responsibility was his. The decision notes that an appeal was lodged against it.","incidentDate":"2026-03-26","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-19","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-08-19","aiSystem":"AI tool used by the applicant to draft his unfair dismissal application, emails and submissions, according to the Fair Work Commission; the application retained AI drafting notes. No product is named in the decision","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Fair Work Commission's decision, a self-represented former Aldi worker was ordered to pay A$1,230 in costs after continuing an ineligible unfair dismissal claim whose AI-generated submissions kept addressing the wrong question; the Commission placed the responsibility on him.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the applicant, who the decision says used AI to draft his application and every filing, and who was ordered to pay the costs. Aldi's own unrecovered legal fees are not counted as harm to a person.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"AU","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc3144.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Fair Work Commission, decision [2026] FWC 3144, costs in unfair dismissal matter U2026/4537 (19 August 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-18T03:15:37.606962+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-18T03:15:37.606962+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["australia","fair-work-commission","unfair-dismissal","self-represented-litigant","ai-generated-filings","costs-order"]}]}