{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T08:35:23.865Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"australia","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":5,"coverage":{"cases":5,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":5,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":3,"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":"2023-victoria-child-protection-worker-entered-family-information-into-chatgpt-for-court-report-regulator-finds","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Report: 'The Deputy Commissioner therefore found that DFFH contravened both IPP 3.1 and IPP 4.1 and determined that the contraventions were “serious”'; 'Issue a direction to Child Protection staff setting out that they are not to use any web-based or external Application Programming Interface (API)-based GenAI text tools (such as ChatGPT) as part of their official duties'; 'This action must be implemented by 5 November 2024 and maintained until 5 November 2026'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The regulator issued orders to the department, including blocking IP and domains for a range of generative AI websites, including ChatGPT, Meta AI, Gemini and Copilot.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"OVIC's investigation report, published in September 2024, found that DFFH contravened Information Privacy Principles 3.1 and 4.1 over a child protection worker's use of ChatGPT, that the contraventions were serious, and issued a compliance notice requiring DFFH to direct child protection staff not to use web-based generative AI text tools and to block them until 5 November 2026.","causal_attribution":"The regulator's own report and compliance notice establish its findings and orders."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Compliance notice: 'In or around September 2023, a Child Protection worker (CPW1) of the Organisation used'; 'ChatGPT, a web-based generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tool, when drafting a Protection'. Report: 'The report had been submitted to the Children’s Court for a case concerning a young child whose parents had been charged in relation to sexual offences'; 'CPW1 admitted that they had used ChatGPT in drafting the report, but denied inputting personal information as part of this'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"OVIC found that in or around September 2023 a DFFH child protection worker used ChatGPT when drafting a Protection Application Report that was submitted to the Children's Court in a case about a young child whose parents had been charged in relation to sexual offences; the worker admitted to DFFH using ChatGPT for the report.","causal_attribution":"OVIC's finding, based on indicators in the report and the worker's admission to DFFH."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Report: 'OVIC found, on the balance of probabilities, that CPW1 input personal information, including names'; 'By entering personal and sensitive information about the mother, father, carer, and child into ChatGPT, CPW1 also disclosed this information to OpenAI (the company which operates ChatGPT)'; DFFH response: 'it is not possible to definitively confirm that personal information has ever been entered into ChatGPT by the Child Protection Practitioner who no longer works in the department'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Ovic found that, on the balance of probabilities, the worker had entered in personal information.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"OVIC found on the balance of probabilities that the worker entered personal information, including names, about the child, mother, father and carer into ChatGPT, disclosing it to OpenAI; the worker denied entering personal information, and DFFH says this cannot be confirmed definitively.","causal_attribution":"A regulator's finding on the balance of probabilities, contested by the worker's denial; organisations cannot see what staff typed into ChatGPT."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Report: 'First, the PA Report referenced how the child’s father used a particular toy, a doll, for sexual purposes.'; 'The report later referenced the same toy as a notable strength, in that the parents had provided the child with “age-appropriate toys”'; 'ChatGPT failed to properly understand the relevant context, and generated inappropriate and inaccurate content as a result'; 'these deficiencies in the report did not ultimately change the decision-making of either Child Protection or the Court in relation to the child'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'But it also said the report did not change the decision-making of either the child protection agency or the court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"OVIC's report attributes inaccurate content in the report to ChatGPT: having described a doll the father had reportedly used for sexual purposes, the report later cited the same toy as a parental strength ('age-appropriate toys'), which downplayed the risk to the child; the deficiencies did not change the decisions of Child Protection or the court.","causal_attribution":"OVIC attributes the doll passage to ChatGPT from the content itself and the worker's admission of ChatGPT use."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Report: 'DFFH arranged with the Court for the PA Report to be withdrawn and a replacement one submitted. It also notified affected parties about the incident'; 'In the present case, the mother, father, and carer variously described feelings of anxiety and being overwhelmed when informed about their information being disclosed'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to OVIC's report, DFFH arranged with the court for the report to be withdrawn and replaced and notified the affected parties; the mother, father and carer described feelings of anxiety and being overwhelmed when told their information had been disclosed.","causal_attribution":"DFFH's account to OVIC; the family members' reactions are relayed by the regulator, not in their own words."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"DFFH response, 18 September 2024: 'I accept that there was an unauthorized use of ChatGPT by a Child Protection Practitioner'; 'when developing a Protection Application Report for court'; 'the Child Protection Practitioner who no longer works in the department'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In response, the department said it accepted the findings and would work to implement the orders. It said it no longer employed the worker.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"DFFH's Secretary accepted that a child protection practitioner had used ChatGPT without authorisation for a court report and that the department breached the two privacy principles, and the department said it no longer employs the worker.","causal_attribution":"DFFH's own letter, annexed to the report."}],"effects":[{"label":"personal information about a child, the mother, father and carer was entered into ChatGPT and disclosed to OpenAI, regulator finds","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"ChatGPT-generated content in a Children's Court report downplayed the risk to the child; the report was withdrawn and replaced","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the mother, father and carer described anxiety and being overwhelmed when told of the disclosure","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://ovic.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/DFFH-ChatGPT-investigation-report-20240924-Re-upload.pdf","kind":"official_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"OVIC investigation report under s8C(2)(e) of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic), September 2024, with the compliance notice (Annexure A) and DFFH's response letter of 18 September 2024 (Annexure B); the PDF (re-uploaded November 2024) was read in full on 2026-10-22 from ovic.vic.gov.au (HTTP 200); the report page gives 'Last updated 24 September 2024'.","independence_group":"ovic-dffh-chatgpt-investigation"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/sep/26/victoria-child-protection-chat-gpt-ban-ovic-report-ntwnfb","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Guardian (Australia), 26 September 2024, read in full on 2026-10-22 (HTTP 200). Its account comes from OVIC's report, so it shares that group. Its statement that the worker may have used ChatGPT in 100 cases does not match the report, which attributes the 100 cases to the worker's broader work unit; that statement is not relied on.","independence_group":"ovic-dffh-chatgpt-investigation"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["privacy","public_services","justice"],"unknowns":["Exactly what text the worker entered into ChatGPT; neither DFFH nor OVIC could see the prompts, and the input of personal information rests on a balance-of-probabilities finding.","The exact date of the ChatGPT use (the compliance notice says 'in or around September 2023') and of the court hearing.","Whether OpenAI retained or used the information entered.","Which people were affected in the 100 other cases with indicators of ChatGPT use, and whether their information was entered.","How DFFH has complied with the compliance notice since its first monitoring reports."],"geography":{"basis":"OVIC is Victoria's information regulator, DFFH is a Victorian government department, and the report says the affected child protection case went before the Children's Court, a Victorian court. The family's case was handled by the department in Victoria.","court_countries":["AU"],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":["AU"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-10-06 privacy clarification: a regulator's investigation report finds that a child protection worker entered a family's personal information into ChatGPT, without authorisation, and that ChatGPT-generated text minimising the risk to a child went into a court report. Relations: received_personal_information and made_claim_about. The case adds a statutory child protection setting, a court report and a compliance notice banning generative AI tools.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"OVIC's report finds that ChatGPT received personal information about the child, mother, father and carer that the worker typed in, which disclosed it to OpenAI, and that ChatGPT generated report text inaccurately describing the parents' care of the child (the doll passage), which went into a report submitted to the Children's Court and downplayed the risk to the child. The finding rests on indicators in the report text, the worker's admission of ChatGPT use and colleagues' accounts; the input of personal information was found on the balance of probabilities and the worker denied it.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Victorian child protection worker put a family's information into ChatGPT to draft a court report that minimised risk to the child, regulator finds","summary":"Victoria's Information Commissioner (OVIC) found in a report published on 24 September 2024 that a child protection worker at the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH) used ChatGPT in or around September 2023 to draft a Protection Application Report submitted to the Children's Court about a young child. On the balance of probabilities, OVIC found the worker entered personal information, including names, about the child, mother, father and carer, disclosing it to OpenAI; the worker admitted using ChatGPT but denied entering personal information. OVIC found generated content in the report described a doll that the father had reportedly used for sexual purposes as a parental strength ('age-appropriate toys'), downplaying the risk to the child, although the court's and the department's decisions did not change. The report was withdrawn and replaced, and the mother, father and carer described anxiety when told of the disclosure. OVIC found serious breaches of two privacy principles and issued a compliance notice requiring DFFH to ban and block generative AI text tools for child protection staff until November 2026; DFFH accepted the breach findings.","incidentDate":"2023-09-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-09-24","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used through its website by a child protection worker of Victoria's Department of Families, Fairness and Housing to draft a court report, without departmental authorisation (per OVIC's investigation report)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"OVIC found that personal information about a child, the mother, father and carer was entered into ChatGPT and disclosed to OpenAI, and that ChatGPT-generated content in a court report downplayed the risk to the child; the mother, father and carer described anxiety when told, according to OVIC's report.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":4,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"OVIC's report finds that personal and sensitive information about the mother, father, carer and child in this case was entered into ChatGPT (four people), and records that the mother, father and carer described anxiety when informed. OVIC says personal information had likely been entered in other cases too; those people are not counted. The worker, the court and DFFH staff are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"AU-VIC","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://ovic.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/DFFH-ChatGPT-investigation-report-20240924-Re-upload.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner: Investigation into the use of ChatGPT by a Child Protection worker (report, 24 Sep 2024)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T03:03:14.588614+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T03:03:14.588614+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["chatgpt","child-protection","court-report","privacy-regulator","unauthorised-ai-use","personal-information","victoria"]},{"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"]},{"id":"2024-tasmania-parole-board-ai-hallucinated-case-law-media-condition-quashed","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"In December 2024, the Parole Board of Tasmania added a condition that she not speak \"directly or indirectly with any media outlet to claim (her) alleged innocence and/or wrongful conviction\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was replaced by a new parole condition in May 2025","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The condition was tweaked in 2025 to prevent her from communicating directly or indirectly - including through third parties and written statements - with media about her alleged innocence","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The Supreme Court declared that conditions imposed by the Parole Board of Tasmania in December 2024 and May 2025 were invalid and unlawful.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In December 2024 the Parole Board of Tasmania added a parole condition barring the parolee from communicating with media to claim her innocence or wrongful conviction, and a broader condition replaced it in May 2025.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"used artificial intelligence to prepare a rationale justifying the parole condition, citing case law that was \"fictitious\" and likely \"AI hallucinations\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"relied upon by the board in creating the conditions, included erroneous AI information, the court was told.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"\"As we now know, those cases didn't exist,\" he said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Her counsel told the Supreme Court that the board's secretary used artificial intelligence to prepare a rationale document justifying the condition and that the case law it cited did not exist.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's statement in court is reported by ABC and AAP. These accounts do not independently verify the generation history or identify the tool. The document itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"the Board’s decision-making was affected by a document containing legal authorities that were likely AI-generated hallucinations and did not in fact exist","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Justice Estcourt also found that when the parole board made the decision to impose this condition, it had relied on a document that cited case law that was \"fictitious\" and likely \"AI hallucinations\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Human Rights Law Centre says the State conceded the board's decision-making was affected by a document containing nonexistent authorities likely generated by AI. ABC's 19 September report says the court found the board had relied on the document when imposing the condition.","causal_attribution":"The State's concession as reported by the applicant's representative, and the ABC's report of the court's finding. The ABC's 15 September report says the judge heard this; its 19 September report says the judge found it. The AI origin is stated as likely."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Today in the Supreme Court in Hobart, Justice Stephen Estcourt ruled the condition was invalid because it denied her procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable, and created uncertainty.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Justice Stephen Estcourt found the condition was made without procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable and was filled with uncertainty.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"ABC and AAP report that on 15 September 2026 Justice Stephen Estcourt of the Supreme Court of Tasmania ruled the condition invalid because it denied procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable and created uncertainty.","causal_attribution":"The reported grounds of invalidity are procedural fairness, unreasonableness and uncertainty; the AI document is not reported as a separate ground."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"The parole board decided to withdraw the condition in August and did not contest it being set aside on Tuesday.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Mr Coleridge said the parole board met and withdrew the condition that same month","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The board withdrew the condition in August 2026 and did not contest it being set aside.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The court heard that in August","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"brought to the court's attention that the case law referred to in the document did not exist.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Her lawyers raised in August 2026 that the case law in the document did not exist, and the board withdrew the condition that month.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's sequence of events; the board refused to explain the withdrawal."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"For almost two years, the conditions imposed by the Parole Board of Tasmania prevented Ms Neill-Fraser from speaking publicly about her claimed innocence","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"she had been unable to speak publicly after Tasmania's parole board placed a condition on her release in 2024.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Any breach of parole could result in the remainder of the sentence having to be served","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The Human Rights Law Centre says the conditions prevented the parolee from speaking publicly about her claimed innocence for almost two years. The Guardian reports that a parole breach could have meant serving the remaining sentence.","causal_attribution":"The restriction is the effect of the condition; the AI document is one input to the decision that imposed it."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"The Parole Board's professional standards will be independently investigated following its use of unverified artificial intelligence in a rationale document which formed part of the materials before the board to impose conditions,\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Tasmania's Attorney-General announced an independent investigation of the Parole Board's professional standards following its use of unverified artificial intelligence in the rationale document.","causal_attribution":"The Attorney-General's statement acknowledges the AI use; it does not quantify its effect on the decision."},{"id":"c9","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"\"The Department will undertake a review to determine the extent to which Artificial Intelligence (AI) may have been used to inform past Tasmanian Parole Board decisions,\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"“The department will undertake a review to determine the extent to which artificial intelligence may have been used to inform past Tasmanian Parole Board decisions,” a justice department spokesperson said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Tasmania's Justice Department said it would review the extent to which AI may have been used to inform past Parole Board decisions.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim."}],"effects":[{"label":"a restriction on public speech about claimed innocence from December 2024 until withdrawal in August 2026","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"},{"label":"adverse parole decision affected by a rationale document citing likely AI-generated, non-existent case law","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-15/susan-neill-fraser-media-ban-parole-board-ai-hallucinations/106302950","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from abc.net.au (HTTP 200). Court reporting of the 15 September 2026 hearing; the judgment and orders were not inspected. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"abc-au"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9350990/murderers-gag-order-lifted-after-troubling-ai-error/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from canberratimes.com.au (HTTP 200); Australian Associated Press copy of the same hearing, reported independently of the ABC. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"aap"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/susan-neill-fraser-gag-order-unlawful/","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from hrlc.org.au (HTTP 200). Release by the organisation that represented the parolee; its account of the State's concessions is a party-side account. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"hrlc"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-19/parole-board-ai-use-review-after-neill-fraser-case/107172064","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from abc.net.au (HTTP 200). Same outlet as s1, so the same independence group; carries the Attorney-General's and Justice Department's statements. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"abc-au"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/19/tasmania-justice-department-review-ai-artificial-intelligence-fake-citation-murderer-parole-decision-ntwnfb","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from theguardian.com (HTTP 200); credited to a staff reporter with Australian Associated Press, so grouped with s2. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"aap"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/26/sue-neill-fraser-yacht-murder-ai-court-case-media-ban-tasmania-ntwnfb","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from theguardian.com (HTTP 200); Guardian Australia feature by its own reporter. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"guardian-au"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used and the extent of its contribution to the rationale. Counsel identified the secretary as its preparer, but the document and generation history were not inspected.","Whether the rationale document informed the December 2024 decision, the May 2025 decision or both.","The text of the judgment or orders, which could not be read (AustLII HTTP 403).","The findings of the independent investigation and of the Justice Department's review of past parole decisions."],"geography":{"basis":"The Parole Board of Tasmania imposed the condition and the Supreme Court of Tasmania in Hobart set it aside (ABC, AAP). The parolee's country of residence is not stated as such in the sources read.","court_countries":["AU"],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"This is a concrete restriction of a person's speech through a human parole-board decision. Court reporting and the representative's account describe likely AI-generated false authorities used as an input to that decision. The relation is informed_decision_about and does not require the AI text to mention the parolee. The AI origin remains qualified, and the document's precise role in each of the two successive conditions is unknown. The court's reported grounds concern procedural fairness, unreasonableness and uncertainty.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Human Rights Law Centre reports the State's concession that the board's decision-making was affected by a rationale document containing nonexistent authorities likely generated by AI. ABC and AAP court reports describe the document's use in imposing the media condition, and the Attorney-General's statement reported by ABC acknowledges unverified AI in material used by the board. These sources connect the AI-supplied legal material to a human decision restricting the parolee's speech. The relation is informed_decision_about. The sources do not establish that AI made claims about the parolee herself, wrote the whole rationale or made the final parole decision. The judgment and the rationale document have not been inspected.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Tasmania parole media ban quashed after state conceded reliance on likely AI-hallucinated case law","summary":"In December 2024 the Parole Board of Tasmania added a condition to the parole of Susan Neill-Fraser, released in 2022 after serving 13 years for murder and who maintains her innocence, barring her from communicating with media to claim innocence or wrongful conviction; a broader condition replaced it in May 2025. On 15 September 2026 the Supreme Court of Tasmania declared the conditions invalid. Her counsel told the court that the board's secretary had used artificial intelligence to prepare a rationale document justifying the condition and that it cited case law that did not exist. The Human Rights Law Centre, which represented her, says the State conceded that the board's decision-making was affected by a document containing legal authorities that were likely AI-generated hallucinations, and the ABC reports the court found the board relied on that document. The board had withdrawn the condition in August 2026. Tasmania's Attorney-General announced an independent investigation of the board's professional standards over its use of unverified AI, and the Justice Department announced a review of AI use in past parole decisions.","incidentDate":"2024-12-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-15","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-15","aiSystem":"An unidentified artificial-intelligence tool that, according to counsel and the Attorney-General, was used to prepare a Parole Board rationale document citing case law that did not exist","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","loss_of_autonomy"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The conditions restricted a parolee's public speech from December 2024 until their withdrawal in August 2026. They were declared invalid in September. The Human Rights Law Centre says the State conceded the board's decision-making had been affected by nonexistent legal authorities likely generated by AI. The judgment was not directly inspected, and the sources do not establish whether that document informed the original condition, the replacement or both.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One parolee is counted for the reported restriction of her speech. The reviewed sources describe no other identified person harmed by AI use in a parole decision; an announced review of past decisions does not establish additional victims.","victimAgeRange":"elderly","jurisdiction":"AU","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-15/susan-neill-fraser-media-ban-parole-board-ai-hallucinations/106302950","primarySourceLabel":"ABC News, 15 September 2026: AI hallucinations in parole board submission scuttle media ban on Susan Neill-Fraser","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:51.9027+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:51.9027+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["parole","hallucinated-case-law","freedom-of-speech","judicial-review","government-ai-use"]},{"id":"2025-nsw-resilient-homes-program-applicant-data-uploaded-to-chatgpt","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Some personal information provided by people during the RHP applications process was uploaded by a former temporary employee of the RA to the AI platform, ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The data shared was contained in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with 10 columns and more than 12,000 rows of information.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The upload took place between 12 and 15 March 2025.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This incident occurred when a former temporary employee uploaded information from a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to an unauthorised third-party AI platform, ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Between 12 and 15 March 2025, personal information was uploaded by a former contractor of the RA to the Artificial Intelligence platform ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"\"Personal information was uploaded by a former contractor of the RA to the artificial intelligence platform ChatGPT,\" an RA spokesperson said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The authority said in a breach notice that the upload “was not authorised”.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Between 12 and 15 March 2025 a former temporary staff member (called a former contractor in the first notice) of the NSW Reconstruction Authority uploaded a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of Northern Rivers Resilient Homes Program information (10 columns, more than 12,000 rows) to ChatGPT; the Authority says the upload was not authorised and was not a cyber-attack.","causal_attribution":"The Authority's own notices report the upload, its dates and its unauthorised status; the ABC and iTnews relay those notices. The uploader's role is a former temporary staff member on the current page and a former contractor in the first notice and the press."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"2031 people who provided information to the RA for the RHP had some of their data uploaded to ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Name and contact details","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Residential/mailing address","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Date of birth","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Sensitive personal information","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Sensitive health information","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Limited financial commentary, but not banking or financial details","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"no driver's licence numbers, Medicare numbers, passport numbers, or Tax File Numbers were disclosed in the breach.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Up to 3000 individuals may be impacted by the breach.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"The breach shared the names and addresses of program applicants, as well as email addresses, phone numbers, and other personal and health information.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Authority says external forensic analysis confirmed that 2031 people who provided information for the program had some of their data uploaded to ChatGPT, including name and contact details, residential or mailing address, date of birth, sensitive personal and health information and limited financial commentary, and that no driver licence, Medicare, passport or Tax File Numbers were disclosed; its first notice had estimated up to 3000 people.","causal_attribution":"The Authority's statements report the count and data categories from its forensic analysis; the ABC relays the first notice's categories."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"There is no evidence that any of the uploaded data is publicly available online or has been accessed by a third party at this stage.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We believe the risk of misuse is low","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"There is no evidence that any information has been made public, however this cannot be ruled out","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Authority says there is no evidence that the uploaded data is publicly available online or has been accessed by a third party; its first notice said this could not be ruled out, and it assesses the risk of misuse as low.","causal_attribution":"The Authority's own assessment. Whether OpenAI retained, deleted or used the uploaded data is not addressed in the inspected sources."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"we are deeply sorry for the distress it may cause for those involved in the program.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I feel concerned — the information with the RA was deeply personal,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Authority apologised for the distress the breach may cause, and a program participant whose flooded home was bought back told the ABC the information held by the Authority was deeply personal and that they felt concerned.","causal_attribution":"The concern is one participant's stated reaction; the ABC does not say whether this person is among the 2031. No identity misuse or other realised loss is reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"We are working with Social Futures to reach out to people who have been impacted and ID Support NSW, a government identity and cyber security support service, to assist anyone whose data may have been compromised.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The NSW Reconstruction Authority will provide compensation for any reasonable out of pocket expenses if any compromised identity documents need to be replaced.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Authority contacted affected people with ID Support NSW and Social Futures to offer support, and said it would compensate reasonable out-of-pocket expenses if compromised identity documents needed replacing.","causal_attribution":"The Authority's statements about its response."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"We are working with Cyber Security NSW to monitor the internet and dark web to see if any of this information is accessible online. The NSW Privacy Commissioner has also been notified.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The RA has also implemented controls to block the upload of personal information into AI tools.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"An independent review into the data breach has now been completed, identifying several areas for improvement in RA’s governance, training and data security practices.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Authority notified the NSW Privacy Commissioner, had Cyber Security NSW monitor the internet and dark web, implemented controls to block the upload of personal information into AI tools, and completed an independent review that identified areas for improvement in its governance, training and data security practices.","causal_attribution":"The Authority's own account of its response; the review report itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The AI-related data breach was disclosed on what is a public holiday Monday in NSW, although it actually occurred over six months ago, between March 12 and 15.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"said she received a preliminary report about the breach in July, and the final report on Friday.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"\"I would prefer [for the RA] to advise people sooner, and I'm also informed they couldn't identify everybody, but I need to see the report first,\" she said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The breach was disclosed publicly on 6 October 2025, more than six months after the upload; the NSW Minister for Recovery told the ABC she had received a preliminary report about the breach in July and would have preferred people to be advised sooner.","causal_attribution":"iTnews's own observation of the disclosure timing and the Minister's statement to the ABC; the Authority attributes the delay to the time needed to identify affected people."}],"effects":[{"label":"personal and sensitive information of 2031 Resilient Homes Program participants was uploaded to ChatGPT without authorisation","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"a program participant reports concern about the deeply personal information held; the Authority apologised for possible distress","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nsw.gov.au/departments-and-agencies/nsw-reconstruction-authority/resilient-homes-program-data-breach","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; full body read by curl on 2026-10-11 (page last updated 26 March 2026, with the 9 December 2025 update and FAQ on the same page).","independence_group":"nsw-ra-statement"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-06/data-breach-northern-rivers-resilient-homes-program-chatgpt/105855284","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; full body read by curl on 2026-10-11. Relays the Authority statement; the participant and the Minister were interviewed separately within the same article.","independence_group":"nsw-ra-statement"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.itnews.com.au/news/nsw-gov-contractor-uploaded-excel-spreadsheet-of-flood-victims-data-to-chatgpt-620815","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; full body read by curl on 2026-10-11. Relays the Authority breach notice; the disclosure-timing observation is the outlet's own.","independence_group":"nsw-ra-statement"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.nsw.gov.au/departments-and-agencies/nsw-reconstruction-authority/media-releases/northern-rivers-resilient-homes-program-data-breach","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; full body read by curl on 2026-10-11. Authority departmental release of the first notice, 6 October 2025.","independence_group":"nsw-ra-statement"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["privacy","public_services"],"unknowns":["Why the staff member uploaded the spreadsheet and what, if anything, was asked of ChatGPT; no ChatGPT output is described.","Whether OpenAI retained, deleted or used the uploaded data for training; the sources establish the upload to the service only.","Whether any participant suffered identity misuse or other realised loss; none is reported.","Whether the uploader was a temporary staff member or a contractor (the Authority uses both terms), and how many separate uploads occurred between 12 and 15 March 2025.","The findings of the independent review beyond the Authority's summary of it."],"geography":{"basis":"The data was held by the NSW Reconstruction Authority, a New South Wales government agency, and was uploaded by a former temporary staff member of that agency; the Authority describes the incident as a breach of its program data. The ABC describes the affected people as northern NSW residents of the Northern Rivers region. No court is involved.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":["AU"]},"publication":{"basis":"The Authority's notices, read in full on 2026-10-11, state that a staff member uploaded program participants' personal and sensitive information to ChatGPT without authorisation and that forensic analysis confirmed 2031 affected people. The disclosure of their information to a generative AI service without their knowledge is the recorded privacy harm. The upload rests on the Authority's own account, which the press relayed; no retention, training, public exposure or misuse is established. The uploader and affected people are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Authority states that a former temporary staff member uploaded a spreadsheet of program information to ChatGPT between 12 and 15 March 2025, that the upload was not authorised, and that forensic analysis confirmed 2031 people had some of their data uploaded. The reported transfer of their personal and sensitive information into the generative AI service is the AI connection to the privacy harm. This establishes the upload only. It does not establish retention by OpenAI, use for training, public exposure or a finding of illegality, and no ChatGPT output affecting participants is described.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"NSW Reconstruction Authority says a former temporary staff member uploaded 2031 Resilient Homes participants' personal data to ChatGPT without authorisation","summary":"The NSW Reconstruction Authority says that between 12 and 15 March 2025 a former temporary staff member (called a former contractor in its first notice) uploaded a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of Northern Rivers Resilient Homes Program information, 10 columns and more than 12,000 rows, to ChatGPT, an AI platform the Authority had not authorised. The Authority disclosed the breach on 6 October 2025, estimating that up to 3000 people were affected, and later said external forensic analysis confirmed that 2031 people had some of their data uploaded, including names, contact details, addresses, dates of birth, sensitive personal and health information and limited financial commentary. It says no driver licence, Medicare, passport or Tax File Numbers were disclosed and that there is no evidence the data is publicly available or was accessed by a third party; whether OpenAI retained or used the data is not addressed. The Authority apologised, contacted affected people with ID Support NSW, offered to compensate the replacement of compromised identity documents and notified the NSW Privacy Commissioner. A program participant told the ABC the information was deeply personal and that they felt concerned. No misuse of the data is reported.","incidentDate":"2025-03-12","incidentEndDate":"2025-03-15","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-10-06","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used through an unauthorised upload of program data by a person working for the NSW Reconstruction Authority","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The NSW Reconstruction Authority reports that personal and sensitive information of 2031 Resilient Homes Program participants was uploaded to ChatGPT without authorisation, a loss of privacy for those people; it reports no evidence of public exposure or third-party access, and no misuse is reported (the Authority's notices and press coverage relaying them).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2031,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The Authority states that external forensic analysis confirmed 2031 people had some of their data uploaded to ChatGPT. The upload of their personal information to the AI service is itself the privacy harm recorded, so those 2031 people are counted as other people harmed. The first notice's estimate of up to 3000 is not used; the 12,000 rows are rows, not people. The participant quoted by the ABC is not separately counted because the ABC does not say whether that person is among the 2031. The uploader is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"AU-NSW","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nsw.gov.au/departments-and-agencies/nsw-reconstruction-authority/resilient-homes-program-data-breach","primarySourceLabel":"NSW Reconstruction Authority, updated 26 March 2026: Resilient Homes Program data breach","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T12:41:19.196147+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T03:10:38.11789+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]}]}