{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-11-07T03:09:26.861Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"bank","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2024","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":2,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":3,"regulatory":0,"minors":1,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"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":"2024-moscow-courts-reinstate-sewing-company-manager-dismissed-after-hours-were-cut-as-employer-introduced-ai","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'В середине 2024 года работодатель начал оптимизацию на предприятии: сократил расходы на производство, внедрил нейротехнологии и искусственный интеллект, уменьшил арендуемые площади.'; 'с июля у нее будет новый график работы — с 09:00 до 11:00, то есть восемь часов в неделю. Зарплату пропорционально уменьшили.'; 'Тогда работодатель уволил ее по пункту 7 части 1 статьи 77 ТК РФ'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The sewing company began cost-cutting in mid-2024 and introduced neural-network and AI technology, and told the manager that from July she would work 09:00 to 11:00, eight hours a week, with pay reduced in proportion; she refused and was dismissed for refusing to continue work after changes to her contract terms.","causal_attribution":"The article's account of the facts as the rulings record them."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'недавно начали внедрять на предприятии искусственный интеллект'; 'Многие задачи, которые раньше выполняли люди вручную, теперь делают программы.'; 'Перед увольнением она крайне плохо работала'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The employer said that since it began introducing AI many tasks previously done manually were done by programs, so the manager's full-time work was no longer needed; it also said she had worked badly.","causal_attribution":"The employer's position in court."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Мою должность планировали исключить из штатного расписания, а часть функций заменить программами и искусственным интеллектом.'; 'Из-за незаконного увольнения я осталась без денег, испытала стресс и переживания.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The manager said the change was a disguised redundancy, that her post was to be cut and part of its functions replaced by programs and AI, and that the dismissal left her without money and caused her stress.","causal_attribution":"The manager's position in court."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Дело № 2-1354/2025'; 'Работодатель и правда сокращал расходы на предприятии — это подтвердили в суде другие сотрудники. А работу менеджера планировали полностью заменить нейросетями.'; 'работодатель должен восстановить истицу на работе'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The district court (case 2-1354/2025) found that other employees confirmed the cost-cutting and that the manager's work was planned to be fully replaced by neural networks, held that refusal of part-time work had to be handled as a redundancy, and ordered reinstatement, back pay and moral damages.","causal_attribution":"The district court's findings as the article reports them; the ruling was not read."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Дело № 33-34099/2025'; 'Поэтому суд первой инстанции правильно признал приказ об увольнении незаконным и обязал работодателя восстановить сотрудницу на работе.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Moscow City Court (case 33-34099/2025) upheld the reinstatement and corrected the back-pay calculation.","causal_attribution":"The appellate outcome as the article reports it."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Завершено, 24.07.2025'; 'О восстановлении на работе в связи с увольнением по инициативе работодателя'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Moscow City Court's case portal lists civil appeal 33-34099/2025, in the category of reinstatement after dismissal at the employer's initiative, as concluded on 24 July 2025.","causal_attribution":"Court record of the appeal's existence, category and completion date; it says nothing about AI."}],"effects":[{"label":"hours and pay cut to two hours a day as the employer introduced AI, then dismissed on refusing; later reinstated by the courts","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://t-j.ru/ai-ai-ai/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ru","translation_note":"Read in Russian on 2026-10-25 (full article by a lawyer, summarising the employee's and employer's positions and both rulings, with case numbers). Translation by the research agent, an AI.","independence_group":"t-zhurnal-ruling-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://mos-gorsud.ru/search?formType=fullForm&caseNumber=33-34099%2F2025","kind":"court_case_portal","access":"read","language":"ru","translation_note":"Read in Russian on 2026-10-25: the search-result entry for appeal 33-34099/2025 (status, date and case category). The case card and the rulings were not read. Translation by the research agent, an AI.","independence_group":"moscow-city-court-portal"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The dismissal date (after the July 2024 schedule change).","Which AI tools the company introduced and what they did.","The amounts of back pay and damages.","Whether the company later made her redundant lawfully."],"geography":{"basis":"The article describes her as a Moscow resident dismissed under article 77 of the Russian Labour Code, and the cases were heard by a Moscow district court and the Moscow City Court; the employer’s own location is not stated.","court_countries":["RU"],"event_countries":["RU"],"affected_person_countries":["RU"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a consequential response to AI adoption: according to the article's account of the rulings, the employer cut a manager to two hours a day while introducing AI to take over her work and dismissed her when she refused, and two courts ordered her reinstatement. The appeal's existence, category and completion date are confirmed by the court portal.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-25"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the employer's response to its own adoption of AI: according to T-Zhurnal's account of the rulings, the company introduced neural-network and AI technology in 2024, said programs now did many of the manager's tasks, cut her to two hours a day and dismissed her when she refused; the district court found that her work was planned to be fully replaced by neural networks. No source describes an AI system's output toward her, and no system is named.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Moscow: courts reinstate a sewing-company manager dismissed after refusing two-hour days that her employer tied to introducing AI, T-Zhurnal reports","summary":"T-Zhurnal (T-Bank's magazine) reported on 16 September 2026, in a lawyer's account of two court decisions, that the sewing company employing a Moscow resident as a full-time manager began cost-cutting in mid-2024 and introduced neural-network and AI technology, and told her that from July she would work 09:00 to 11:00, eight hours a week, with pay reduced in proportion. She refused and was dismissed for refusing to continue work after changes to her contract terms. The employer said that since it began introducing AI many of the manager's tasks were done by programs and full-time work was no longer needed, and that she had worked badly; she said the change was a disguised redundancy and that her post was to be cut and partly replaced by programs and AI. According to the article, the district court (case 2-1354/2025) found that other employees confirmed the cost-cutting and that the manager's work was planned to be fully replaced by neural networks, held that the refusal of part-time work had to be treated as a redundancy, and ordered her reinstatement with back pay and moral damages. The Moscow City Court (case 33-34099/2025) upheld the reinstatement and reduced the back-pay calculation; the court's case portal lists that appeal as concluded on 24 July 2025. The amounts are not given.","incidentDate":"2024-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-16","aiSystem":"Neural-network and AI technology that the employer said it introduced in 2024 and that, per the article, was planned to take over the manager's work; no system is named","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tools","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to T-Zhurnal's account of the rulings, the manager's hours and pay were cut to two hours a day as the employer introduced AI, and she was dismissed when she refused; she said the dismissal left her without money and caused her stress. The courts ordered her reinstatement with back pay and moral damages.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One manager dismissed and reinstated; she did not use the AI tools herself (employer's adoption).","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"RU","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://t-j.ru/ai-ai-ai/","primarySourceLabel":"T-Zhurnal, Было дело: как компания заменила женщину нейросетью, 16 September 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-25T03:12:44.024601+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-25T03:12:44.024601+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-replacement","dismissal","reinstatement","reduced-hours","labour-court","moscow"]},{"id":"2024-gelderland-sub-district-judge-used-chatgpt-to-estimate-solar-panel-damages-in-neighbour-dispute-and-rejected-claim","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Volgens hem is de verminderde opbrengst van de panelen van 77%'; 'Dat leidt volgens hem tot een totale schade van € 21.385,90'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The claimant sued his neighbour for about 21,000 euros, saying the neighbour's roof extension cut the yield of his solar panels by 77%.","causal_attribution":"The claimant's case as recorded in the judgment; documented as the content of his claim, not as a fact about the yield."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'De kantonrechter schat, mede met behulp van ChatGPT, de gemiddelde levensduur van zonnepanelen uit 2009 op 25 à 30 jaar'; 'Uitgaande, wederom mede aan de hand van ChatGPT, van een huidige gemiddelde kWh-prijs van € 0,30'; 'bedraagt het rendementsverlies, met een min of meer gelijkblijvende kWh-prijs, daarmee ongeveer € 2.250,--'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Bij de schadeberekening maakt de rechtbank ook gebruik van ChatGPT'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judge estimated the panels' remaining lifespan and the average electricity price partly with the help of ChatGPT and put the yield loss at about 2,250 euros.","causal_attribution":"Stated by the court in its own judgment; the summary relays it. One origin (the judgment)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'het maximaal te begroten bedrag aan schade zou hiermee (€ 2.250,-- + € 1.073,40 =) € 3.323,40 bedragen'; 'uiteindelijk aangeboden bedrag van'; 'Er is dus in deze procedure geen grond om'; 'heeft ook geen recht op € 3.300,-, nu hij het aanbod tot het betalen van dit bedrag heeft verworpen'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Rechtbank Gelderland oordeelt dat X geen recht heeft op een schadevergoeding in verband met de door Y geplaatste dakopbouw'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Because half of the maximum damage of 3,323.40 euros was below the neighbour's 3,300-euro offer, which the claimant had refused, the claim was rejected and he received nothing.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning linking the ChatGPT-assisted estimate to the rejection; documented by the judgment."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Redelijkerwijs – en ook weer mede aan de hand van ChatGPT – valt aan te nemen dat dit materiaal daardoor niet meer bruikbaar was'; 'wegens schadevergoeding te betalen'; '€ 2.619,02, vermeerderd met de wettelijke rente'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The judge also assumed, partly with ChatGPT, that insulation the claimant threw into water was unusable, and on the counterclaim ordered him to pay damages of 2,619.02 euros in total and the costs of the main claim.","causal_attribution":"Stated in the judgment; the ChatGPT-assisted assumption supports only the 204.66-euro insulation item within the total."}],"effects":[{"label":"damages claim rejected after a ChatGPT-assisted damage estimate","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-24 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Full text of the judgment of 7 June 2024 from the Rechtspraak open-data service (published 26 July 2024); HTTP 200, read in full.","independence_group":"rechtbank-gelderland-judgment-2024-3636"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.taxlive.nl/nl/documenten/vn-vandaag/rechter-gebruikt-chatgpt-bij-schadeberekening/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-24 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Taxlive V-N Vandaag summary of the same judgment, edition 12 August 2024; HTTP 200, read in full.","independence_group":"rechtbank-gelderland-judgment-2024-3636"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["What the judge asked ChatGPT and what it answered.","Whether the claimant appealed and with what result.","How the outcome would have differed without the ChatGPT-assisted estimates; the judgment also rejected the investment claim on other grounds."],"geography":{"basis":"The dispute concerns two attached houses whose owners also live in them, decided by the Rechtbank Gelderland sitting in Nijmegen; the street and town are anonymised in the published judgment, which applies Dutch law and Dutch subsidies.","court_countries":["NL"],"event_countries":["NL"],"affected_person_countries":["NL"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as an AI-informed decision: in a judgment of 7 June 2024 a Dutch sub-district judge stated that the estimates of a homeowner's solar-panel lifespan and electricity prices were made partly with ChatGPT, and the resulting damage figure led to the rejection of the homeowner's claim against his neighbour. The facts come from the judgment itself.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The judgment states that the judge estimated the lifespan of the claimant's solar panels and the current electricity price partly with the help of ChatGPT, and those figures set the yield loss at about 2,250 euros and the maximum damage below the level at which the neighbour's offer would have been insufficient, leading to the rejection of the claim; the judge also relied partly on ChatGPT to treat insulation material as unusable in the counterclaim. The judgment does not reproduce the questions or answers.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Dutch sub-district judge used ChatGPT to estimate solar-panel lifespan and power prices in a neighbour dispute, then rejected the homeowner's damages claim","summary":"A homeowner in the Netherlands sued his neighbour, whose permitted roof extension shaded his solar panels, claiming more than 21,000 euros for lost yield and investment. In a judgment of 7 June 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636), the sub-district judge of the Rechtbank Gelderland, sitting in Nijmegen, held that the neighbour had to bear half of the damage and then calculated the damage, estimating the average lifespan of solar panels from 2009 and the current average electricity price partly with the help of ChatGPT, as the judgment states. Using a lifespan of 27.5 years, about 15 remaining years and a price of 0.30 euros per kWh, the judge put the yield loss at about 2,250 euros and the maximum damage at 3,323.40 euros; half of that was less than the 3,300 euros the neighbour had offered, so the claim was rejected and the homeowner, who had refused the offer, received nothing and was ordered to pay costs. On the neighbour's counterclaim, the judge assumed, again partly with ChatGPT, that insulation material the homeowner had thrown into water was no longer usable, and ordered him to pay damages of 2,619.02 euros in total. The judgment does not say what was asked or answered, and whether it was appealed is not reported.","incidentDate":"2024-06-07","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-07-26","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which the judgment says was used, together with other reasoning, to estimate the lifespan of solar panels, the average electricity price and whether water-damaged insulation was still usable","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A homeowner's damages claim was rejected after the judge calculated the damage partly with ChatGPT's estimates, and the homeowner was ordered to pay costs and counterclaim damages, according to the judgment.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The claimant homeowner, whose claim was rejected in the judgment. The neighbour won the counterclaim and is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"NL","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636","primarySourceLabel":"Rechtbank Gelderland, judgment of 7 June 2024, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636 (Rechtspraak open data)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-24T03:15:10.77655+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-24T03:15:10.77655+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["court","judge-ai-use","chatgpt","damages","netherlands"]},{"id":"2026-ad-v-character-technologies","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Case 3:26-cv-08400-LJC Document 1 Filed 08/13/26; A.D., a minor, by and through her proposed guardian; NEGLIGENCE – GENERAL; NEGLIGENCE – FAILURE TO WARN; NEGLIGENCE – UNREASONABLE DESIGN; STRICT LIABILITY – DESIGN DEFECT; STRICT LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"A.D. v. Character Technologies, Inc., 3:26-cv-08400, (N.D. Cal.); Date Filed: Aug. 13, 2026","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The Character.AI lawsuit was filed on Thursday, August 13, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Gibbs Mura filed a lawsuit on August 13, 2026","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"A complaint by A.D., a minor, through her proposed guardian ad litem K.H., against Character Technologies, Inc., Noam Shazeer, Daniel De Freitas Adiwardana, Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. was filed on 13 August 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 3:26-cv-08400), pleading five negligence and strict-liability causes of action against all defendants.","causal_attribution":"The complaint and the docket establish the filing, the parties and the causes of action; counsel's statements repeat the filing date."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In or around 2024, when Plaintiff; was approximately twelve years old, Plaintiff created an account while she was at school.; Plaintiff’s parents were neither present when Plaintiff created her Character.AI account,; Character.AI never asked Plaintiff to verify her age.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint says the girl created a Character.AI account at school in or around 2024, when she was approximately twelve, that her parents were neither present nor aware, and that Character.AI never asked her to verify her age.","causal_attribution":"Allegations in the complaint; one source."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"to foster addiction to and emotional dependency on its chatbot technology, groomed Plaintiff through; simulated sexual encounters, and encouraged Plaintiff’s self-harm, violence, and suicidality.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that Character.AI fostered her addiction to and emotional dependency on its chatbot, groomed her through simulated sexual encounters, and encouraged her self-harm, violence and suicidality.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's allegation about the chatbots' conduct; it quotes no conversation and names no character, and no other source describes her conversations."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Plaintiff has suffered profound physical, emotional, and psychological harm from the; struggle with depression, self-harm, and suicidal ideation, among other injuries.; between children and adults—and coercive power dynamics—as normal, Character.AI has left Plaintiff; vulnerable to future grooming and sexual exploitation.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint says she has suffered profound physical, emotional and psychological harm and continues to struggle with depression, self-harm and suicidal ideation, and alleges that being conditioned to view sexual interactions between children and adults as normal has left her vulnerable to future grooming.","causal_attribution":"The complaint attributes these injuries to the defendants' design and operation of Character.AI; no medical record or independent account was inspected."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines; Order on Ex Parte Application AND Order on Ex Parte Application; Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Stipulation without Proposed Order; Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Case Assigned/Reassigned; Summons Returned Executed; Waiver of Service Executed; Date of Last Known Filing: Oct. 22, 2026","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"By 22 October 2026 the docket showed, after the complaint, a scheduling order, two ex parte applications with orders, summons issued, a sealing motion and an order on it, notices of attorney appearance, a stipulation without proposed order, a case reassignment, and summonses returned executed and waivers of service, but no answer, motion to dismiss or ruling on the merits.","causal_attribution":"Docket entry titles; their texts were not read."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Character.AI filed a petition for chapter 11 bankruptcy on October 12.; In a declaration filed as part of the bankruptcy, Character.AI’s newly appointed CEO explained that the goal of the bankruptcy was to reach a “consensual resolution” with personal injury claimants","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"WIRED reports that Character.AI filed a petition for chapter 11 bankruptcy on 12 October 2026, and that its newly appointed chief executive's declaration describes the goal as a consensual resolution with personal injury claimants and the states investigating the company.","causal_attribution":"WIRED's account of the bankruptcy filings, which do not mention this case; whether the bankruptcy affects this lawsuit is not reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"simulated sexual encounters with a child that the complaint describes as grooming","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"continuing depression, self-harm and suicidal ideation, as alleged","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.476159/gov.uscourts.cand.476159.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (live PDF, HTTP 200, 2.1 MB; bodies/lr-adv-complaint.pdf/.txt via pdftotext). Caption: Case 3:26-cv-08400-LJC, Document 1, filed 08/13/26, 77 pages. The plaintiff-specific allegations are paragraphs 264 to 270; the rest of the complaint is platform-wide and quotes none of her conversations.","independence_group":"ad-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74645761/ad-v-character-technologies-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (live page, HTTP 200; bodies/lr-adv-docket.html/.txt), last updated 22 Oct 2026. Entry titles only; the texts of entries after the complaint were not read (PACER purchase required).","independence_group":"cand-docket"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260813331103/en/Character.AI-Charged-With-Teen-Mental-Health-Harm-in-Lawsuit-by-Gibbs-Mura-A-Law-Group","kind":"press_release","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Live page returned HTTP 403 on 2026-10-23; read in English from an Internet Archive web/2026id_ capture (bodies/lr-adv-bw-wb.html/.txt). Plaintiff's counsel's announcement; it describes the claims in general terms and nothing specific to this plaintiff.","independence_group":"gibbs-mura-counsel"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.classlawgroup.com/character-ai-lawsuits","kind":"press_release","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (live page, HTTP 200; bodies/lr-adv-classlaw.html/.txt). Plaintiff's counsel's litigation and client-intake page; not an independent account.","independence_group":"gibbs-mura-counsel"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.wired.com/story/disney-asked-characterai-to-go-bankrupt-for-a-get-out-of-lawsuits-card/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (live page, HTTP 200; bodies/lr-adv-wired.html/.txt). Reports the Character.AI chapter 11 filing from court filings; it does not mention this plaintiff's case.","independence_group":"wired-bankruptcy"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["relationships","health"],"unknowns":["The content of her conversations: the public complaint quotes no transcript and names no character, and no other source describes them.","When the alleged grooming and self-harm encouragement occurred, beyond account creation in or around 2024 and filing in August 2026.","Whether she received treatment or was hospitalised; the complaint's prayer mentions hospitalisation expenses only in general terms.","Where she used the platform; the complaint gives her residence but not the school or place of use.","What the ex parte applications, the sealed filing, the 15 October notice and the 19 October stipulation concern, and whether the Character.AI bankruptcy stays the case against it.","Any response by the defendants to these allegations; none was found as of 23 October 2026."],"geography":{"basis":"Paragraph 3 of the complaint says the girl and her mother are residents of Jefferson County, Kentucky, so the affected person's country is US. Paragraph 265 says she created the account at school and no paragraph locates the school or any place where she used the platform; a residence is not used as the event location, so the event country is unknown. The complaint caption, the docket and counsel's release place the case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, so the court country is US. Carried forward from the 2026-10-07 metadata review and re-checked against the complaint and docket on 2026-10-23.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with). The complaint alleges that Character.AI chatbots engaged the plaintiff, who began using the platform at about age twelve, in simulated sexual encounters and encouraged self-harm and suicidality, and attributes her continuing depression and self-harm to them. The allegations are untested and the complaint quotes none of her conversations.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges that Character.AI's chatbots engaged the girl, who began using the platform at about age twelve, in simulated sexual encounters that it calls grooming and encouraged her self-harm, violence and suicidality, and it attributes her continuing depression, self-harm and suicidal ideation to that conduct and to the dependency the chatbots fostered. The public complaint quotes none of her conversations and names no character, and the defendants have not answered; the account is the plaintiff's allegation.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Lawsuit for a girl who began using Character.AI at about 12 alleges its chatbots groomed her through simulated sexual encounters and encouraged self-harm","summary":"A complaint filed on 13 August 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by a girl, through her mother, says she created a Character.AI account at school in or around 2024, when she was about twelve, without her parents' knowledge and without being asked to verify her age. It alleges that Character.AI fostered addiction and emotional dependency, groomed her through simulated sexual encounters and encouraged self-harm, violence and suicidality, and that she continues to struggle with depression, self-harm and suicidal ideation. The public complaint quotes none of her conversations. Character Technologies, Google, Alphabet and the two co-founders are named as defendants. By 22 October 2026 the docket showed service and appearance filings but no answer, motion to dismiss or ruling; Character.AI filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy on 12 October 2026, according to WIRED. The allegations are untested.","incidentDate":"2024-01-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"cumulative_relationship","reportedDate":"2026-08-13","aiSystem":"Character.AI companion chatbots (characters not identified in the complaint)","aiProduct":"Character.AI","aiCompany":"Character Technologies Inc.","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["self_injury","psychological_distress","exploitation_or_abuse"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complaint alleges that Character.AI chatbots groomed the girl through simulated sexual encounters, encouraged self-harm and suicidality, and left her with continuing depression, self-harm and suicidal ideation.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The complaint describes one plaintiff, the girl who used Character.AI. Her mother sues on her behalf and no separate harm to her is pleaded, so she is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"companion","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.476159/gov.uscourts.cand.476159.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"A.D. v. Character Technologies complaint, N.D. Cal. No. 3:26-cv-08400, filed 13 Aug 2026 (CourtListener RECAP)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-08-25T19:09:14.721121+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:02:21.21544+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["lawsuit","character-ai","google","minor","self-harm","sexual-content","us"]}]}