{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T06:26:14.339Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"chatgpt","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2023","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":2,"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":"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":"2023-person-hired-for-documentation-and-marketing-copy-says-employer-rejected-work-on-chatgpt-verdicts-then-fired-them-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"a guy hired me to work on his company's documentation and public facing marketing copy based on my years and years of experience","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says a man hired them, on the strength of years of experience, to work on his company's documentation and public-facing marketing copy.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"he then rejected my work day in and day out because chatgpt had told him it wasn't good because of hallucinated errors","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says he then rejected their work day after day because ChatGPT had told him it was not good, which the poster attributes to hallucinated errors.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account of the employer's reliance on ChatGPT; the posts do not quote ChatGPT's output."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"on friday, i had a little meeting with him and the marketing manager and i was like hey, listen, this shit cannot continue, either you respect me as a person with skills and experience or im out. monday morning i was out","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"i got fired over email","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The poster says that after a Friday meeting with him and the marketing manager, at which the poster said they would leave unless their skills and experience were respected, they were out on Monday morning and were fired by email.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account; the dismissal followed the poster's ultimatum about the rejections."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"all the guy had to say was \"some people know how to work with me and some don't\". at least he paid me for two months of work upfront.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The poster says the employer's only explanation was that some people know how to work with him and some do not, and that he had paid the poster for two months of work upfront.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account; context on the dismissal and payment."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"this was in 2023.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster dates these events to 2023.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."}],"effects":[{"label":"work rejected day after day on the strength of ChatGPT's assessments (poster's account)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"fired by email after objecting to the rejections (poster's account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:xhavyduiuipgxrvrg7o5ssy6/post/3my5zw7z3os2e","kind":"social_media_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-19 through the public Bluesky API (app.bsky.feed.getPostThread and the author's feed via getAuthorFeed, HTTP 200); no translation and no human reviewer. The poster's handle and display name are not recorded. Root post, 16:34 UTC 18 Oct 2026, quoting another user's prompt about short job tenures.","independence_group":"bluesky-documentation-copy-poster-chatgpt-review"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:xhavyduiuipgxrvrg7o5ssy6/post/3my5zzkuy7k2e","kind":"social_media_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-19 through the public Bluesky API (app.bsky.feed.getPostThread and the author's feed via getAuthorFeed, HTTP 200); no translation and no human reviewer. The poster's handle and display name are not recorded. The poster's own reply to s1 (16:36 UTC); same author, same source group.","independence_group":"bluesky-documentation-copy-poster-chatgpt-review"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:xhavyduiuipgxrvrg7o5ssy6/post/3my623mmjos2e","kind":"social_media_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-19 through the public Bluesky API (app.bsky.feed.getPostThread and the author's feed via getAuthorFeed, HTTP 200); no translation and no human reviewer. The poster's handle and display name are not recorded. The poster's own reply to s2 (16:37 UTC); same author, same source group.","independence_group":"bluesky-documentation-copy-poster-chatgpt-review"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["What the employer submitted to ChatGPT, what it said about the work and how the poster learned of its assessments.","What errors ChatGPT reported and whether any were real.","The employer's account of the rejections and the dismissal.","Where the poster and the company were, when in 2023 the events happened and how long the job lasted.","Whether the poster was an employee or a contractor."],"geography":{"basis":"The posts do not say where the poster or the company was located.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account, in three posts by one author, of an employer rejecting the author's work on the strength of ChatGPT's assessments and then dismissing the author after the author objected. Described with attribution and without corroboration; the poster's own ultimatum before the dismissal and the upfront payment are recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The poster says the employer rejected their documentation and marketing copy day after day because ChatGPT had told him it was not good, and attributes ChatGPT's verdicts to hallucinated errors. That describes ChatGPT's output being used in the employer's decisions about the poster's work, which the poster connects to the dispute that ended with the poster's dismissal. The posts do not quote the output, say what was submitted to it or say how the poster learned what it said.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"First-person posts: person hired for documentation and marketing copy says employer rejected their work daily because ChatGPT called it poor, then fired them","summary":"In three linked Bluesky posts on 18 October 2026, written in answer to another user's call for stories of short job tenures, a person writes that a man hired them on the strength of years of experience to work on his company's documentation and public-facing marketing copy, and that he then rejected their work day after day because ChatGPT had told him it was not good. The poster attributes ChatGPT's verdicts to hallucinated errors. The poster says that after they told him and the marketing manager at a Friday meeting that this could not continue and that they would leave unless their skills and experience were respected, they were out by Monday morning, fired by email, and that he had paid them for two months of work upfront. The poster dates the events to 2023. The posts do not quote ChatGPT's output or say how the poster knew what it said, and the employer's account is not recorded. The account is uncorroborated.","incidentDate":"2023-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-18","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which by the poster's account the employer consulted about the quality of the poster's documentation and marketing copy","aiProduct":"ChatGPT (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The poster says the employer rejected their work day after day because ChatGPT said it was not good and then fired them by email after they objected (first-person account, uncorroborated; the poster says two months of work had been paid upfront).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the poster, who did not use ChatGPT and was affected through the employer's use of it. No other worker is described.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:xhavyduiuipgxrvrg7o5ssy6/post/3my5zw7z3os2e","primarySourceLabel":"Bluesky post by the poster, 18 Oct 2026: employer rejected documentation and copy work because ChatGPT said it was not good","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-19T03:06:37.117164+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-19T03:06:37.117164+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","bluesky","workplace","chatgpt"]}]}