{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T09:27:09.785Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"china","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":0,"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":"2025-hangzhou-courts-rule-tech-firm-unlawfully-dismissed-quality-inspector-after-citing-ai-replacement","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'月薪25000元，公司以项目受ＡＩ技术冲击为由协商调岗，将薪资降至15000元，协商未成后直接通知解除劳动合同。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'负责对AI与用户交互所生成的答案进行把关'; '原先2.5万元的月薪降为1.5万元。协商不成后，公司直接通知他解除劳动合同。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'从事的问句质检项目受到AI技术冲击、需对其所在项目进行优化调整为由'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The worker checked the quality of an AI large language model's answers at 25,000 yuan a month; citing the impact of AI technology on the project, the company proposed a transfer cutting his pay to 15,000 yuan and, when negotiation failed, notified him that his contract was terminated.","causal_attribution":"The employer's stated reason, as recorded in the court's typical case and reported by the outlets."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'去年1月，公司提出要将他从主管调到普通运营岗位'; '公司才告诉他具体原因，由于技术升级，他从事的质检工作AI就能完成，他被AI替岗了。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The company proposed the transfer in January 2025 and told the worker only at arbitration that, after a technical upgrade, AI could do his quality-inspection work.","causal_attribution":"China National Radio's account (citing CCTV News); the date is relative to its 3 May 2026 publication."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'认定公司构成违法解除劳动合同，并且需要向他支付26万余元的赔偿金。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'某网讯科技公司不服仲裁裁决结果，诉至杭州市余杭区法院。'; '最终杭州两级法院均认定科技公司构成违法解除。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'which reportedly upheld the lower court’s decision in April 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'ordered a fintech company to pay a former worker more than 260,000 yuan (roughly $38,000) in compensation after it replaced his role with AI'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"'a tech worker displaced by AI in Hangzhou won his case against his employer earlier this year'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Labour arbitration and courts at first and second instance found the termination unlawful and ordered compensation of more than 260,000 yuan.","causal_attribution":"Reported from the court's typical case; the judgments were not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'企业主动引入ＡＩ技术是为适应市场竞争而实施的技术革新，并不必然等同于导致劳动合同无法履行的“客观情况重大变化”，公司提供的降薪方案不构成合理协商方案'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'It reportedly decided AI replacement did not constitute a “major change” in the company’s circumstances'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The court held that a company's voluntary introduction of AI to adapt to competition does not necessarily amount to a major change in objective circumstances making the contract impossible to perform, and that the pay-cut proposal was not a reasonable offer.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning as released in its typical case."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'仅仅以公司引入AI降成本来解除劳动合同，并不属于劳动合同法规定的客观情况发生重大变化'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'Shi Guoqiang, judge of the fifth civil division of the Hangzhou court, said that the company did not abide by China’s Labor Contract Law'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"Judge Shi Guoqiang of the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court said that terminating a contract only because a company introduced AI to cut costs is not the major change in objective circumstances that the Labour Contract Law requires, and that the company did not abide by that law.","causal_attribution":"The judge's own words to CCTV and as quoted by Sixth Tone."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'自去年一月公司解除劳动合同至今，他还没能找到合适的新工作。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The worker told CCTV that he had not found a suitable new job since the company terminated his contract in January 2025.","causal_attribution":"The worker's own statement to CCTV (one source)."}],"effects":[{"label":"offered a 40 per cent pay cut and then dismissed after the employer cited AI taking over his work","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"arbitration and two court levels found the dismissal unlawful and ordered compensation","claim_id":"c3","direction":"positive"},{"label":"had not found a suitable new job more than a year after the dismissal (his statement to CCTV)","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://ori.hangzhou.com.cn/ornews/content/2026-04/29/content_9214417.htm","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese and translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translation. A report of the court press conference.","independence_group":"hangzhou-court-ai-replacement-typical-case-apr-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://news.cnr.cn/native/gd/20260503/t20260503_527609128.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese and translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translation. The page states CCTV News as its source; it recounts the same court typical case.","independence_group":"hangzhou-court-ai-replacement-typical-case-apr-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2026/tech-worker-replaced-by-ai-wins-court-battle.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full. Relays Chinese state media reports of the same court case, so it shares the group.","independence_group":"hangzhou-court-ai-replacement-typical-case-apr-2026"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://china.caixin.com/2026-04-29/102439348.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese and translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translation. Only the opening paragraphs were readable; the rest is behind a paywall.","independence_group":"hangzhou-court-ai-replacement-typical-case-apr-2026"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.chinanews.com.cn/sh/2026/05-03/10614979.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-10-16 and translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translation. China News Service page carrying the CCTV news-client report (3 May 2026), the same CCTV report China National Radio relays; it adds the judge's interview and the worker's statement to CCTV.","independence_group":"hangzhou-court-ai-replacement-typical-case-apr-2026"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1018530","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-16 (Sixth Tone, 14 May 2026). Reports the ruling as released by the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court and quotes the presiding judge and the worker's lawyer.","independence_group":"hangzhou-court-ai-replacement-typical-case-apr-2026"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.npr.org/2026/08/10/nx-s1-5822592/chinas-courts-side-with-workers-displaced-by-ai-but-employees-remain-anxious","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-16 (NPR, 10 August 2026). Mentions the case briefly in a report on Chinese rulings about AI-related dismissals.","independence_group":"hangzhou-court-ai-replacement-typical-case-apr-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The employer's name and what AI system took over the inspection work.","The dates of the termination, the arbitration award and each judgment, beyond the January 2025 transfer proposal and the April 2026 appeal ruling as reported.","Whether the compensation figure of more than 260,000 yuan is the total or an additional amount; ACS describes it as further compensation."],"geography":{"basis":"The employer is described as a Hangzhou technology company and the case was decided by the Yuhang District court and the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court in Zhejiang, China. The worker's own country is not stated.","court_countries":["CN"],"event_countries":["CN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as an employer's consequential response to AI adoption: a worker whose job was to check an AI model's answers was offered a 40 per cent pay cut and dismissed after the employer cited AI, and arbitration and two court levels found the dismissal unlawful. The facts rest on the Hangzhou court's typical case as reported by Hangzhou media, China National Radio, Caixin, ACS Information Age, China News Service (CCTV) and Sixth Tone, with the judge's reasoning and the worker's own statement to CCTV.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the employer's response to its own adoption of AI: according to the Hangzhou court's typical case as reported by Hangzhou media and Caixin, the company cited the impact of AI technology on the worker's answer-quality-inspection project to propose a transfer at 15,000 instead of 25,000 yuan a month and terminated his contract when he refused; China National Radio reports that the company said at arbitration that AI could now do his inspection work. No source describes an AI output about the worker, so the relation is recorded as unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Hangzhou courts rule a tech firm unlawfully dismissed a quality-inspection supervisor after it cited AI replacement and he refused a 40% pay cut","summary":"A technology company in Hangzhou, China, employed a worker to check the quality of answers produced by an AI large language model, at 25,000 yuan a month. In January 2025, citing the impact of AI technology on his project, it proposed moving him to an ordinary operations post at 15,000 yuan a month; when he did not agree, it notified him that his contract was terminated, according to a typical case released by the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court on 28 April 2026 and reported by Hangzhou media and China National Radio. China National Radio, citing CCTV News, reports that the company told him only at arbitration that after a technical upgrade AI could do his inspection work. A labour arbitration panel and then two levels of court in Hangzhou found the termination unlawful and ordered compensation of more than 260,000 yuan. The court said that introducing AI to stay competitive is not in itself the kind of major change in objective circumstances that makes an employment contract impossible to perform, and that the pay-cut offer was not a reasonable proposal. The worker told CCTV that he had not found a suitable new job since the termination.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-04-28","aiSystem":"No AI product is named. The employer cited the impact of AI technology on the worker's project checking a large language model's answers, and, as China National Radio reports, said at arbitration that AI could now do that inspection work","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI quality-inspection tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The worker was offered a 40 per cent pay cut and then dismissed after the employer cited AI taking over his quality-inspection work; arbitration and two court levels found the dismissal unlawful and ordered compensation of more than 260,000 yuan (Hangzhou court typical case as reported by Hangzhou media and China National Radio). He told CCTV he had not found a suitable new job since the dismissal.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One worker was dismissed (court typical case as reported by Hangzhou media and China National Radio). He is counted under other people harmed because the AI was the employer's, not his own tool.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://ori.hangzhou.com.cn/ornews/content/2026-04/29/content_9214417.htm","primarySourceLabel":"Hangzhou net, 28 April 2026: report of the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court press conference on AI-era labour disputes","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:07:06.486524+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:19:12.664193+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["dismissal","ai-replacement","labour-arbitration","pay-cut","workplace-ai","consequential-response"]},{"id":"2025-shanghai-voice-actor-ai-synthesised-voice-company-promotion-appeal-ruling","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'2026年9月29日，上海市第一中级人民法院依法审结上海首例人工智能合成语音引发的自然人声音权益保护纠纷案件，判决平台运营方构成声音侵权，赔偿权利人经济损失5万元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'上海市第一中级人民法院依法判决：驳回上诉，维持原判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'驳回上诉，维持原判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'经上海市第一中级人民法院二审，于2026年9月29日驳回上诉，维持原判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 29 September 2026 the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court concluded a voice-rights case arising from AI-synthesised speech, described as the first in Shanghai, holding that the platform operator infringed and must pay 50,000 yuan for economic loss; the appeals were dismissed and the first-instance judgment upheld.","causal_attribution":"Court outcome as relayed by outlets citing the court; the judgment was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'2025年1月'; '从好友处了解到'; 'A公司在其互联网推广拉新活动中疑似使用了'; '该活动使用的自己声音疑似AI合成，于是对相关音频进行了公证以固定证据'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In January 2025 the voice actor learned from a friend that Company A appeared to be using the voice actor's voice in an online user-acquisition promotion, judged the audio to be AI-synthesised and had it notarised before suing.","causal_attribution":"The claimant's case as summarised in the court account."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'其从未与A公司进行过合作和任何授权，A公司擅自使用其声音构成侵权，遂要求A公司停止侵权并赔偿经济损失30万元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The voice actor said there had been no cooperation with or authorisation of Company A and asked the court to stop the use and award 300,000 yuan.","causal_attribution":"The claimant's position as summarised in the court account."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A公司辩称，案涉音频确为该公司开发的AI生成，但具体的来源和投喂的素材因前员工离职无法确认'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Company A said the audio was generated by AI the company had developed, but that its source and the material fed to the system could not be confirmed because a former employee had left.","causal_attribution":"The company's defence as summarised in the court account; the company denied using the voice actor's voice."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'在28个共振峰声学指标中'; '有24个偏离度小于10%，其中16个小于5.36%，两者较为相似及高度相似的部分达到90%'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A forensic comparison found that 24 of 28 formant indicators deviated by less than 10 percent and that the parts rated fairly or highly similar reached 90 percent.","causal_attribution":"Forensic opinion as summarised in the court account."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A公司的行为构成人工智能生成声音侵权'; '赔偿5万元'; '双方均不服一审判决，提起上诉'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'并向长宁区人民法院提出起诉'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The first-instance court awarded 50,000 yuan and both sides appealed; the Legal Daily report carried on Sina Finance says the claim was filed in the Changning District People's Court.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history as relayed from the court account."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'未经自然人同意，使用自然人的声音作为训练语料，模仿该自然人的音色、语调和发音风格等生成能够识别该自然人的合成人声，应当认定侵害自然人声音权益'; '应承担举证不能的不利后果'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appeal court held that using a person's voice as training material without consent to generate an identifiable synthetic voice infringes that person's voice rights, and that Company A bore the consequence of failing to prove the lawful source of its material.","causal_attribution":"The appeal court's reasoning as relayed; it rests on a presumption from similarity and access, because the company did not produce its training records."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'涉案语音上架持续时间较短，属流程播报提示音效'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appeal court noted that the audio was online for a short time and was a process prompt sound in the promotion.","causal_attribution":"The appeal court's reasoning on the amount, as relayed."}],"effects":[{"label":"courts reported to have found a voice actor's voice identifiable in AI-synthesised audio used without consent in a company promotion","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://news.ifeng.com/c/8woTv1MjTRx","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"The Paper's article as carried on ifeng, read in the original Chinese on 2026-10-05 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. Relays the Shanghai High People's Court WeChat account; the judgment itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"shanghai-no1-intermediate-court-release"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20260929A0C6NK00","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Southern Metropolis Daily N Video on Tencent News, read in Chinese on 2026-10-05 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. The reporter cites the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court; same court account as s1.","independence_group":"shanghai-no1-intermediate-court-release"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://finance.sina.com.cn/jjxw/2026-09-29/doc-initpatz6144930.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Legal Daily article carried on Sina Finance, read in the original Chinese on 2026-10-05 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. Same court account with the first-instance court named and a judge's commentary.","independence_group":"shanghai-no1-intermediate-court-release"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["Which company and which speech-synthesis product were involved; the court account anonymises both.","When the promotion began and how long the audio was in use.","Whether the company used the voice actor's recordings as training material; the court presumed it because the company did not prove otherwise.","The dates of the filing and of the first-instance judgment.","Where the voice actor lives."],"geography":{"basis":"The case was decided by the Changning District People's Court and the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court in China. The reports anonymise the company and the app and do not say where the company is based, where its online promotion ran or where the voice actor lives, so no event or affected-person country is recorded.","court_countries":["CN"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): the Shanghai courts found that a company imitated a voice actor's voice with AI-synthesised audio in a promotion without consent and awarded 50,000 yuan. One reporting chain (the court's release, read in three Chinese outlets); the parties are anonymised by the court.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"In the court account, the company said the audio was generated by AI it had developed, and both courts found AI-generated voice infringement. The audio imitated the voice actor's voice (depicted_or_impersonated). The company denied using the voice actor's recordings; the appeal court relied on a forensic similarity report and on the company's failure to prove the source of its training material.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Shanghai: an appeal court upheld a 50,000 yuan award to a voice actor after finding that AI-synthesised audio in a company's online promotion was identifiable as the voice actor's voice","summary":"Chinese outlets reported on 29 September 2026, citing the Shanghai courts, that the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court had concluded what it called Shanghai's first voice-rights case arising from AI-synthesised speech. According to the court's account, a voice actor who publishes work on an app learned from a friend in January 2025 that a company appeared to be using the voice actor's voice in an online user-acquisition promotion, judged the audio to be AI-synthesised, had it notarised and sued for 300,000 yuan. The company said the audio was generated by AI it had developed but that the training material could not be confirmed, and denied using the voice actor's voice. A forensic comparison rated about 90 percent of the measured features as fairly or highly similar. The first-instance court awarded 50,000 yuan and both sides appealed. The appeal court held that the company had put an identifiable synthetic voice to commercial use without consent, dismissed the appeals and upheld the award.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-29","aiSystem":"AI speech synthesis developed by the defendant company (anonymised as Company A in the court account), which the courts found had generated audio imitating the voice actor's voice for an online promotion","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's account as relayed by Chinese outlets, the Shanghai courts found that AI-synthesised audio used in a company's online promotion was identifiable as a voice actor's voice and had been used without consent, causing economic loss, and awarded 50,000 yuan.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the voice actor who brought the claim (court account relayed by The Paper, Southern Metropolis Daily and Legal Daily). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://news.ifeng.com/c/8woTv1MjTRx","primarySourceLabel":"The Paper via ifeng, 29 September 2026: AI took a voice actor's voice, company ordered to pay 50,000 yuan","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:16:35.611187+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:16:35.611187+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["voice-cloning","voice-rights","voice-actor","court-ruling","shanghai","china","depicted-or-impersonated"]}]}