{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-05T06:38:13.183Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"citation","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":14,"coverage":{"cases":14,"countries":4,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":3,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":2,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":5,"minors":0,"coreRelations":10,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":3,"relationPending":1,"relationUnknown":2},"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":"2026-tallinn-administrative-court-fines-complainants-ai-drafted-document-invented-scientists","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Kaebajad pöördusid halduskohtusse raieloa vaidlustamiseks ja saatsid kohtule dokumendi, kus viidati lageraie mõjusid puudutavatele teadustöödele'; 'Kohus avastas, et viidetes nimetatud Eesti teadlasi ei ole päriselt olemas ja kirjeldatud teadustöid polnud võimalik leida'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Kohus avastas, et viidetes nimetatud Eesti teadlasi ei ole päriselt olemas ja kirjeldatud teadustöid polnud võimalik leida'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Complainants contesting a felling permit sent the Tallinn Administrative Court a document citing scientific work on clear-cutting; the court found that the Estonian scientists named do not exist and that the studies could not be found.","causal_attribution":"The court's finding as reported by two outlets giving the same account (one chain); the ruling was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Tallinna Halduskohus määras trahvi kaebajatele, kes esitasid kohtule tehisaru abil koostatud dokumendi, mis sisaldas viiteid välja mõeldud teadlaste töödele'; 'Kaebajad vastasid, et tehisaru kasutamine pole keelatud ja nad ei tahtnud kohut eksitada'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Tallinna halduskohus määras esimest korda kohtusse pöördujatele trahvi, sest kaebuses leidus tehisaru loodud valeväiteid'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The document was drafted with the help of AI according to the reports, and the complainants, asked how it was produced, replied that using AI is not forbidden and that they had not meant to mislead the court.","causal_attribution":"The outlets' description and the complainants' reported reply; no tool is named."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Seejärel määras halduskohus ühele kaebuse esitajale trahvi 150 eurot ja veel üheksale kaebajale 50 eurot'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Seejärel määras halduskohus ühele kaebuse esitajale trahvi 150 ja veel üheksale kaebajale 50 eurot'; 'kaebajad vastutavad kohtule esitatud väidete õigsuse eest'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine other complainants 50 euros each, saying that complainants are responsible for the accuracy of what they submit to the court.","causal_attribution":"Court step as reported; the ruling was not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Samuti andis kohus kaebajatele võimaluse esitada viidatud teadustööd kirjalike tõenditena ja hoiatas, et võib neid muidu kohtu eksitamise katse eest trahvida'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Before fining them, the court gave the complainants the chance to submit the cited works and warned that it could fine them for attempting to mislead the court.","causal_attribution":"Court step as reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Trahvimise peale esitatud määruskaebust arutanud Tallinna Ringkonnakohus nõustus halduskohtuga'; 'Riigikohus ei võtnud sel nädalal asja menetlusse, mistõttu on trahv nüüd jõustunud'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Tallinn Circuit Court agreed with the administrative court, and Delfi Ärileht reports that the Supreme Court declined to take the case that week, so the fines are in force.","causal_attribution":"Appeal steps as reported by Delfi Ärileht; the appeal rulings were not read."}],"effects":[{"label":"a court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine others 50 euros each over a document drafted with AI","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the document the complainants submitted cited scientists who do not exist and studies that could not be found","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://arileht.delfi.ee/artikkel/120593306/valjamoedud-teadlased-ja-uuringud-kohus-maaras-tehisaru-luulude-eest-eesti-esimese-ai-trahvi","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"et","translation_note":"Read in Estonian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-05 (Delfi Ärileht, published 26 June 2026); no human translator reviewed it. Its account of the case matches the ERR report sentence for sentence, which indicates a common court announcement; same chain as the other source. The court rulings were not read. Estonian 'tehisaru' is rendered as AI, 'kaebajad' as complainants and 'määruskaebus' as an appeal against the ruling.","independence_group":"tallinn-administrative-court-ai-fine-announcement-2026-06"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.err.ee/1610063551/kohus-maaras-tehisaru-loodud-valevaidete-tottu-kaebajatele-trahvid","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"et","translation_note":"Read in Estonian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-05 (ERR, published 26 June 2026); no human translator reviewed it. Its account of the case matches the Delfi Ärileht report sentence for sentence; same chain as the other source. It adds remarks by the chair of the court to ERR. The court rulings were not read.","independence_group":"tallinn-administrative-court-ai-fine-announcement-2026-06"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used and which of the complainants used it.","The dates on which the document was submitted and the fines were imposed.","The outcome of the felling-permit dispute itself.","The case numbers and full reasoning of the three courts."],"geography":{"basis":"The events recorded are court events in Estonia. Both reports say the complainants sent the document to the Tallinn Administrative Court, which fined them, and Delfi Ärileht calls it Estonia's first AI fine and says the Tallinn Circuit Court and the Supreme Court dealt with the appeals. The reports do not state where the complainants live or where the tool was used.","court_countries":["EE"],"event_countries":["EE"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter: complainants who submitted a court document drafted with AI, citing scientists who do not exist, were fined by the court, and the fines are reported in force. The account is one court announcement as carried by Delfi Ärileht and ERR (one chain); all claims are reported because the rulings were not read. No complainant is named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Delfi Ärileht reports that the complainants submitted a document drafted with the help of AI, and ERR that the complaint contained false statements created by AI; both report that the complainants, asked how the document was produced, replied that using AI is not forbidden. The tool gave the complainants the content they submitted (communicated_with). No tool is named and the rulings were not read.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Estonia: Tallinn Administrative Court is reported to have fined ten complainants in a felling-permit case over a document drafted with AI that cites the work of scientists who do not exist; the fines of 150 and 50 euros are reported in force in June 2026","summary":"According to Delfi Ärileht and ERR (both 26 June 2026), complainants who went to the Tallinn Administrative Court to contest a felling permit sent the court a document that cited scientific work on the effects of clear-cutting. The court found that the Estonian scientists named in the references do not exist and that the studies described could not be found. It asked the complainants how the document had been produced, gave them the chance to submit the cited works, and warned that it could fine them for attempting to mislead the court. The complainants replied that using AI is not forbidden and that they had not meant to mislead the court. The court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine others 50 euros each, saying that complainants are responsible for the accuracy of what they submit. Delfi Ärileht reports that the Tallinn Circuit Court agreed with the administrative court and that the Supreme Court declined the case that week, so the fines are in force. No report names the AI tool.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-06-26","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tool with which, according to the reports of the court's ruling, the complainants' document was drafted; the document cited scientists who do not exist","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine others 50 euros each for submitting a document, drafted with AI, that cited scientists who do not exist; Delfi Ärileht reports that the Circuit Court agreed with the ruling and that the fines are in force (Delfi Ärileht; ERR for the fines).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":10,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine other complainants 50 euros each, ten people in all (Delfi Ärileht; ERR). The reports treat the complainants together as the submitters of the document drafted with AI and do not say which of them used the tool.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"EE","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://arileht.delfi.ee/artikkel/120593306/valjamoedud-teadlased-ja-uuringud-kohus-maaras-tehisaru-luulude-eest-eesti-esimese-ai-trahvi","primarySourceLabel":"Delfi Ärileht, 26 June 2026: Invented scientists and studies, court imposes Estonia's first AI fine","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:33:19.084955+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:33:19.084955+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated-citations","court-filing","court-fine","estonia","tallinn","administrative-court","own-use","estonian-language"]},{"id":"2026-kodiak-alaska-hunter-cited-snipe-out-of-season-after-google-ai-overview-season-date","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Incorrect information provided by a Google AI overview caused a Kodiak woman to hunt snipe illegally on Sept. 5'; 'according to Google, snipe season began on September 1st'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'according to Google, snipe season began on September 1st'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to a wildlife trooper's affidavit attached to the citation, as quoted by Alaska Beacon, the hunter searched Google for snipe season on her phone and Google said the season began on 1 September; the outlet describes the answer as a Google AI overview.","causal_attribution":"The outlet, citing the citation and affidavit, attributes the illegal hunt to the incorrect Google answer."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'she hunted three snipe but became suspicious after learning that duck season didn’t open until Oct. 8'; 'she learned that snipes are not legal to take under the general season until October 8th'; 'called troopers to self-report the violation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"She hunted three snipe on 5 September 2026, then learned that snipe could not legally be taken under the general season until 8 October and reported herself to troopers.","causal_attribution":"Affidavit as quoted by the outlet."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'He said he performed a Google search identical to'; 'and received identical incorrect information'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The outlet reports that the trooper said he ran a Google search identical to hers and received identical incorrect information.","causal_attribution":"Trooper's statement as paraphrased by the outlet, which does not quote it; the search result was not reproduced in the article."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'pleaded no contest to the citation on Friday and was fined $150'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'pleaded no contest to the citation on Friday and was fined $150'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"She pleaded no contest to the citation and was fined $150.","causal_attribution":"Court outcome as reported by the outlet; the court record was not retrieved."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I feel terrible, and I have a lot of shame with it'; 'It’s incredibly embarrassing'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"She told the outlet that she felt terrible, ashamed and embarrassed.","causal_attribution":"Her statement to the outlet."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'This is the first time that I think we have seen AI cited'; 'acted completely correctly once she learned about the AI-caused mistake'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A spokesman for the Alaska Department of Public Safety told the outlet it was the first time he thought the agency had seen AI cited, and that she acted correctly once she learned of the mistake.","causal_attribution":"Spokesman's statement to the outlet."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Google did not respond to an email seeking comment on the incorrect information provided by its software'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Google did not respond to the outlet's emailed request for comment on the incorrect information.","causal_attribution":"Not applicable."}],"effects":[{"label":"cited for hunting snipe out of season and fined $150 after relying on a Google answer with the wrong opening date (citation as reported by Alaska Beacon)","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"shame and embarrassment (her statement to the outlet)","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://alaskabeacon.com/2026/09/28/misleading-google-ai-instructions-cause-kodiak-woman-to-be-cited-for-illegal-snipe-hunt/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-05 in full, in the Internet Archive capture of 30 September 2026; the live page returned HTTP 403 to the fetcher.","independence_group":"alaska-beacon-kodiak-snipe"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.juneauindependent.com/post/kodiak-woman-cited-for-illegal-snipe-hunt-due-to-misleading-google-ai-instructions","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-05. Republication of the Alaska Beacon article under its byline; not independent of s1.","independence_group":"alaska-beacon-kodiak-snipe"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","justice"],"unknowns":["The exact text of the Google answer and whether it was the AI Overview panel or another search feature; the result was not preserved in the reporting.","The contents of the citation and affidavit beyond the passages Alaska Beacon quotes; the court record was not retrieved.","Whether Google has corrected the answer."],"geography":{"basis":"Alaska Beacon describes her as a Kodiak woman, cited by an Alaska Wildlife Trooper, with the citation filed at the Kodiak district court in Alaska.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete account reported by a named outlet from a court citation and interviews: a person relied on an AI-generated search answer, broke a hunting regulation, reported herself and was fined. The hunter is not named here. The reporting rests on one outlet's reading of the citation and its interviews.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Alaska Beacon attributes the wrong date to a Google AI overview, citing the citation and the trooper's affidavit; the affidavit as quoted says what Google told her, and the outlet reports the trooper said an identical Google search returned identical incorrect information. The search result was not preserved in the reporting and Google did not comment.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Kodiak, Alaska: a hunter reported to have relied on a Google AI answer that snipe season opened on 1 September hunted three snipe before the 8 October opening, reported the violation to wildlife troopers and was fined $150","summary":"Alaska Beacon reported on 28 September 2026 that a Kodiak woman hunted snipe illegally on 5 September after a Google search for snipe season told her the season began on 1 September, according to a wildlife trooper's affidavit attached to a citation filed at the Kodiak district court. The outlet describes the answer as a Google AI overview. She hunted three snipe, grew suspicious on learning that duck season did not open until 8 October, checked the regulations and called troopers to report herself. The outlet reports the trooper said he ran an identical Google search and received identical incorrect information. She pleaded no contest and was fined $150, and told the outlet she felt shame and embarrassment. A Department of Public Safety spokesman said it was the first time he thought the agency had seen AI cited, and that she had acted correctly once she learned of the mistake. Google did not respond to the outlet's request for comment.","incidentDate":"2026-09-05","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-28","aiSystem":"Google Search AI-generated summary (described by Alaska Beacon as a Google AI overview) answering a phone search for snipe season with an opening date of 1 September","aiProduct":"Google AI Overviews (reported)","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to Alaska Beacon's account of the citation, the hunter was cited for taking snipe out of season after relying on a Google answer that gave the wrong opening date, pleaded no contest and was fined $150; she told the outlet she felt shame and embarrassment.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the hunter who ran the search, was cited and was fined (Alaska Beacon). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AK","platformType":"assistant","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://alaskabeacon.com/2026/09/28/misleading-google-ai-instructions-cause-kodiak-woman-to-be-cited-for-illegal-snipe-hunt/","primarySourceLabel":"Alaska Beacon, 28 September 2026: Misleading Google AI instructions cause Kodiak woman to be cited for illegal snipe hunt","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:19:55.716167+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:19:55.716167+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["google","ai-overview","search","hunting-regulations","wrong-date","citation","fine","alaska","kodiak","everyday-assistance","communicated-with"]},{"id":"2026-new-mexico-senate-republican-ai-images-ethics-complaint-stewart-fake-mugshot","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'posting a fake photo of Stewart made to look like a jail mugshot using artificial intelligence.'; 'Even though Stewart wasn't issued a citation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'posted a mugshot-like image of Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart (D-Albuquerque), mentioning criminal charges never faced.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In September 2026 Sen. Jay Block posted on social media a mugshot-like image of Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart that lists criminal charges she never faced.","causal_attribution":"The New Mexican's own reporting, including an interview in which Block confirmed and defended the post. KRQE's account comes from the Democratic Party's complaint (its image is credited to the party); the complaint text was not inspected, so its independence from the New Mexican's earlier report is not established. The month follows from the New Mexican's report that word of the 2024 incident got out in the week of its 24 September article."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Block's social media posts indicate the fake mugshot was AI-generated. On X, the post had been shared more than 100 times.'; 'ostensibly booked into the Bernalillo County jail on charges of \"hit and run\" and \"abusive behavior towards staff and other lawmakers\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Block's posts indicate the fake mugshot was AI-generated; it showed Stewart ostensibly booked into the Bernalillo County jail on charges of 'hit and run' and 'abusive behavior towards staff and other lawmakers', and the X post had been shared more than 100 times.","causal_attribution":"One newspaper's description of the post; the AI tool is not named."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'much less booked into jail'; 'the incident didn't occur in Bernalillo County, as the fake image suggests'; 'He noted in an email the incident was \"not considered a hit and run crash\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Stewart was not issued a citation or booked into jail, the 2024 incident did not occur in Bernalillo County, and Santa Fe's interim police chief said it was not considered a hit and run crash.","causal_attribution":"The New Mexican's account of police and court records; the police report itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Stewart said Block's post with an AI-generated image of her \"staged as a mugshot\" manufactured answers by insinuation.'; 'take down the fabricated image, and stop with the falsehoods and insinuations'; 'Block said Wednesday he stands by the post and has no plans to take it down.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Stewart said Block's post used an AI-generated image of her staged as a mugshot to manufacture answers by insinuation and asked Block and the Republican caucus to take down the fabricated image; Block said he stands by the post and has no plans to take it down.","causal_attribution":"Statements by the two senators as reported by one newspaper; the harm described is reputational and is alleged by Stewart."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'\"Everything on there was accurate with the information we were provided,\" Block said in an interview.'; 'The Senate Republican caucus shared the post on its social media accounts'; 'We now acknowledge that Senator Stewart did not appear to leave the scene'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Block told the New Mexican that everything on the post was accurate with the information provided to him; the Senate Republican caucus shared the post and later issued a corrected news release acknowledging that Stewart did not appear to leave the scene.","causal_attribution":"The poster's and the caucus's own position as reported by one newspaper."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Senate Republican leader Bill Sharer (R-Farmington) and the Senate Republicans shared an image on Facebook last month, showing House Speaker Javier Martinez (D-Albuquerque) wearing a Soviet Union pin, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Deb Haaland with her arm around a man in an orange jumpsuit, and former state Rep. Joseph Hernandez naked'; 'The Democratic Party said both images are \"misleading AI generated images\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Senate Republican leader Bill Sharer and the Senate Republicans shared on Facebook in September 2026 an image showing House Speaker Javier Martinez wearing a Soviet Union pin, gubernatorial candidate Deb Haaland with her arm around a man in an orange jumpsuit, and former state Rep. Joseph Hernandez naked; the Democratic Party of New Mexico says it is a misleading AI-generated image.","causal_attribution":"One station's account of the party's complaint; the AI-generated character of this image rests on the complaint, and the inspected sources carry no statement from the three people depicted."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Democratic Party of New Mexico has filed an ethics complaint, saying two Republican social media posts used images created with artificial intelligence.'; 'violate a 2024 state law cracking down on deepfakes. They want the posts removed and posters fined.'; 'he did not address the issues mentioned in the complaint.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Democratic Party of New Mexico has filed an ethics complaint saying both images violate a 2024 state law on deepfakes and asking that the posts be removed and the posters fined; Sharer's statement in response did not address the issues in the complaint.","causal_attribution":"A party's complaint as reported by one station; the complaint text was not inspected and its allegations are unproven."}],"effects":[{"label":"a state Senate leader was depicted in a fake jail mugshot, indicated by the poster to be AI-generated, listing charges she never faced; she asked for it to be taken down and the poster said he has no plans to remove it","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"three Democratic politicians were depicted in a Facebook image that the state Democratic Party calls a misleading AI-generated image","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.krqe.com/news/politics/democratic-party-of-new-mexico-files-ethics-complaint-over-ai-images/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"KRQE article by Jordan Honeycutt, published 2 October 2026. The article page answered HTTP 403 to this host, so the full text was read on 2026-10-03 from the site's AMP version of the same URL (/amp/) and checked against the post's WordPress API record. A related-story card inside the page was not used. The description of the images and their AI-generated character derives from the Democratic Party's complaint.","independence_group":"dpnm-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/fake-ai-generated-mugshot-prominent-035900442.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Santa Fe New Mexican article by Daniel J. Chacón, read on 2026-10-03 through its Yahoo News syndication (canonical santafenewmexican.com page not fetched). Based on the reporter's interview with Block, a statement from Stewart, Senate Republican releases and Santa Fe police; independent of the party's complaint.","independence_group":"santa-fe-new-mexican"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["public_life","elections"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool or tools made the images, and whether the Facebook image is AI-generated beyond the party's allegation.","The exact dates of the Facebook post and of Block's post.","The body with which the ethics complaint was filed, its filing date and its outcome.","Whether Martinez, Haaland or Hernandez responded to the Facebook image.","Whether either post has been removed."],"geography":{"basis":"The images were posted by New Mexico state senators and the New Mexico Senate Republicans and depict New Mexico state politicians; the complaint invokes a New Mexico state law (KRQE, Santa Fe New Mexican). The ethics complaint is not a court proceeding.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated) consistent with 2026-wisconsin-cooke-van-orden-ai-deepfake-videos-cease-and-desist and 2026-texas-goodwin-ai-deepfake-campaign-ads-sheriff-complaint: a newspaper reports that a state senator posted a fake mugshot of a Senate leader that his own posts indicate was AI-generated, listing charges she never faced, and that she asked for it to be taken down; a TV station reports a party ethics complaint alleging that this image and a Facebook image of three other politicians are misleading AI-generated images. The harm is reputational and is alleged; the poster stands by his post.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-03"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Santa Fe New Mexican reports that Block's own social media posts indicate the fake mugshot of Stewart was AI-generated, and Stewart, in a statement quoted by the newspaper, calls it a fabricated image. For the Facebook image of Martinez, Haaland and Hernandez, the only inspected basis is the Democratic Party of New Mexico's complaint, which KRQE reports calls both images misleading AI-generated images. No tool is named.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"New Mexico: the state Democratic Party filed an ethics complaint, reported on 2 October 2026, over two Senate Republican social media posts from September 2026 that it says used misleading AI-generated images, including a fake jail mugshot of Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart that she publicly asked to be taken down","summary":"In September 2026 Republican state Sen. Jay Block posted on social media a fake image of New Mexico Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart made to look like a jail mugshot. The Santa Fe New Mexican (24 September 2026) reports that Block's posts indicate the image was AI-generated and that it showed her ostensibly booked into the Bernalillo County jail on charges of 'hit and run' and 'abusive behavior towards staff and other lawmakers'. Stewart was not issued a citation or booked, and Santa Fe's interim police chief said the 2024 incident in which she drove over a pedestrian's foot was not considered a hit and run crash. Stewart asked Block and the Senate Republican caucus to take down the fabricated image. Block said he stands by the post and has no plans to remove it. KRQE reported on 2 October 2026 that the Democratic Party of New Mexico had filed an ethics complaint over this post and over an image that Senate Republican leader Bill Sharer and the Senate Republicans shared on Facebook in September, which shows House Speaker Javier Martinez wearing a Soviet Union pin, gubernatorial candidate Deb Haaland with her arm around a man in an orange jumpsuit and former state Rep. Joseph Hernandez naked. The party calls both 'misleading AI generated images' that violate a 2024 state law on deepfakes and wants the posts removed and the posters fined.","incidentDate":"2026-09-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-24","aiSystem":"Unnamed AI image tool used to make a fake jail mugshot of Sen. Mimi Stewart posted by Sen. Jay Block (his posts indicate the image was AI-generated, per the Santa Fe New Mexican) and, according to the Democratic Party of New Mexico's ethics complaint, an image of three Democratic politicians shared by the Senate Republicans on Facebook; no tool is named","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A state Senate leader was depicted in a fake jail mugshot, which the poster's own posts indicate was AI-generated, listing charges she never faced; she publicly asked for the fabricated image to be taken down, and the poster said he stands by the post and has no plans to take it down. The state Democratic Party alleges in an ethics complaint that this image and a Facebook image of three other Democratic politicians are misleading AI-generated images.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One depicted person is reported harmed: Stewart, shown in the fake mugshot, who called it a fabricated image and asked for it to be taken down (Santa Fe New Mexican; KRQE). Martinez, Haaland and Hernandez are depicted in the Facebook image that the Democratic Party of New Mexico calls a misleading AI-generated image, but the inspected sources report no harm to or response from them and the complaint is the party's, so they are not counted and the count is a lower bound. The unidentified man in the orange jumpsuit is not counted. Shares of the post are not person counts. Documented minimum 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-NM","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.krqe.com/news/politics/democratic-party-of-new-mexico-files-ethics-complaint-over-ai-images/","primarySourceLabel":"KRQE, 2 October 2026: Democratic Party of New Mexico files ethics complaint over AI images","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-03T03:17:39.879526+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-03T03:17:39.879526+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepfake","political-deepfake","fake-mugshot","new-mexico","ethics-complaint","x","facebook","depicted-or-impersonated"]},{"id":"2025-southeast-idaho-waterfowl-hunter-caught-hunting-day-early-ai-search-answer-reported","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"a waterfowl hunter was caught hunting a day early","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"came in southeast Idaho","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"gotten the opening date from an online search","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A waterfowl hunter in southeast Idaho was caught hunting a day early and told wardens the opening date came from an online search.","causal_attribution":"The account is the agency spokesperson's, relayed by the newspaper. The hunter's statement to wardens is relayed second-hand. No citation, fine or penalty for this hunter is stated."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"an AI answer that pulled information from a failed proposal","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Wardens found that the online search gave the hunter an AI answer that pulled information from a failed proposal instead of the agency's final decision or regulation book.","causal_attribution":"The agency spokesperson's account of the wardens' finding. The AI answer, the search product and the failed proposal are not shown in the inspected sources."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Fish and Game Conservation Officers are encountering people in the field who are using AI and search engines and getting incorrect information, which has led to citations.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"game wardens had encountered people in the field who had been fed the wrong information by AI","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Idaho Fish and Game stated that its conservation officers are encountering people who used AI and search engines and got incorrect information, which has led to citations.","causal_attribution":"An agency statement about unspecified individuals. The number of citations is not given. The Spokesman-Review text relays the same agency."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Some AI-generated search results reference the bills as if they are current law","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Individuals who rely on inaccurate AI-generated interpretations of Wyoming wildlife laws could face hunting or fishing violations","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Officials in places like Illinois and Maine have warned people against using AI","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Wyoming Game and Fish stated that AI-generated search results referenced failed legislative bills as current law and warned that people relying on them could face violations. The Spokesman-Review adds that officials in Illinois and Maine have warned against using AI for hunting rules.","causal_attribution":"Agency warnings. No individual harmed person is described in Wyoming, Illinois or Maine, so these are context and not additional cases."}],"effects":[{"label":"Waterfowl hunter found hunting a day before the season opened after an AI search answer gave the opening date (no citation of this hunter is reported)","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/oct/24/officials-want-hunters-to-use-regulation-booklets-/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"idfg-agency"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://idfg.idaho.gov/article/dont-trust-ai-hunting-and-fishing-regulations-go-source","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"idfg-agency"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://wgfd.wyo.gov/news-events/ai-generated-information-can-be-inaccurate","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"wgfd-agency"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","public_services"],"unknowns":["The date of the hunter's violation is not stated. The Idaho warning is dated 15 October 2025, and the Spokesman-Review text does not date the waterfowl case.","Whether this hunter was cited, and any penalty, is not stated. The Idaho statement that incorrect information has led to citations is general.","The AI product is not identified. The Spokesman-Review mentions Google's AI overviews as general context and does not say the hunter used them.","The hunter's identity and the specific failed proposal are not reported.","The hunter's statement that the date came from an online search is relayed by the spokesperson and not seen directly."],"geography":{"basis":"The reports place the event in southeast Idaho and the agencies are the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. The country follows from the state names in the reports and is not inferred from the outlet.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"One newspaper article citing an agency spokesperson, an Idaho agency release and a Wyoming agency release, all read in full. The Idaho release and the newspaper are one agency chain. The hunter is unnamed in the sources. The event date is not stated, so the case is published undated.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"An Idaho Fish and Game spokesperson told the Spokesman-Review that wardens found the search gave the hunter an AI answer that pulled information from a failed proposal. The answer itself was not published. The spokesperson's finding is the only account of the AI output.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Southeast Idaho waterfowl hunter reportedly found hunting a day before the season opened after an AI search answer gave the opening date","summary":"The Spokesman-Review reported on 24 October 2025 that an Idaho Fish and Game spokesperson said a waterfowl hunter in southeast Idaho was caught hunting a day early. According to the spokesperson, the hunter told wardens the opening date came from an online search, and wardens found the search returned an AI answer built from a failed proposal instead of the agency's final decision. As context, Idaho Fish and Game had published a warning on 15 October 2025 stating that conservation officers encounter people using AI and search engines and getting incorrect information, which has led to citations. Wyoming Game and Fish published a notice on 22 October 2025 that AI-generated search results were citing failed bills as current law. The sources do not state whether this hunter was cited, the penalty, the date of the event, or which AI product produced the answer.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-10-24","aiSystem":"AI-generated search answer (product not identified in the sources)","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI search answer","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A waterfowl hunter was reportedly found hunting a day before the season opened and confronted by wardens after relying on an online search that returned an AI answer built on a failed proposal. No citation, fine or penalty for this hunter is reported. The Idaho agency separately states that such incorrect information has led to citations of unspecified people.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One hunter is described as caught hunting early. Other hunters referred to generally by the Idaho and Wyoming agencies are not counted because no individual case is described.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/oct/24/officials-want-hunters-to-use-regulation-booklets-/","primarySourceLabel":"The Spokesman-Review (Michael Wright), 'Ain't nothing like the real thing: Officials warn against using AI for hunting regs', 24 October 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:29:01.541684+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:16.512865+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":[]},{"id":"2025-wadsworth-lawyers-sanctioned-ai-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 181, pages 3–5, Procedural Facts and How the Fake Cases Were Generated.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order records a 22 January filing containing eight fictitious citations generated with MX2.law and not verified before filing.","causal_attribution":"The order records counsel’s admissions and the court’s findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 181, pages 5–6, Remedial Steps; pages 12–17, individual sanctions and conclusion.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court fined three lawyers a total of $5,000, removed the drafter from the case and treated withdrawal, candour, fee reimbursement and new safeguards as mitigation.","causal_attribution":"Sanctions address professional verification duties; the record does not assign sole responsibility to AI."}],"effects":[{"label":"Individual sanctions and removal from representation","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/gov.uscourts.wyd_.64014.181.0_1.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"wadsworth-ecf181"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Underlying model, precise drafting day and eventual payment of penalties are unknown."],"geography":{"basis":"Wyoming federal court. Drafting location and lawyers’ residence not established.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"A filed order establishes the sanctions and AI-assisted drafting, with mitigation retained.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Court order identifies the tool and records the drafter’s prompts.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","acted_on_behalf"]},"name":"Three lawyers sanctioned after filing AI-generated fictitious citations","summary":"A Wyoming federal court fined three lawyers a total of $5,000 and removed the drafting lawyer from Wadsworth v. Walmart after a January 2025 filing cited eight nonexistent cases. The order identifies MX2.law as the drafting tool, records failure to verify its output and credits subsequent remedial steps.","incidentDate":"2025-01-22","incidentEndDate":"2025-02-24","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-02-24","aiSystem":"MX2.law","aiProduct":"MX2.law","aiCompany":"Morgan & Morgan","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court imposed $3,000, $1,000 and $1,000 penalties and revoked the drafting lawyer’s admission to this case.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Three individually sanctioned lawyers; one drafted with AI. Clients and institutional costs are not included in this minimum.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/gov.uscourts.wyd_.64014.181.0_1.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Wadsworth v. Walmart, ECF 181, sanctions order filed 24 February 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:57:12.469277+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:20.611123+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-lacey-insurance-discovery-relief-denied-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119, pages 2–4, paragraphs 5–9; page 8 paragraph 20; page 10 conclusion.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The special master struck the claimant’s briefs and denied requested discovery relief after her lawyers relied on unverified AI-generated citations.","causal_attribution":"The order expressly connects the discovery sanction to counsel’s AI use and failures of verification."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119, page 10 paragraphs 24–25 and conclusion.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The $31,100 award falls on the firms; the order says the client was not at fault and would not be financially responsible.","causal_attribution":"Allocation of financial responsibility is directly recorded in the order."}],"effects":[{"label":"Loss of requested discovery relief","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"lacey-ecf119"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The later effect on the merits of the insurance case and the location of the AI use are unknown."],"geography":{"basis":"The order is in the Central District of California. The location of the AI-assisted drafting and the claimant’s residence are not established by the passages used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"The retained filed court order directly establishes the discovery sanction and allocation of the monetary award.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The retained filed court order directly establishes the discovery sanction and allocation of the monetary award.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["acted_on_behalf"]},"name":"Insurance claimant loses discovery relief after lawyers submit AI-generated false citations","summary":"In a May 2025 order in Lacey v. State Farm, a special master struck supplemental briefs and denied the claimant’s requested discovery relief after her lawyers submitted unverified AI-generated legal material. The order required the two law firms to pay $31,100. It explicitly said the client was not at fault and would not pay that award, and declined further penalties against individual lawyers.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-05-06","aiSystem":"Unspecified AI legal-research tools","aiProduct":"Unidentified legal research tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The special master struck the claimant’s briefs and denied requested discovery relief after her lawyers relied on unverified AI-generated citations.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One claimant directly affected by the denial of discovery relief. Firm costs are not counted as personal losses to every lawyer.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Company, ECF 119, order filed 6 May 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:29:01.113121+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:08.302696+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-al-haroun-solicitor-referral-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Paragraphs 73–81, especially 76–77 and 81.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The judgment records the solicitor’s withdrawal from litigated matters following reliance on the client’s AI-generated citations and orders a regulatory referral.","causal_attribution":"The judgment connects the professional consequences to failure to verify the client’s research; it does not assign sole causation to AI."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Paragraph 81.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court declined to initiate contempt proceedings against the solicitor after accepting he had not realised the citations were false.","causal_attribution":"Procedural outcome directly recorded in the judgment."}],"effects":[{"label":"Professional withdrawal and regulatory referral","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Ayinde-v-London-Borough-of-Haringey-and-Al-Haroun-v-Qatar-National-Bank.pdf","kind":"court_judgment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ewhc1383-alharoun"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Specific AI tools, place of AI use, exact drafting day and month, and subsequent regulatory outcome are unknown.","The relation between the AI tools and the affected solicitor is unknown; the client supplied the research."],"geography":{"basis":"The inspected judgment is from the High Court of England and Wales. Research location and the affected solicitor’s residence are not established.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Official judgment inspected, with the client’s admitted AI use and the court’s procedural findings distinguished from unestablished downstream outcomes.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Official judgment inspected, with the client’s admitted AI use and the court’s procedural findings distinguished from unestablished downstream outcomes.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Solicitor referred to regulator after relying on a client’s AI-generated legal citations","summary":"A June 2025 High Court judgment records that a claimant accepted using AI tools in legal research containing fictitious authorities. His solicitor admitted relying on that research without checking it and said he withdrew from litigated matters. The court referred the solicitor to the regulator, while declining contempt proceedings because it accepted he had not realised the citations were false. The judgment does not establish a later disciplinary penalty.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-06-06","aiSystem":"Unspecified publicly available AI legal-research tools","aiProduct":"Unidentified legal research tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The judgment records the solicitor’s withdrawal from litigated matters following reliance on the client’s AI-generated citations and orders a regulatory referral.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One solicitor whose professional consequence is recorded. The client and all other litigants are not counted without separate harm evidence.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Ayinde-v-London-Borough-of-Haringey-and-Al-Haroun-v-Qatar-National-Bank.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:28:54.240186+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:55.282414+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-aberdeen-mississippi-fee-suit-ai-hallucinated-citations-four-attorneys-sanctioned","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 2: 'the Court was unable to locate certain legal authorities cited within them. Specifically, the Court determined that the following filings contained hallucinatory citations'; p. 3: 'the attorneys admitted that the hallucinatory citations cited by them, and identified by the Court, resulted from unverified AI use.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In *Withers v. City of Aberdeen*, attorneys for both sides cited no fewer than six entirely fabricated precedents.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"In late 2025, legal memoranda filed for both sides in a fee suit against the City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.) cited cases that do not exist; the court identified one such citation in the City's summary-judgment memorandum, three in its fee-challenge memorandum and two in the plaintiff's opposition, and the attorneys admitted the citations resulted from unverified AI use.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's sanctions order on the attorneys' own admissions."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 3: 'Williams admitted to using an AI tool to conduct legal research, and Wilson admitted to using generative AI to draft her respective filing. Neither of them verified the legal authority output by AI before filing their briefs.'; p. 9: 'She explained that she used “First Drafts,” an AI- powered program for drafting legal documents.'; p. 14: 'it had acquired software that was built for in-house legal research.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff's out-of-state counsel, Kathleen M. Wilson, drafted the opposition using 'First Drafts', an AI-powered drafting program, and the City's out-of-state counsel, Kathryn Y. Williams, used an in-house AI legal research tool; neither verified the AI output before filing.","causal_attribution":"Admissions recorded and findings made in the sanctions order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 21: 'Kathleen M. Wilson’s pro hac vice admission in this case is REVOKED.'; 'Wilson is hereby ORDERED to pay a $2,500 fine to the registry of this Court'; 'Williams is hereby ORDERED to pay a $3,500 fine to the registry of this Court'; 'Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway is DISQUALIFIED from further participation in this case.'; p. 22: 'Mark McClinton is DISQUALIFIED from further participation in this case.'; 'send a copy of this Sanctions Order to the Mississippi Bar, the Louisiana Bar, and the Texas Bar.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"p. 20: 'Wilson and Williams are hereby BARRED from entering an appearance in any case before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi for the period of two (2) years'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 8 June 2026 the court revoked Wilson's and Williams' pro hac vice admissions, barred both from appearing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years, fined Wilson $2,500 and Williams $3,500, ordered Wilson to complete an AI ethics CLE, disqualified the two local counsel (Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway and Mark C. McClinton, who signed without checking the citations) with $1,000 fines each, and sent the order to the Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas bars.","causal_attribution":"The sanctions are the court's response to the AI-generated false citations and the failure to verify them."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Given the pending sanctions issue, this case is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court. The final pretrial conference scheduled on February 19, 2026 and trial scheduled on March 23, 2026 are hereby cancelled'; 'The following pending motions are hereby TERMINATED'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"p. 20: 'The Court is cognizant that upon disqualifying the resident attorneys the litigants are effectively left without representation in this case, and that this can cause hardship for them.'; p. 22: 'the Court will dismiss this case without further notice.'; p. 12: 'The Court was unable to resolve that dispositive motion given the tainted filings, and it effectively inhibited the case from proceeding further.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Because of the sanctions issue the court stayed the case, cancelled the pretrial conference and the 23 March 2026 trial, and terminated the pending summary-judgment and fee motions; after disqualifying all four attorneys it gave both litigants 60 days to find new counsel, acknowledging this could cause them hardship, and warned the plaintiff that the case would be dismissed if no counsel appeared or he did not elect to proceed pro se by 7 August 2026.","causal_attribution":"The stay and loss of counsel follow directly from the sanctions proceeding over the AI-generated citations, per the court's orders."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'directing attorney Kathleen M. Wilson to show cause as to why this Court should not hold her in contempt for her failure to pay the fine'; 'Wilson shall have until September 16, 2026 to (1) pay the monetary fine'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 17 August 2026, after a show-cause order over Wilson's failure to pay the fine, the court extended her deadline to pay it and to complete the CLE to 16 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"Follow-on enforcement of the sanctions order."}],"effects":[{"label":"two attorneys who used AI tools without verifying the output lost their pro hac vice admissions, were barred from the district for two years and fined","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"two local counsel were disqualified and fined for signing the AI-drafted filings without checking the citations","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the case was stayed, the trial cancelled and both litigants left without counsel, with the plaintiff's case facing dismissal if no new counsel appeared","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.123.0_1.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Sanctions Order, ECF 123, filed 8 June 2026 (Senior Judge Sharion Aycock), 23 pages; full text read via pdftotext on 2026-09-29 (RECAP copy on CourtListener).","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.120.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order staying the case, ECF 120, filed 4 February 2026; one page, read in full on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.133.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order of 17 August 2026, ECF 133, extending one attorney's deadline to pay the fine and complete the CLE; one page, read in full on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/technology-science/artc-courtroom-hallucinations-lawyers-cite-precedents-dreamt-up-by-ai-as-clients-sabotage-their-own-cases","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"i24NEWS aggregate piece (Sep 2026) read on 2026-09-29 from the Internet Archive capture of 10 Sep 2026 (the live page is a JavaScript shell). It mentions the case in two sentences; its count of 'no fewer than six' fabricated precedents matches the order's list and is not an independent check.","independence_group":"i24news"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which underlying model the 'First Drafts' program and Williams' research tool used; the order names neither vendor's model.","Whether the Mississippi, Louisiana or Texas bars opened disciplinary proceedings, and whether Wilson paid by 16 September 2026.","Whether the litigants retained new counsel by 7 August 2026 and what became of the case.","The dates of the other tainted filings Wilson drafted in this case (ECF 123 p.11); they may predate 5 November 2025."],"geography":{"basis":"Federal case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi (Aberdeen Division); the order describes the attorneys as licensed in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published from the court's own sanctions order and related docket orders, which record the attorneys' admissions of unverified AI use and the resulting sanctions, stay and loss of counsel. Attorneys are named as they are in the public order; the plaintiff, a private litigant, is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions order records the two drafting attorneys' admissions that their filings were produced with AI tools (Wilson: 'First Drafts', a generative drafting program; Williams: an unnamed in-house AI legal research product) and finds that their unverified reliance on the output produced the fabricated citations.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Fee suit against the City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.): four attorneys on both sides sanctioned after AI tools produced fabricated case citations; trial cancelled and both litigants left without counsel","summary":"In a fee dispute between a Louisiana attorney and the City of Aberdeen, Mississippi, briefs filed for both sides in late 2025 cited six cases that do not exist. The attorneys admitted the citations came from unverified AI use: the plaintiff's out-of-state counsel, Kathleen M. Wilson, drafted her filing with an AI drafting program called 'First Drafts', and the City's out-of-state counsel, Kathryn Y. Williams, used an in-house AI legal research tool. Senior Judge Sharion Aycock stayed the case and cancelled the March 2026 trial, then on 8 June 2026 revoked both attorneys' pro hac vice admissions, barred them from the district for two years and fined them $2,500 and $3,500, and disqualified and fined the two local counsel who had signed the filings. Both litigants were left without counsel and given 60 days to find new representation.","incidentDate":"2025-11-05","incidentEndDate":"2026-06-08","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-06-08","aiSystem":"'First Drafts', an AI-powered legal drafting program (plaintiff's counsel), and an unnamed in-house AI legal research software product (City's counsel); underlying models not stated","aiProduct":"First Drafts and unidentified legal research tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Per the court's orders, two attorneys who filed AI-generated fabricated citations lost their pro hac vice admissions, were barred from the district for two years and fined $2,500 and $3,500; two local counsel who signed the filings were disqualified and fined $1,000 each; the case was stayed with its trial cancelled, and the plaintiff was left without counsel under threat of dismissal.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":2,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Sanctions Order (ECF 123). Participant users: Wilson and Williams, the two attorneys who used the AI tools and were sanctioned (2). Others harmed through their use: the two local counsel disqualified and fined (Ridgeway, McClinton) and the plaintiff, an individual whose case was stayed, whose trial was cancelled and who was left without counsel (3). The City of Aberdeen is an organisation and is not counted; no other person's harm is stated.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MS","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.123.0_1.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Withers v. City of Aberdeen, No. 1:24-cv-218-SA-RP (N.D. Miss.), Sanctions Order, ECF 123, 8 June 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:31.680119+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:55.045067+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","justice","legal-profession","sanction","fabricated-citations","pro-hac-vice","own-use","mississippi"]},{"id":"2025-stephens-county-oklahoma-judge-chatgpt-fake-citations-paternity-order","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Wheeler denied a request from one of the parents' attorneys to have the other parent undergo a psychological test—and in his order denying the request, he pointed to multiple previous Oklahoma cases he said backed him up.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The 2025 order in a child paternity case'; 'He came under scrutiny after he reprimanded attorney [the attorney] last November in an order in the paternity case for asking for a psychological evaluation of the child’s father.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The issue came to light after a request for a mental evaluation was denied and a subsequent court order was filed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In November 2025, in a child paternity and custody case, Judge Wheeler issued an order denying a request by one parent's attorney for a psychological evaluation of the other parent, citing Oklahoma cases he said supported the decision.","causal_attribution":"Court history as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR and described by the mother; the order itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge told the OSBI he only used ChatGPT for research and created the order himself, DA Jason Hicks wrote. The judge, however, also “indicated that at least two of the case citations included in his order and produced by ChatGPT do not exist.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Stephens County District Attorney Jason Hicks says Wheeler admitted to OSBI agents he cited \"at least two\" cases ChatGPT fed him that \"do not exist.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Hicks wrote that Wheeler acknowledged using case citations generated by ChatGPT and that at least two citations included in the order did not exist.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler used OpenAI's ChatGPT for research while drafting the order, which cited two cases that do not exist, according to state records.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"According to the district attorney's 17 August 2026 letter, the judge told the OSBI that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and indicated that at least two case citations in the order, produced by ChatGPT, do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The judge's own statement to investigators as relayed in the district attorney's letter; all four reports rely on that letter, which was not read. The judge's attorney declined to comment."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge issued the reprimand “for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics” and cautioned that future similar filings may be subject to further sanctions.'; '[The attorney] challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February. He told justices that Wheeler based his order on two cases, Cummings v. Cimarron Elevator Co. and Hawkins v. Linhart, that do not exist.'; '[The attorney] dismissed his challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. Wheeler is no longer involved in the paternity case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'She said her attorney at the time challenged the ruling and began reviewing the legal authorities cited in the order.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The order reprimanded the attorney who had asked for a psychological evaluation of the child's father 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics' and warned of further sanctions; that attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, saying it relied on two nonexistent cases, and dismissed the challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. The mother told News 9 that her attorney at the time challenged the ruling.","causal_attribution":"The Oklahoman's account of the court filings and the mother's account to News 9; the Supreme Court filings were not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'[The mother] said learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child.'; '“Then it became very concerning to me that somebody would do something like that over a child custody case,” she said.'; '“He then turned around and decided to recuse himself from my case,” she said. “He called my attorney that I had at the time and apologized to him.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The mother told News 9 that learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child, and that the judge later recused himself from her case and apologised to her attorney.","causal_attribution":"The mother's first-person account in a broadcast interview."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints.'; 'The OSBI also looked into allegations “that Judge Wheeler offered to amend the order in exchange for a dismissal of a writ seeking relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court” and that he “eavesdropped on jury deliberations,” the DA disclosed in the letter.'; 'Prosecutors in the AG’s office “thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution,” the AG’s press secretary, Leslie Berger, said on Sept. 2.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The Criminal Justice Division of the Attorney General’s Office thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary possess ultimate jurisdiction over disciplinary actions for allegations of inappropriate behavior by judges regardless of whether the behavior constitutes a violation of a criminal statute.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Council on Judicial Complaints, including allegations that he offered to amend the order in exchange for dismissal of the writ and that he eavesdropped on jury deliberations; the attorney general's office said the evidence did not support criminal prosecution and that judicial discipline rests with the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary.","causal_attribution":"District attorney's letter and attorney general's statement as reported; no disciplinary finding has been made."}],"effects":[{"label":"an order in the mother's custody case that denied a request for a psychological evaluation cited nonexistent cases that the judge says ChatGPT produced","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the attorney who requested the evaluation was reprimanded in the order and sought relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court before the order was vacated","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the mother describes learning of the fabricated citations in her child custody case as alarming","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Oklahoman's report (USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect) as republished by Minnesota Lawyer; read in full from the Wayback capture of 10 September 2026 because the live page returned 403. Its ChatGPT-admission passages relay the district attorney's letter; its account of the reprimand, the Supreme Court challenge and the vacatur draws on court filings and the attorney.","independence_group":"oklahoman"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/oklahoma-judge-admitted-citing-fake-030000000.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"KFOR (Oklahoma City) report syndicated on AOL, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its account of the ChatGPT admission relays the same district attorney letter.","independence_group":"kfor"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.news9.com/oklahoma-city-news/stephens-county-mother-speaks-out-after-judge-accused-of-using-chatgpt-in-custody-case","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"News 9 (Griffin Media) interview with the mother, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its description of the ChatGPT admission also relays the district attorney's letter; the mother's own account is independent of it.","independence_group":"news9-mother"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/09/stephens-county-judge-faces-discipline-over-chatgpt-written-court-order/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Hoodline rewrite of the Reuters report, read in full on 2026-09-29. Reuters relays the same district attorney letter.","independence_group":"reuters"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["The text of the order and whether the nonexistent citations were decisive for denying the evaluation and for the reprimand.","Whether any disciplinary proceeding follows from the Council on Judicial Complaints referral.","The current state of the custody case after the vacatur and the judge's departure from it.","The exact day in November 2025 on which the order was issued."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was issued in Stephens County District Court, Oklahoma, and challenged at the Oklahoma Supreme Court (The Oklahoman; KFOR). News 9 reports from Stephens County and describes the mother's case as handled there; her residence is not stated beyond that.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete case in which a judge's use of ChatGPT for research put nonexistent case citations into an order that denied a parent's request and reprimanded the requesting attorney in a child custody case. The ChatGPT admission rests on the district attorney's letter as relayed by several outlets, which was not read; the order and the Supreme Court filings were not read. The mother and the attorney are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"According to the district attorney's 17 August 2026 letter, as reported by The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9, the judge told the OSBI that he used ChatGPT for research and that at least two citations in his order, produced by ChatGPT, do not exist. ChatGPT communicated only with the judge; the mother and the reprimanded attorney were affected through the order he issued. The letter itself was not read.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Stephens County, Oklahoma: according to the district attorney, Judge Lawrence Wheeler told state investigators that a November 2025 order in a paternity and custody case, which denied a parent's request for a psychological evaluation and reprimanded that parent's attorney, cited at least two nonexistent cases produced by ChatGPT; the order was vacated after the attorney challenged it","summary":"In November 2025 Stephens County Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler issued an order in a child paternity and custody case that denied one parent's request for a psychological evaluation of the other parent and reprimanded the requesting parent's attorney 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics'. The attorney challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, telling the justices that it relied on two cases that do not exist; the challenge was dismissed in March after Wheeler vacated the order, and he is no longer on the case. According to a 17 August 2026 letter from the Stephens County district attorney, Wheeler told the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and that at least two citations in it produced by ChatGPT do not exist. The mother in the case told News 9 that learning the order's citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because it concerned the custody of a child. The attorney general's office declined criminal prosecution; judicial discipline remains possible.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-09","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used by the judge for legal research while preparing the order","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A court order in a child custody case, which the judge has acknowledged to investigators contained at least two nonexistent ChatGPT-produced citations, denied a request for a psychological evaluation of the child's father and formally reprimanded the requesting attorney; the attorney had to seek relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court before the order was vacated (per the district attorney's letter and The Oklahoman; the judge's attorney declined to comment).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people affected through the judge's use of ChatGPT: the mother, whose request for a psychological evaluation was denied by the order and who describes the discovery as alarming (News 9), and the attorney who requested the evaluation and was reprimanded in the order and challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court (The Oklahoman). The child and the other parent are not counted because no harm to them is reported. The judge, the AI user, is not counted: he faces a possible disciplinary process but no sanction has been reported and the complaint bundled other allegations.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OK","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","primarySourceLabel":"The Oklahoman (USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect), republished by Minnesota Lawyer, 9 September 2026: Oklahoma judge used AI on order that cited cases that don't exist","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:18.787549+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:16.712062+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["justice","family-court","judge","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","institutional-use","oklahoma"]},{"id":"2026-surat-customs-penalty-ai-hallucinated-citations-supreme-court","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The present appeal arose out of an Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposing a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on the appellant under Section 114, Customs Act, 1962, for misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The challenge to the said penalty before the Gujarat High Court failed, as the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20 January 2026.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The penalty was imposed for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to attract a lower tariff.'; 'the High Court dismissed his challenge on January 20, 2026, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds, and the Gujarat High Court dismissed his challenge on 20 January 2026.","causal_attribution":"Facts of the proceedings as recited in the Supreme Court judgment, reported by legal outlets; the judgment itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Upon verifying such judgments and articles, it does appear that the second respondent has relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations. A further investigation has also revealed that some of the case laws relied upon by the second respondent, which do exist, do not lay down the ratio deduced therefrom and it appears to be a hallucination of AI,' the Court observed.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Upon verification, the court found that the second respondent had \"relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations.\" It further found that some case laws which did exist did not lay down the legal propositions attributed to them, and that this \"appears to be a hallucination of AI\".'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Supreme Court found that the penalty order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on existing cases that did not lay down the ratio attributed to them, which it said appears to be a hallucination of AI.","causal_attribution":"Finding of the Supreme Court after its own verification of the cited material, as quoted by the reports. The court attributes the defects to AI in qualified terms ('appears to be'); the tool is not named."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The use of AI in this case, resulting in reliance placed by the second respondent on material which is dubious, proves fatal to the sustainability of the order imposing penalty on the appellant. Such circumstances compel us to interfere and remand the case,' the Court said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The proceedings were revived for fresh adjudication by an officer of the same rank other than the officer who had passed the original order.'; 'The Court left it to the wisdom of the appointing authority to initiate such action against the author of the Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 as may be warranted in the circumstances, in accordance with law.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, set aside a customs penalty of over ₹425 crore'; 'A bench of Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Sheel Nagu did not examine the merits of the customs case at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Верховний суд Індії 2 вересня 2026 року розглянув справу щодо використання штучного інтелекту працівником митниці, який послався на неіснуючі судові справи та фальшиві цитати, накладаючи штраф у розмірі близько $45 млн' (the Supreme Court of India on 2 September 2026 considered a case of a customs officer's use of AI, who cited non-existent cases and fake quotations while imposing a fine of about $45 million)","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"On 2 September 2026 the Supreme Court held that the use of AI and the resulting reliance on dubious material was fatal to the penalty order, set aside the order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left action against the order's author to the appointing authority.","causal_attribution":"Holding of the Supreme Court as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"a ₹425 crore customs penalty order resting on non-existent and misattributed case law that the Supreme Court found appeared to be AI hallucination stood against the trader for about eleven months and was upheld by the Gujarat High Court","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the trader had to take the case to the Supreme Court, which voided the order but revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full body (including JSON-LD article body) read by curl on 2026-09-29. Reports and quotes the Supreme Court judgment of 2 September 2026.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/09/03/supreme-court-sets-aside-%E2%82%B9425-crore-customs-penalty-over-ai-generated-fake-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"SCC Times case note, read by curl on 2026-09-29; summarises the same judgment (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1741).","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://upstox.com/news/personal-finance/tax/how-a-diamond-trader-got-relief-from-a-425-crore-penalty-after-customs-used-ai-generated-citations/article-199828/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Upstox (4 September 2026), read by curl on 2026-09-29; based on the same judgment.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://sud.ua/uk/news/abroad/371427-mytnyk-poviryv-shi-i-vypysav-shtraf-na-45-mln-verkhovnyi-sud-use-skasuvav","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"uk","translation_note":"Ukrainian-language report (6 September 2026) read through the r.jina.ai relay on 2026-09-29 (direct fetch 403); translated by the reviewer. Cited only for context; it converts the penalty to about US$45 million.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","public_services","finance"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the customs officer used and how it was used in drafting the order.","Whether the trader paid any part of the penalty or incurred other financial consequences while the order stood, and the trader's litigation costs.","The outcome of the revived adjudication and whether any action was taken against the officer.","The trader's country and place of residence."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, challenged in the Gujarat High Court and decided by the Supreme Court of India. The trader's country of residence is not stated in the read reports, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete case of institutional AI use in an adverse administrative decision about a person: a penalty order that India's Supreme Court voided after finding apparently AI-hallucinated authorities in it. The account rests on legal reporting of the judgment; the judgment text was not read. The underlying misdeclaration allegation was not decided and the proceedings were revived. The trader is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Supreme Court, after individually verifying the cited material, found non-existent cases, fake citations and misattributed ratios in the penalty order and said this 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'; it held that 'the use of AI in this case' was fatal to the order. The tool, and how the officer used it, are not stated in the read reports. The penalty decision was the officer's; whether the AI drafted or merely supplied authorities is unknown, so the AI-to-person relation is recorded as unknown.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Surat, India: a customs officer's ₹425 crore penalty order against a diamond trader relied on non-existent and misattributed case law that India's Supreme Court found 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'; the court set the order aside after the trader had lost in the Gujarat High Court","summary":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Surat imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 (about ₹425 crore) on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The trader's challenge was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on 20 January 2026. Before the Supreme Court the trader argued that judgments and articles cited in the penalty order had been generated using artificial intelligence. On 2 September 2026 a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, after checking the material, found that the order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on real cases that did not lay down the propositions attributed to them, which the court said 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'. Holding that the use of AI and reliance on this dubious material was fatal to the order, the court set aside both the penalty order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, sent the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority. The AI tool used is not named in the read reports.","incidentDate":"2025-10-08","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-02","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-02","aiSystem":"Unnamed generative AI tool whose output the Supreme Court of India found in a customs penalty order (non-existent and misattributed case law); the tool is not identified in the read reports","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A diamond trader was subjected for about eleven months to a ₹425 crore customs penalty order, and lost a High Court challenge to it, before India's Supreme Court voided the order because it relied on non-existent and misattributed case law that the court found appeared to be AI hallucination (Supreme Court judgment as reported by Bar & Bench, SCC Online and Upstox). The underlying proceedings were revived.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One trader, the appellant, on whom the penalty was imposed. The trader did not use the AI; the customs officer did. No other person is reported harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","primarySourceLabel":"Bar & Bench, 2 September 2026: Supreme Court scraps ₹425 crore penalty over fake citations, AI hallucinations in customs order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:08:50.773251+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:55.666396+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["india","surat","customs","supreme-court","hallucinated-citations","institutional-use","administrative-decision","penalty"]},{"id":"2026-newby-adelphi-ai-detector-vacated","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'In November 2024, Newby submitted a paper on Christianity and Islam'; 'Oelze gave the paper a grade of zero, according to court filings, in part because he thought it was AI-generated'; 'According to the lawsuit, Adelphi relied in part on AI detection software'; 'Turnitin's AI detector marked the essay as fully AI-written, but Newby ran it through two other detectors that said it was written by a human, court records show'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Adelphi University says an AI detection software flagged 19-year-old Orion Newby's work and claims the paper was \"too advanced\" for the first-year student'; 'That paper earned him a zero'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In November 2024 Newby submitted a paper on Christianity and Islam for the fall 2024 World Civilizations 1 class; the professor graded it zero in part because he thought it was AI-generated, and Adelphi, per the lawsuit, relied in part on AI-detection software — court records show Turnitin's detector marked the essay as fully AI-written while two other detectors scored it human.","causal_attribution":"The detector results and the lawsuit's contents are attributed to court filings as carried by Newsday; the professor's suspicion is attributed to court filings and ABC7."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'University officials ordered Newby to attend a plagiarism workshop — which, while considered a \"nondisciplinary\" punishment, could have resulted in suspension or expulsion if he was found to have committed a second offense'; 'The university's denial of Newby's appeal left the family \"no choice\" but to sue'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Adelphi told him he had to take an anti-plagiarism course, and until he did, he couldn't enroll in other classes. That's when his family sued.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Newby was ordered to attend a plagiarism workshop — a 'nondisciplinary' punishment that could have led to suspension or expulsion on a second offense — was told he could not enroll in other classes until he complied, and his appeal was denied; the family sued in October 2025.","causal_attribution":"Both chains independently carry the workshop order and the enrollment block (Newsday from the ruling stage, ABC7 from the filing stage)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'state Supreme Court Judge Randy Sue Marber in Nassau County wrote on Jan. 28. The school must expunge his record, the judge ruled'; 'were \"without valid basis and devoid of reason\"'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Inside Higher Ed's relay describes a 'federal judge' — erroneous; Judge Marber's state Supreme Court decision controls.","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 28 January 2026, New York State Supreme Court Judge Randy Sue Marber in Nassau County ruled that Adelphi's finding and its denial of his appeal were 'without valid basis and devoid of reason' and ordered the school to expunge his record.","causal_attribution":"The ruling is documented by Newsday's report quoting the decision; the IHE forum error is recorded explicitly. The decision text itself was not fetched (Newsday's account is the inspected record)."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'treated since he was about 2 years old for learning and neurological disabilities that include language and auditory processing disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder'; 'He had worked on it with a tutor from Bridges to Adelphi, the university's $5,000-a-semester program'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Newby has learning differences... issues specifically with language processing. At Adelphi, he's in a special program with extra support'; 'I told him I worked 15 to 20 hours with tutors'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Newby has been treated since about age two for learning and neurological disabilities — language and auditory processing disorders and ADHD — and wrote the paper with a tutor from Bridges to Adelphi, the university's own $5,000-a-semester disability-support program, working 15-20 hours with tutors.","causal_attribution":"The disability and support details come from his mother's and his own accounts, carried by both chains."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The family has spent six figures on legal costs, she said'; Lesko passages ('bellwether example'; 'I can't tell you how many parents have reached out to us with similar issues').","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The family spent six figures on legal costs; attorney Mark Lesko called the ruling a 'bellwether example' and said many parents had contacted him with similar issues.","causal_attribution":"The mother's and the attorney's accounts; the 'many parents' figure is unquantified and no other persons are counted."}],"effects":[{"label":"false AI-plagiarism accusation with academic and financial consequences until a court ordered expungement","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"recovery: court cleared his record; he continues at Adelphi as a second-year history major","claim_id":"c3","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.newsday.com/long-island/education/adelphi-university-ai-plagiarism-lawsuit-oh07enyz","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2026-02-09T10:00Z; 48 paragraphs).","independence_group":"newsday"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://abc7ny.com/post/adelphi-student-long-island-sues-university-allegations-he-used-ai-write-essay/17980409/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2025-10-10T20:54Z).","independence_group":"abc7"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2026/02/11/adelphi-student-wins-ai-plagiarism-lawsuit","kind":"trade_press_relaying_newsday","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (2026-02-11). Relays Newsday; its 'federal judge' phrase is erroneous — Judge Marber sits in the state Supreme Court, and the claim records the discrepancy.","independence_group":"newsday"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education","justice","accessibility"],"unknowns":["The decision text was not fetched; the ruling is recorded through Newsday's account quoting the judge.","The similarity scores Turnitin returned and the university's full decision letter are not public in the inspected sources.","Whether Adelphi changed its AI-detection or appeals policies afterward is not reported.","The first-person Times account (28 Aug 2026) is paywalled and was not inspected; his later reflections are therefore not claimed.","The workshop's completion status after the ruling (moot after expungement) is not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: Adelphi University, Garden City, New York. Affected person: Newby, a student there living in Lido Beach, NY. Court: New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional automated-decision case (made_decision_about / made_claim_about): a detector-driven false accusation with court-vacated sanctions. Newby and his parents spoke publicly; his disability is recorded because it is central to the case's facts (the university's own support program produced the writing process the detector misread), not as a label.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawsuit records that Adelphi relied in part on AI-detection software; court records show Turnitin's detector marked the essay as fully AI-written while two other detectors scored it human (Newsday). The university's process, not the tool alone, produced the sanction — recorded in the harm mechanism.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Adelphi accused Orion Newby of AI plagiarism after a detector flagged his paper; a Nassau County judge ordered the finding expunged","summary":"Orion Newby, an Adelphi University first-year student with language and auditory processing disabilities, received a zero in November 2024 on a World Civilizations paper after the professor suspected it was AI-generated and the university relied in part on AI-detection software; he was ordered to attend a plagiarism workshop and his appeal was denied, leaving him one finding from suspension or expulsion. Newby — who had written the paper with 15-20 hours of tutor support through the university's own disability program — said the detectors flagged his citations, and two other detectors scored the paper as human. After the family sued, New York State Supreme Court Judge Randy Sue Marber in Nassau County ruled on 28 January 2026 that Adelphi's finding and its denial of his appeal were 'without valid basis and devoid of reason' and ordered his record expunged. The family spent six figures on legal costs.","incidentDate":"2024-11-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-01-28","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-10-10","aiSystem":"Turnitin AI-detection software (and the university's reliance on it)","aiProduct":"Turnitin AI-text detector","aiCompany":"Turnitin","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm","financial_loss","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A false AI-plagiarism finding brought a zero, a plagiarism-workshop order one step from suspension, sleepless nights, and a year-plus fight costing six figures to clear his record — despite two other detectors scoring the paper human and the writing help coming from the university's own disability program.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: Newby, the subject of the detector-driven accusation (court ruling and Newsday/ABC7 reporting). Other students mentioned by his attorney ('many parents have reached out') are unquantified and not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.newsday.com/long-island/education/adelphi-university-ai-plagiarism-lawsuit-oh07enyz","primarySourceLabel":"Newsday (9 Feb 2026) — the ruling, the judge's words, the family and attorney accounts, the disability and Bridges program detail","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T09:31:23.493757+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:46.697576+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-decision-about","made-claim-about","ai-detector","turnitin","education","disability","court-win","new-york"]},{"id":"2026-kumar-sdt-strike-off-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, Allegation 2.1 findings and the schedule of false/miscited authorities.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"RollOnFriday's listing of the bogus citations.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Allegation 2.1 was found proved: Kumar's 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI, including the non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502', the miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' (in reality an IP case) and a misattributed Baxendale-Walker passage.","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment; trade press accounts are consistent."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, Allegation 2.2 findings and the 13 April acceptance.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Allegation 2.2 was found proved: his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted and contained further errors, which he accepted on 13 April 2026.","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, sanction and reasoning passages.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Outer Temple's case note confirming the outcome and the 'first SDT case on a lawyer's use of AI' framing.","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"On 25 August 2026 the SDT struck Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers with culpability 'very high', stating it would have struck him off on either allegation alone; the tribunal invoked Ayinde v Haringey LBC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin).","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment; the 'first AI case' framing comes from the SRA's counsel and is attributed."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, conviction allegation and sentence passages.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"RollOnFriday's Isleworth Crown Court reference (recorded as a discrepancy; the judgment controls).","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The parallel ground was his 29 January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 — recorded by the judgment as at the Central Criminal Court (RollOnFriday says Isleworth Crown Court, a discrepancy) — sentenced on 26 April 2024 to a 12-month community order with 150 hours' unpaid work.","causal_attribution":"The conviction ground is established by the judgment; the convicting-court discrepancy across outlets is preserved."}],"effects":[{"label":"lawyer struck off after AI-generated false citations in his disciplinary defence","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/12884-2026-Kumar-.pdf","kind":"tribunal_judgment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Judgment PDF read on 2026-09-15 (25 Aug 2026): allegations, findings, sanction, panel, and the Ayinde v Haringey invocation.","independence_group":"sdt"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/lawyer-struck-off-for-using-fake-ai-generated-cases-before-sdt","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (4 Sep 2026).","independence_group":"legal-futures"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/foreign-lawyer-produced-ai-generated-false-citations-at-sdt/5127825.article","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (4 Sep 2026, Hyde).","independence_group":"law-gazette"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/first-lawyer-struck-ai-addiction","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (11 Sep 2026). Colour and the specific bogus citations; its 'AI addiction' framing is editorial joking, not a finding.","independence_group":"rollonfriday"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.outertemple.com/joshua-hitchens-acts-for-the-sra-in-the-first-solicitors-disciplinary-tribunal-case-on-a-lawyers-use-of-ai/","kind":"counsel_case_note","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (8 Sep 2026). SRA counsel's chambers' note: case number, dates, judgment link, and the 'first SDT case on a lawyer's use of AI' framing; participant-side account, recorded as such.","independence_group":"outer-temple"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The specific generative AI tool is not named in the inspected accounts.","The convicting court appears as the Central Criminal Court in the judgment and Isleworth Crown Court in RollOnFriday; the judgment controls but the discrepancy is unresolved in the inspected material.","Whether Kumar seeks to appeal the strike-off is not reported.","His employment status after the strike-off is not reported; the Law Gazette's employment background predates it."],"geography":{"basis":"Events: his practice and the SRA proceedings in England. Affected person: Kumar, on the Register of Foreign Lawyers in England and Wales. Court: the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal; the parallel conviction was at the Central Criminal Court (per the judgment; RollOnFriday's Isleworth Crown Court is a recorded discrepancy).","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an own-use, work-context adverse consequence with tribunal-found AI misconduct and a dated, career-ending sanction. This applies the charter's individual-review rule to the AI-sanction class; a class-level ruling is not required. Kumar is named in a public tribunal judgment; the parallel conviction ground is recorded for completeness and is not used to inflate the AI link. RollOnFriday's 'AI addiction' framing is recorded as editorial joking.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Tribunal-found: the 12 March 2026 Answer's misleading quotations and citations were produced with generative AI, and the 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors (accepted 13 April). The specific tool is not named in the inspected accounts.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"SDT strikes solicitor Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after AI-generated false citations in his SRA defence","summary":"On 25 August 2026 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after finding proved that his 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI — including a non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502' and a miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' that is actually an intellectual-property case — and that his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors. The tribunal said it would have struck him off on that allegation alone; the parallel ground was his January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. This is the SDT's first case on a lawyer's use of AI, per the SRA's counsel.","incidentDate":"2026-03-12","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-25","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-09-04","aiSystem":"Generative AI (tool not named in inspected accounts)","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Career-ending professional consequence for the lawyer who submitted AI-generated false citations in his own disciplinary defence: struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers on 25 August 2026, with culpability rated 'very high'.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: Kumar himself, the AI user struck off (SDT judgment). No client or third-party harm is reported in the inspected sources and none is counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/12884-2026-Kumar-.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal judgment, SRA Ltd v Abhishek Kumar, Case No. 12884-2026 (25 Aug 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T06:18:05.203137+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:43.433309+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","justice","legal-profession","strike-off","fabricated-citations","sdt","own-use","uk"]},{"id":"2026-aarons-chatgpt-fabricated-testimony-sanction","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1a","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Order passages quoted by Ars: contempt, $5,000 to the Client Protection Fund in 30 days, referral.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Reuters wire: 'on Sept 9' — fine, contempt, referral, and the Sandoval caption.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"ABA Journal, 24 Aug: the $5,000 contempt anticipated from the 21 Aug show-cause hearing (pre-order; advance reporting, context only).","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"By written order of 9 September 2026, the New Mexico Supreme Court held Stephen Aarons in direct contempt, fined him $5,000 payable to the State Bar Client Protection Fund within 30 days, and referred him to the disciplinary board.","causal_attribution":"The contempt, fine and referral are quoted by Ars Technica and confirmed by the Reuters wire; the ABA Journal's hearing-day account anticipated but could not confirm the later written order. The order PDF itself was not retrieved in this review."},{"id":"c1b","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Ars: removal, bar pending referral, briefs struck, reassignment (Kim Chavez Cook appointed 2 Sep).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order also removed Aarons from the case, barred him from appearing before the court pending the disciplinary-board referral, struck the filed briefs and reassigned the appeal to the public defender (Kim Chavez Cook, appointed 2 September 2026).","causal_attribution":"Single-chain detail from Ars Technica's account of the order; the Reuters wire does not carry these elements."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Ars passages: Rev.com transcript plus record into ChatGPT (o3); the named fabricated witnesses and false attributions; the admission of non-verification.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"ABA Journal: 'admits stupidity over AI errors' at the show-cause hearing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Reuters headline account: 'ChatGPT invented fake police testimony in murder appeal, New Mexico high court says'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Aarons used ChatGPT (OpenAI o3) on a Rev.com transcript and the case record to draft the brief, which contained fabricated witnesses and testimony — officers 'Michelle Amarillo' and 'Sanchez', Manal Al-Jibury, Teresa Marquez, and false testimony attributed to Danny and Linda Stanton and Mariah Chavez — and misdescribed real precedents; he admitted at the hearing that he had not verified the output.","causal_attribution":"The fabrication and the admission are established by the attorney's own statements at the hearing and the court's findings as reported; no source reports a denial."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Ars: substitution of the public defender (Kim Chavez Cook, appointed 2 Sep); the court's remark about the client.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The client, Oscar Renee Sandoval, suffers a delayed appeal: the briefs were struck, Aarons was removed, and the public defender was substituted (appointed 2 September 2026); the court told Aarons 'your client is the one suffering'.","causal_attribution":"Single-chain detail from Ars Technica's account of the order; the delay's length is not stated."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Reuters wire via Straits Times: Sandoval caption, life sentence February 2025, Doña Ana County.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Ars: brief filed ~Aug 2025; State's motion to strike weeks later.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The underlying case is the murder appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval, sentenced to life in February 2025 in Doña Ana County for killing his partner Shiereen Al-Jibury; the brief was filed around August 2025 and the State moved to strike weeks later.","causal_attribution":"Background context, attributed to the wire and Ars; the docket number was not confirmed in this review."}],"effects":[{"label":"attorney sanctioned for ChatGPT-fabricated testimony; client's appeal delayed","claim_id":"c1a","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/09/chatgpt-using-lawyer-punished-for-citing-fake-testimony-from-made-up-witnesses/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (11 Sep 2026, Brodkin). Quotes the 9 September order and the 21 August hearing; names the fabricated witnesses.","independence_group":"ars"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/chatgpt-invented-fake-police-testimony-in-murder-appeal-new-mexico-high-court-says","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (11 Sep 2026); Straits Times carrying the Reuters wire.","independence_group":"reuters"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/criminal-defense-attorney-admits-stupidity-over-ai-errors-but-still-receives-sharp-rebuke-from-his-states-high-court","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (24 Aug 2026). Post-hearing report citing the Santa Fe New Mexican; the fine and contempt were anticipated from the hearing, not yet the written order.","independence_group":"aba-journal"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The 9 September 2026 order PDF was not directly inspected (nmcourts.gov search empty; form-based case lookup); the claims about it rest on two chains quoting it.","The underlying docket number is unconfirmed.","The disciplinary-board process and its outcome are pending.","The full set of fabricated or misdescribed citations beyond the named examples is not reported.","The ChatGPT product tier and whether the firm had verification policies are not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"Events: Santa Fe, New Mexico practice and the Doña Ana County murder case. Affected persons: the attorney and his client, both in New Mexico. Court: New Mexico Supreme Court.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an own-use, work-context adverse consequence with a dated, quantified sanction and an admitted, judicially found AI link. This applies the charter's individual-review rule to the AI-sanction class; the retired ordinary_task_failure gate and a class-level ruling are not required. Aarons is a public officer of the court sanctioned by a public order and is named; his client's name appears in the public caption of the appeal. In a 2026-09-15 second pass the original compound first claim was split: the corroborated contempt/fine/referral stand as c1a, and the Ars-only order elements (removal, bar, struck briefs, reassignment) stand as reported c1b. person_relations recorded in the same pass.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The AI link is admitted and judicially found: Aarons fed a Rev.com transcript and the record into ChatGPT (OpenAI o3), and the court's order addresses the fabricated content in the filed brief; he admitted at the show-cause hearing that he had not verified the output.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"New Mexico Supreme Court fines attorney Stephen Aarons $5,000 and removes him from a murder appeal over ChatGPT-fabricated testimony","summary":"Santa Fe defense attorney Stephen Aarons used ChatGPT (OpenAI's o3) on a Rev.com transcript and the record to draft briefing in the murder appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval; the brief contained fabricated witnesses and testimony (including police officers 'Michelle Amarillo' and 'Sanchez' and invented testimony attributed to real people) and misdescribed real precedents. After a 21 August 2026 show-cause hearing at which Aarons admitted he had not verified the output, the New Mexico Supreme Court's written order of 9 September 2026 held him in direct contempt, fined him $5,000 payable to the State Bar Client Protection Fund within 30 days, removed him from the case, barred him from appearing before the court pending a disciplinary-board referral, struck the filed briefs and reassigned the appeal to the public defender.","incidentDate":"2025-08-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-09","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-08-24","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI o3)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A dated, quantified professional sanction for the attorney who relied on ChatGPT's output: $5,000 fine, direct-contempt finding, removal from the case, a bar on appearing before the court pending a disciplinary-board referral, and struck briefs; his client's appeal is delayed as a result.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two documented harmed people. The user: Aarons, sanctioned (court order reported by Ars Technica and Reuters). Another person's use consequence: his client Sandoval, whose appeal is delayed by the struck briefs and the substitution of counsel (Ars quotes the court's 'your client is the one suffering'). No further harmed persons are reported; the victim's family is not counted (no harm to them is reported).","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/09/chatgpt-using-lawyer-punished-for-citing-fake-testimony-from-made-up-witnesses/","primarySourceLabel":"Ars Technica (11 Sep 2026) — quotes the 9 Sep order and the 21 Aug show-cause hearing","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T06:16:05.506355+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:22.660417+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","justice","legal-profession","sanction","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","own-use","new-mexico"]},{"id":"2025-gates-chatgpt-poisoning-attempt","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"reported-harm","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 1–2, victim information and Reason for Arrest.","relation":"supports","source_id":"affidavit"}],"assertion":"One husband reported incapacitation in two alleged contamination incidents.","causal_attribution":"The officer records allegations of contamination-related harm. Clinical findings and the actual chatbot replies were not inspected; AI's contribution remains unresolved."},{"id":"reported-ai-use","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2, Reason for Arrest; page 1, account-record evidence listing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"affidavit"}],"assertion":"Investigators allege that the accused used ChatGPT for research connected to the alleged offences.","causal_attribution":"Research activity is alleged. The inspected document does not reproduce replies or establish how they influenced conduct."},{"id":"event-boundary","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2 narrative: July 12 and August 18.","relation":"supports","source_id":"affidavit"},{"locator":"Page 1: on-or-about July 8 offence date.","relation":"context","source_id":"warrant"}],"assertion":"The reported contamination incidents fall in July and August 2025; the exact first day differs between records.","causal_attribution":"This bounds alleged episodes, not recovery or every research session. The research period extending into September does not establish another harm event."},{"id":"geographic-setting","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 1–2, state/county and charging allegations.","relation":"supports","source_id":"warrant"},{"locator":"Page 1, incident and victim-location fields; street details omitted.","relation":"supports","source_id":"affidavit"}],"assertion":"The alleged incidents and affected person's recorded location are in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.","causal_attribution":"Recorded geography does not establish guilt or AI causation."},{"id":"criminal-proceeding","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 1–2, court caption and charges.","relation":"supports","source_id":"warrant"}],"assertion":"A North Carolina District Court warrant records criminal charges against the accused.","causal_attribution":"The document establishes a criminal proceeding. Charges are allegations, and current case disposition was not verified in this review."}],"effects":[{"label":"Reported incapacitation following alleged drink contamination","claim_id":"reported-harm","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"warrant","url":"https://i.ntd.com/assets/uploads/2025/10/id1096681-chatGPT-warrant.pdf","kind":"court_warrant","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English source read; no translation required. This source shares the police-investigation account and is not independent corroboration of harm.","independence_group":"gates-police-investigation"},{"id":"affidavit","url":"https://i.ntd.com/assets/uploads/2025/10/id1096679-Cheryl-Gates-Warrant-Affidavit.pdf","kind":"sworn_officer_affidavit","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English source read; no translation required. This source shares the police-investigation account and is not independent corroboration of harm.","independence_group":"gates-police-investigation"},{"id":"wbtv","url":"https://www.wbtv.com/2025/10/13/school-therapist-tried-drug-husband-mecklenburg-county-documents-reveal/","kind":"journalistic_reporting","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English source read; no translation required. This source shares the police-investigation account and is not independent corroboration of harm.","independence_group":"gates-police-investigation"},{"id":"cmpd","url":"https://www.charlottenc.gov/cmpd/News-Information/Newsroom/New-page-96","kind":"official_police_release","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English source read; no translation required. This source shares the police-investigation account and is not independent corroboration of harm.","independence_group":"gates-police-investigation"},{"id":"cbs","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/school-therapist-husband-poison-attempt/","kind":"journalistic_reporting","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English source read; no translation required. This source shares the police-investigation account and is not independent corroboration of harm.","independence_group":"gates-police-investigation"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["domestic_relationship","physical_safety"],"unknowns":["Whether the alleged incapacitation and contamination are independently substantiated.","The content of the actual chatbot prompts/replies and whether responses helped, warned, refused or triggered safeguards.","The nature and extent of AI's contribution to the alleged conduct.","Clinical findings, longer-term health outcome and recovery date.","The exact first incident day: the warrant and affidavit differ.","Locations of individual chatbot exchanges and any current determination of guilt or case disposition.","Whether any NOPE product would have detected or prevented these events."],"geography":{"basis":"The warrant locates alleged offences in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The affidavit separately identifies the affected person's location; the court caption establishes the issuing court. These preserve the accepted metadata review's country roles and evidentiary limits.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Reviewed as an attributed adverse-event account using the warrant, sworn affidavit and previously inspected reporting. One reported harmed person is counted once. Source dependence, disputed dates and uninspected chatbot/clinical evidence remain explicit. Identity and operational detail are minimized.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The officer affidavit alleges research using the accused's ChatGPT account. Actual prompts and replies were not inspected.","status":"reported"}},"metadataReview":{"version":1,"geography":{"basis":"The warrant expressly alleges offences in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Its caption separately identifies the issuing court. The affidavit identifies incident setting and the affected person’s location; existing affected-person evidence is retained. These are allegations in legal records, not a finding of guilt.","evidence":[{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"Mecklenburg County, North Carolina","location":"victim_description","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"Warrant, PDF pages 1–2: named state/county and charging text expressly locating the alleged offences in that county.","location":"https://i.ntd.com/assets/uploads/2025/10/id1096681-chatGPT-warrant.pdf","supports":["event_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"Warrant, PDF page 1: State of North Carolina, General Court of Justice, District Court Division caption.","location":"https://i.ntd.com/assets/uploads/2025/10/id1096681-chatGPT-warrant.pdf","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"Affidavit, PDF page 1: incident-location and victim-information fields; street details omitted.","location":"https://i.ntd.com/assets/uploads/2025/10/id1096679-Cheryl-Gates-Warrant-Affidavit.pdf","supports":["event_countries","affected_person_countries"],"countries":["US"]}],"court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"unresolved":["The location of every individual chatbot exchange is not established. This metadata review does not determine causal responsibility.","No determination of guilt or current case disposition was made in this bounded geographic review."],"reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","source_reviews":[{"url":"https://i.ntd.com/assets/uploads/2025/10/id1096681-chatGPT-warrant.pdf","notes":"English court warrant mirrored by a news publisher; pages 1–2 read and visually inspected. Geographic charging allegations and issuing court recorded; this is not a conviction.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://i.ntd.com/assets/uploads/2025/10/id1096679-Cheryl-Gates-Warrant-Affidavit.pdf","notes":"English sworn officer affidavit mirrored by a news publisher; both pages read and visually inspected. Private street addresses, contact information and operational details omitted from metadata.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://www.wbtv.com/2025/10/13/school-therapist-tried-drug-husband-mecklenburg-county-documents-reveal/","notes":"English article body inspected for geographic metadata only. No translation required.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://www.charlottenc.gov/cmpd/News-Information/Newsroom/New-page-96","notes":"English official police release body inspected. Police location alone was not used to establish event or court country.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/school-therapist-husband-poison-attempt/","notes":"English article body inspected for geographic metadata only. No translation required.","access":"read","language":"en"}]},"name":"Gates case: alleged poisoning attempts and ChatGPT research","summary":"An officer affidavit records one husband's report of incapacitation in two alleged drink-contamination incidents in North Carolina in July and August 2025. Investigators allege that the accused used ChatGPT for related research. Actual chatbot replies and their influence on the alleged conduct were not established in this review.","incidentDate":"2025-07-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-08-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2025-10-13","aiSystem":"ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["harm_to_others"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The officer affidavit records one husband’s report of incapacitation in two alleged beverage-contamination incidents. The accused’s use of ChatGPT for research is alleged; the actual chatbot replies and any clinical findings were not inspected.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"outward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The affidavit identifies one husband who reported incapacitation in two alleged contamination incidents. Count him once. The inspected sources establish criminal proceedings against the accused AI user, but do not establish a separate AI-related harm to her. Exact describes the number of people reported harmed within this dossier, not independently proven harm or causation.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-NC","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/school-therapist-husband-poison-attempt/","primarySourceLabel":"CBS News","firstPublishedAt":"2026-08-09T04:30:12.472253+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:02.408457+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["criminal","adult","violence","poisoning","chatgpt","openai","us","north-carolina"]}]}