{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-05T07:22:21.236Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"citation","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"unknown","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":0,"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":"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":"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":"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"]}]}