{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-07T06:55:39.788Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"cline","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":5,"coverage":{"cases":5,"countries":2,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":1,"minors":1,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":5,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-patient-reports-chatgpt-recording-at-clinic-without-consent","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"recording","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Original post’s first paragraph: the question about AI notes, the objection and the description of ChatGPT already recording.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The patient reports that the nurse’s phone showed ChatGPT already recording when the patient declined AI note-taking.","causal_attribution":"The recording and product identification are the patient’s account. No device evidence or independent confirmation was inspected."},{"id":"objection","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Original post’s final sentence describing lack of notice and the nurse’s response.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The patient says there had been no notice of the recording and the nurse dismissed their objection.","causal_attribution":"The described adverse experience is loss of control over recording and consent; no legal finding or onward data transfer is inferred."},{"id":"clarification","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Author reply pdhsn3l describing the phone on the counter with Chrome open to ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Author reply pdhtd2k, opening and final sentences about already recording and insisting it be disabled.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In replies to the same thread, the patient says the phone displayed ChatGPT in Chrome and that recording had already begun when the nurse entered, before asking consent.","causal_attribution":"The same author adds these observations. Their illustrative introduction with name/reason placeholders is not treated as an actual consultation transcript. Server transmission and later handling remain unknown."}],"effects":[{"label":"The patient reports that the nurse’s phone showed ChatGPT already recording when the patient declined AI note-taking.","claim_id":"recording","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1ww4yn4/today_i_was_radicalized/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Original English post body read directly and through its Arctic Shift capture. The archive gives created_utc 1790974521 (2 October 2026, 20:55 UTC). The author says the appointment was today; timezone is unknown, so only October is recorded for the event. Replies by the same author remain one reporting chain.","independence_group":"reddit-original-patient-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1ww4yn4/comment/pdhsn3l/","kind":"forum_comment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Original English author reply inspected in the Arctic Shift thread capture. The reply author matches the original poster. It adds detail, not independent corroboration.","independence_group":"reddit-original-patient-account"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1ww4yn4/comment/pdhtd2k/","kind":"forum_comment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Original English author reply inspected in the Arctic Shift thread capture. The reply author matches the original poster. It adds detail, not independent corroboration.","independence_group":"reddit-original-patient-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["health","privacy"],"unknowns":["Exact local event day and clinic location; the archived post timestamp is 2 October 2026 UTC.","Independent confirmation of the account and the clinic’s response.","What information was captured, the recording duration and whether it was deleted.","Whether information was transmitted, retained or used for training.","The software configuration, account type and any legal finding."],"geography":{"basis":"The original account gives no event location. References to a privacy law and the language do not establish a country.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Reviewed first-person account of an actual recording reportedly occurring in an identified AI service before consent. Published with attribution and explicit limits under the approved input-privacy boundary; no independent corroboration or finding of illegality is claimed.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The patient identifies ChatGPT as already recording at the appointment when they objected to AI note-taking. Under the approved input-privacy boundary, the reported capture itself supplies the relation and consent harm. This does not establish transmission to a server, retention, training, specific captured content, the account type or illegality. The author’s own replies specify that the phone displayed ChatGPT in Chrome and recording had already begun when the nurse entered, before consent was requested.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"Patient reports a nurse was already recording with ChatGPT when they declined AI notes","summary":"In a public Reddit account, a patient says a nurse asked whether AI could take notes at a medical appointment. After the patient objected, the nurse picked up a phone that the patient described as showing ChatGPT already recording. The patient describes the recording as occurring without prior notice and says their objection was dismissed. In replies, the author says the phone had Chrome open to ChatGPT and recording had started when the nurse entered the room, before asking consent. This is an uncorroborated first-person account. It does not establish what was captured, whether anything was sent to a server, retained or used for training, or whether a law was broken. The clinic’s location, account type and response are unknown.","incidentDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-02","aiSystem":"ChatGPT on a nurse’s phone, identified by the patient in a public first-person account as already recording at a medical appointment.","aiProduct":"ChatGPT (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_autonomy"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The patient reports loss of control over recording of their medical appointment: the phone was allegedly already recording before consent, and their objection was dismissed. No server disclosure or clinical harm is established.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One patient reports their own consent and privacy experience. No other patients, staff or commenters are counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1ww4yn4/today_i_was_radicalized/","primarySourceLabel":"Reddit, 2 October 2026: patient’s account of recording at a medical appointment","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:59.923465+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:59.923465+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["privacy","consent","clinical-notes","first-person-account"]},{"id":"2020-aurora-colorado-license-plate-reader-alert-woman-four-children-gunpoint-stop-settlement","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'stopped the car, which they believed to be stolen, and ordered the four children'; 'Video shows the children screaming in fear as police handcuffed'; 'handcuffed two of the children'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'wrongfully forced out of their car on Aug. 2, 2020, in Aurora, Colo.'; 'everyone was ordered out and put on the ground'; 'Officers kept their guns drawn for about three-and-a-half minutes'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 2 August 2020 Aurora police officers stopped a car they believed to be stolen and ordered the woman driving it and four children to the ground at gunpoint. Two of the children were handcuffed.","causal_attribution":"The Denver Post from the prosecutors' letter and video; Sentinel Colorado from body camera video and the prosecutors' investigation. Kept as reported because both accounts draw on the prosecutors' investigation."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A license plate reader installed at an Aurora intersection had alerted police to the car, a blue SUV, because it had the same license plate numbers as a stolen motorcycle from Montana.'; 'Police failed to double-check a reading from a license plate scanner before making the stop.'; 'Officers failed to check whether the SUV matched the physical description of the stolen vehicle.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'with Colorado license plates was stolen'; 'the vehicle that was actually stolen was a motorcycle with the same license plate number in Montana'","relation":"context","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A license plate reader at an Aurora intersection alerted police to the car because its plate number matched that of a stolen motorcycle registered in Montana, and officers did not check the reading or the vehicle description before the stop.","causal_attribution":"The Denver Post's account in its report on the prosecutors' decision; the article does not attribute the reader sentences to the letter. Sentinel Colorado confirms the same-number mix-up and attributes the notification to the department's system without mentioning a reader."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The two girls remained handcuffed for four minutes, even after dispatchers confirmed that'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'removed the girls’ handcuffs after about eight-and-a-half minutes'","relation":"context","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Two of the children remained handcuffed for four minutes after dispatchers confirmed the car was not stolen.","causal_attribution":"The prosecutors' letter as reported by The Denver Post. Sentinel Colorado gives the total time in handcuffs as about eight and a half minutes."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'will not face criminal charges, prosecutors announced Friday'; 'What happened to the innocent occupants is unacceptable and preventable'; 'All department officers are re-doing training regarding license plate scanners'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Prosecutors declined to charge the officers in January 2021, calling what happened unacceptable and preventable, and the department said all officers were repeating training on license plate scanners.","causal_attribution":"Prosecutors' decision and the department spokesperson as reported by The Denver Post."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the City of Aurora has agreed to a $1.9 million settlement'; 'announced Monday, Feb. 5, 2024, that the family has reached a $1.9 million legal settlement with the city of Aurora'; 'In a written statement, the city confirmed a deal had been reached.'; 'The money will be evenly divided among'; 'was suspended for 160 hours'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The City of Aurora agreed to a $1.9 million settlement with the woman and the four children, announced by their lawyer on 5 February 2024 and confirmed by the city, to be divided evenly among the five. One of the two officers was suspended for 160 hours.","causal_attribution":"Settlement as announced by the lawyer for the woman and the children and confirmed by the city, reported by Sentinel Colorado. The agreement was not read."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Mentally, it destroyed me because I felt like not only am I not safe'; 'began acting out and became withdrawn'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The woman said the stop destroyed her mentally, and that one of the children began acting out and became withdrawn afterwards.","causal_attribution":"The woman's own account in an interview reported by Sentinel Colorado."}],"effects":[{"label":"a woman and four children ordered out of a car and onto the ground at gunpoint, two of the children handcuffed, after a license plate reader alert that officers did not verify","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.denverpost.com/2021/01/08/aurora-police-traffic-stop-no-charges/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-10-05 and re-read live on 2026-10-06 (The Denver Post, 8 January 2021). Rests on the 18th Judicial District prosecutors' decision letter, bystander video and the family's attorney.","independence_group":"denverpost-da-decision-letter"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://sentinelcolorado.com/metro/family-of-black-girls-handcuffed-by-aurora-police-held-at-gunpoint-reach-1-9-million-settlement/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-05 and 2026-10-06 from an Internet Archive capture. The live page returned HTTP 429 both days. Sentinel Colorado, February 2024, Associated Press copy (AP byline and photo credits on the page). Rests on the family lawyer's announcement, a written statement from the city, body camera video, the prosecutors' investigation and an interview with the driver. It says the department's system notified officers and does not mention a license plate reader.","independence_group":"ap-aurora-settlement-2024"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The vendor and technology of the license plate reader.","Whether the reader's alert displayed the issuing state or vehicle type.","Whether the department changed its license plate reader procedures beyond the retraining it described."],"geography":{"basis":"The stop was made by Aurora police in a parking lot in Aurora, Colorado, and the lawsuit was settled by the City of Aurora (The Denver Post, Sentinel Colorado).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The Denver Post, in its report on the prosecutors' decision, says a license plate reader alerted police to the SUV on a plate-number match with a stolen Montana motorcycle, and that officers did not verify the alert before ordering a woman and four children to the ground at gunpoint. Sentinel Colorado reports the department's system flagged the Colorado-plated SUV and reports the $1.9 million settlement with the city. The woman and the children are not named, and the reader's vendor is unidentified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Denver Post, in its report on the prosecutors' decision, says a license plate reader installed at an Aurora intersection alerted police to the SUV because it had the same plate number as a stolen motorcycle from Montana. Sentinel Colorado says the department's system flagged the SUV, which carried Colorado plates, as stolen. The reader's match on the plate number alone, ignoring the issuing state and the vehicle type, produced the stolen-vehicle alert on which officers made the gunpoint stop. Officers also did not double-check the reading or the vehicle description. No source names the reader's vendor or describes its technology.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Aurora, Colorado: police held a woman and four children at gunpoint in 2020 after a plate reader matched her SUV to a stolen motorcycle, The Denver Post reports","summary":"On 2 August 2020 Aurora police officers stopped an SUV they believed to be stolen, ordered the woman driving it and four children to lie on the ground at gunpoint, and handcuffed two of the children. The Denver Post reported that a license plate reader at an Aurora intersection had alerted police because the SUV had the same plate number as a stolen motorcycle from Montana, and that officers did not check the reading or the vehicle description. Prosecutors declined to charge the officers in January 2021 and called what happened unacceptable and preventable. The department said all officers were repeating training on license plate scanners. Sentinel Colorado reported that the department's system had flagged the SUV, which carried Colorado plates, and that the City of Aurora agreed in February 2024 to a $1.9 million settlement with the woman and the children to resolve a lawsuit over the officers' actions. One officer was suspended for 160 hours. The woman said the stop destroyed her mentally and that one of the children became withdrawn.","incidentDate":"2020-08-02","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2021-01-08","aiSystem":"A fixed license plate reader installed at an Aurora intersection that alerted police to the car on a plate-number match with a stolen Montana motorcycle (The Denver Post); vendor not named","aiProduct":"Unidentified license plate reader","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A woman and four children were held on the ground at gunpoint and two of the children were handcuffed (The Denver Post from the prosecutors' letter). The woman told an interviewer that the stop destroyed her mentally and that one of the children became withdrawn (Sentinel Colorado).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":5,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Five people in the car, the woman driving and four children, all ordered to the ground (The Denver Post; Sentinel Colorado). Exact 5.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"US-CO","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_settled","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.denverpost.com/2021/01/08/aurora-police-traffic-stop-no-charges/","primarySourceLabel":"The Denver Post, 8 January 2021: No charges for Aurora police officers who held children at gunpoint after erroneous traffic stop","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:12:34.885576+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T03:04:56.590358+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["alpr","license-plate-reader","hotlist-match","wrongful-stop","gunpoint","minors","colorado","aurora","justice","made-claim-about","settlement"]},{"id":"2026-openai-ai-support-assistant-refused-chatgpt-pro-refund-requested-minutes-after-renewal-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'my ChatGPT Pro plan renewed for $200'; 'I forgot to cancel beforehand and did not intend to renew'; '13:32:55'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'approximately six minutes after the charge'; 'Tbilisi, UTC+4'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says their ChatGPT Pro plan renewed for $200 on 3 October 2026 after they forgot to cancel, and that they requested a refund in the Help Center about six minutes after the charge.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The AI declined without giving a reason specific to my account'; 'This case is closed. Create a new case to receive support.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The Help Center assistant gave a generic refusal without identifying which eligibility requirement I failed'; 'When I asked for escalation, the case was closed'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The poster says the Help Center AI assistant declined the refund without a reason specific to their account and, when they asked for escalation, the chat showed the case as closed.","causal_attribution":"Poster attributes the refusal to an AI assistant; whether the decision followed fixed policy rules or human configuration is not known."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I opened another case specifically requesting a human billing specialist. Same generic refusal.'; 'another refusal arrived, explicitly marked as generated with AI support'; 'That also received an AI-generated refusal'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A second chat specifically asking for a human produced the same refusal'; 'also received responses explicitly labeled as AI-generated'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The poster says a second chat asking for a human billing specialist produced the same refusal, and that two email requests received refusals marked as AI-generated.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'seven-day discretionary refund policy is conditional, not an automatic entitlement'; 'I still have no explanation specific to my case and no confirmed human review'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'I also explicitly agreed that refunded subscription access would end'; 'I find this an appalling way to treat a paying customer'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster acknowledges that the refund policy is discretionary and conditional, says they agreed that refunded access would end, and says they still had no case-specific explanation or confirmed human review.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."}],"effects":[{"label":"refund of an unwanted $200 renewal refused by an AI support assistant without a case-specific reason (poster's account)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"requests for a human review closed or answered by further AI-generated refusals (poster's account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1wwjs10/i_requested_a_chatgpt_refund_6_minutes_after_a/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-04: full self-text and the thread's 6 comments (none by the poster), retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID. The attached screenshots were not retrieved. The poster handle is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-chatgpt-pro-refund-poster"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1wwjyfk/chatgpt_pro_renewal_refund_request_within_minutes/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-04: full self-text and the thread's 15 comments (none by the poster), retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID. Same poster as s1, posted about eleven minutes later and linking s1; not independent.","independence_group":"reddit-chatgpt-pro-refund-poster"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Whether the poster was eligible for a refund under OpenAI's discretionary policy, including any usage in the minutes after renewal.","Whether any human reviewed or set the refusals, and whether a later human review or bank chargeback recovered the $200.","Where the poster lives; the timeline is given in Tbilisi time only."],"geography":{"basis":"The poster gives their timeline in Tbilisi time (UTC+4) but does not say where they were or live; no country is recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter's public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of an AI support system refusing a refund and blocking escalation to a human, described with attribution and without corroboration. The poster's handle is not recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-04"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The poster says the Help Center refusals came from an AI assistant and that the email replies were explicitly labelled as generated with AI support; the screenshots they describe were not retrieved. Whether a human reviewed or set the refusal is not known.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","made_decision_about"]},"name":"First-person forum account: a ChatGPT Pro subscriber says OpenAI's AI support assistant refused a refund they requested about six minutes after an unwanted $200 renewal, closed the case when they asked for escalation, and answered further chat and email requests for a human review with more AI-generated refusals","summary":"In public posts to r/ChatGPT and r/OpenAI on 3 October 2026, a person says their ChatGPT Pro subscription renewed for $200 that day after they forgot to cancel, and that they cancelled auto-renewal and requested a refund in OpenAI's Help Center about six minutes after the charge. They say the Help Center's AI assistant declined without giving a reason specific to their account, and that when they asked for escalation the chat showed that the case was closed. A second chat asking specifically for a human billing specialist produced the same refusal, they write, and two email requests, one with five redacted screenshots, received replies marked as generated with AI support. The poster acknowledges that OpenAI's seven-day refund policy is discretionary and conditional, and says the unresolved problem is that they received no case-specific explanation and no confirmed human review. OpenAI's handling is described only by the poster, and the account is uncorroborated.","incidentDate":"2026-10-03","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-03","aiSystem":"OpenAI Help Center AI support assistant (chat) and AI-generated email support replies handling a ChatGPT Pro refund request","aiProduct":"OpenAI Help Center assistant","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The poster says OpenAI's AI support assistant refused a refund of an unwanted $200 ChatGPT Pro renewal that they requested within minutes, closed the case when they asked for escalation, and that further chat and email requests for a human review produced only AI-generated refusals, leaving them without the $200, a case-specific reason or human review (first-person account, uncorroborated).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the poster. A commenter who says they had the same refund problem is not counted. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1wwjs10/i_requested_a_chatgpt_refund_6_minutes_after_a/","primarySourceLabel":"r/ChatGPT, 3 October 2026: \"I requested a ChatGPT refund 6 minutes after a $200 renewal. The AI rejected it and closed the case.\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-04T03:22:06.262385+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-04T03:22:06.262385+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","openai","chatgpt","ai-customer-support","refund","billing","no-human-review","made-decision-about","communicated-with"]},{"id":"2026-chester-home-bargains-facewatch-shopper-told-to-leave-store","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"can you please put everything down and leave the shop now?","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"come up on our system called Facewatch as a shoplifter","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"he was told to leave his local Home Bargains store after the technology linked him to a theft, which he said had nothing to do with him.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The 67-year-old said the incident, which happened in front of a group of people","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A 67-year-old shopper at a Home Bargains store in Chester was told by a member of staff to put everything down and leave, with the words that the shopper had come up on the store's Facewatch system as a shoplifter, in front of other people.","causal_attribution":"The shopper's account to the BBC and, separately, to the Guardian. Home Bargains declined to comment to the Guardian and the BBC states it had been approached for comment."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"popped into Home Bargains one February lunchtime","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"22 February 2026","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Guardian says one February lunchtime. The year is inferred from the BBC report of 22 February 2026.","causal_attribution":"The Guardian gives the month and no year. The year is inferred from the BBC report of 22 February 2026 and the GB News report of 23 February 2026, which treat the event as recent. The Guardian gives February for another shopper in the same article where PA gives 27 January, so its month wording is not exact for that case."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"He contacted Facewatch, which sent him his photo with words claiming he had put items into a bag and stolen them.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"revealed he had been incorrectly associated with a shoplifting incident on a previous visit to the shop.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"should not have been on the system and his image and \"the associated record\" had been permanently removed.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The shopper contacted Facewatch, which sent a photo with words saying items had been put into a bag and stolen. A subject access request showed the shopper had been incorrectly associated with a shoplifting incident on a previous visit to the store. Facewatch said the shopper should not have been on the system and that the image and associated record were permanently removed.","causal_attribution":"The shopper's account and a Facewatch statement relayed by the BBC. The Guardian rests on a separate interview with the same shopper. Facewatch does not say how the shopper came to be on the system."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"These cases relate to human error in the way processes were carried out in-store, rather than any failure of Facewatch’s technology.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"These three errors are extremely rare cases","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Home Bargains \"has now completed a full review of the incident\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Home Bargains and B&M declined to comment.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"we acted promptly as soon as the matter was brought to our attention","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Home Bargains declined to comment when approached by GB News.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Facewatch's chief executive told the Guardian, in a statement about the three shoppers the article describes (this shopper is one), that the cases related to human error in the way processes were carried out in store and not to a failure of Facewatch technology. Facewatch told the BBC that Home Bargains had completed a full review of the incident. Home Bargains declined to comment.","causal_attribution":"Facewatch describing its own system and its customer's conduct. The Guardian statement refers to \"the matters referenced\" and \"these three errors\", and the article names three shoppers, of whom this shopper is one. The full review outcome was not published."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Home Bargains eventually issued him an apology and a £100 voucher as a “gesture of goodwill without admission”, on the condition that the details of the incident remain confidential.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"declined: “I just thought: ‘Really, you’re trying to buy my silence?’”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Home Bargains later issued the shopper an apology and a 100 pound voucher as a goodwill gesture without admission, on condition that details of the incident remain confidential. The shopper declined the offer.","causal_attribution":"Guardian account, most likely from the shopper. Home Bargains declined to comment. No second chain was inspected."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"I thought I was going to be sick,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"had left him feeling \"helpless\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"It was like I was guilty until proven innocent. It’s an awful feeling.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"He has called for an apology and said he just wanted \"to feel safe\" going into his local shops again.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I’m hyper aware of cameras everywhere now","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The shopper reports feeling physically sick and helpless, describes an awful feeling of being treated as guilty until proven innocent, and says the shopper wants to feel safe going into local shops again and is now hyper aware of cameras.","causal_attribution":"The shopper's own statements to the BBC and the Guardian. No independent assessment was inspected."}],"effects":[{"label":"Told to leave a store in front of others as a shoplifter after being flagged on the Facewatch system, which Facewatch says should not have held a record for the shopper. Reported feeling physically sick, helplessness and ongoing unease about cameras.","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0e56wjz6wo","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"shopper-account-and-facewatch-statements-home-bargains"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/03/guilty-until-proven-innocent-shoppers-falsely-identified-by-facial-recognition-struggle-to-clear-their-name","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"shopper-account-and-facewatch-statements-home-bargains"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.gbnews.com/news/pensioner-kicked-out-home-bargains-facial-recognition-mistake-chester-news","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Rewrite of the BBC account with a separate Facewatch statement to GB News.","independence_group":"shopper-account-and-facewatch-statements-home-bargains"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The visit is recorded at year precision. The Guardian says one February lunchtime with no year, and the year is inferred from the BBC (22 February 2026) and GB News (23 February 2026) reports. The Guardian gives February for another shopper where PA gives 27 January, so its month wording may be approximate.","Whether the error lay in the watchlist entry, the face match or the in-store handling is not established. Facewatch attributes it to human error in store processes and also says the shopper should not have been on its system.","The earlier shoplifting incident to which the shopper was incorrectly linked is not described in the inspected sources.","Home Bargains declined to comment, so no retailer account was inspected. The outcome of its full review is not published.","Whether the shopper's request to see CCTV footage from Home Bargains and the police was met is not reported.","The Guardian account of the apology, voucher and confidentiality condition has no second chain.","All inspected sources trace to the shopper's interviews and Facewatch statements, so no claim is corroborated."],"geography":{"basis":"The BBC places the store in Chester under its North West and Cheshire coverage and quotes a spokesperson for the UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The BBC describes the shopper as of Chester.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an ordinary adverse experience with an automated system. The BBC, Guardian and GB News reports were read in full from saved bodies and treated as one reporting chain (the shopper's interviews plus Facewatch statements). Claims stay at reported status and company statements are attributed. The shopper spoke publicly under their own name and is not named in this record.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Staff told the shopper that the shopper had come up on the store's Facewatch system as a shoplifter, and Facewatch sent the shopper a photo with a written theft allegation. Facewatch said the shopper should not have been on its system and removed the record. Facewatch's chief executive attributes the cases in the Guardian article to human error in store processes. The inspected sources do not show whether the fault lay in how the shopper was added to the watchlist, in a face match or in the in-store handling.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Chester: shopper told to leave a Home Bargains store as a shoplifter after being flagged on the Facewatch system, which Facewatch later said should not have held a record for the shopper","summary":"A 67-year-old shopper told the BBC and the Guardian that staff at a Home Bargains store in Chester told the shopper to leave in front of other people because the shopper had come up on the store's Facewatch system as a shoplifter. Facewatch later sent the shopper a photo with words saying items had been put into a bag and stolen. Facewatch said the shopper should not have been on its system and that the image and associated record were permanently removed. The Guardian reports that a subject access request showed the shopper had been incorrectly associated with a shoplifting incident on an earlier visit, and that Facewatch's chief executive attributed the three cases in the article, which include this shopper's, to human error in store processes. Home Bargains declined to comment. The shopper reports feeling physically sick and helpless. The Guardian reports that Home Bargains later offered an apology and a 100 pound voucher on condition of confidentiality, which the shopper declined. The year of the visit is inferred to be 2026 from the BBC report of 22 February 2026.","incidentDate":"2026-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-02-22","aiSystem":"Facewatch facial recognition watchlist alerts (deployed by Home Bargains)","aiProduct":"Facewatch facial recognition","aiCompany":"Facewatch","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The BBC and the Guardian report the shopper describing feeling physically sick and helpless after being told to leave a store as a shoplifter in front of others, and lasting unease about being recorded. Facewatch said the shopper should not have been on its system.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One shopper reported being told to leave and distressed. No other person is reported harmed in this account.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0e56wjz6wo","primarySourceLabel":"BBC News (22 Feb 2026): Chester man accused of being thief after Home Bargains face scan alert","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:15:52.8187+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:31.23933+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]},{"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":"the mother faced an order denying a psychological-evaluation request, with the judge citing authorities reported to have been generated by ChatGPT","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. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"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. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"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. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"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. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"}],"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 Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9 locate the order and proceedings in Stephens County, Oklahoma, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court. These establish the event and court countries as US. News 9 calls the interviewee a Stephens County mother but gives no explicit residence evidence for either counted person, so affected_person_countries is unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"This reported event connects specific ChatGPT-generated citations to an adverse order issued by a human judge. The Oklahoman and KFOR describe their use in the order, The Oklahoman reports the attorney's reprimand and successful challenge, and News 9 carries the mother's account. The AI admission is reported through one district attorney's letter, not independently verified model output. The family and attorney remain unnamed. No broader custody consequence or disciplinary finding is inferred.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9 relay a district attorney's letter saying the judge acknowledged using ChatGPT for research and incorporating at least two nonexistent citations it produced into his order. The cited authorities were presented in support of the human judge's denial of a requested evaluation and his reprimand of the attorney. This supports informed_decision_about for the affected mother and attorney. It does not establish that ChatGPT itself decided custody or communicated with either of them. The underlying letter and order were not inspected, and whether the citations determined the outcome is unknown.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Prosecutor: judge used ChatGPT citations in Oklahoma custody order later vacated","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":"According to the district attorney's letter as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR, a judge acknowledged that his custody-case order contained at least two nonexistent citations supplied by ChatGPT. The order denied a request for a psychological evaluation and reprimanded the requesting attorney. The attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court before it was vacated. The mother described the discovery as alarming in a News 9 interview. The order and letter have not been inspected directly.","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 via Minnesota Lawyer, 9 September 2026: judge used ChatGPT citations in custody order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:18.787549+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:44.069668+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["justice","family-court","judge","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","institutional-use","oklahoma"]}]}