{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-07T07:58:19.670Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"cline","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2026","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":3,"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":"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"]}]}