{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-07T07:04:35.179Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"cline","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":1,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":2,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"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-tallinn-administrative-court-fines-complainants-ai-drafted-document-invented-scientists","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Kaebajad pöördusid halduskohtusse raieloa vaidlustamiseks ja saatsid kohtule dokumendi, kus viidati lageraie mõjusid puudutavatele teadustöödele'; 'Kohus avastas, et viidetes nimetatud Eesti teadlasi ei ole päriselt olemas ja kirjeldatud teadustöid polnud võimalik leida'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Kohus avastas, et viidetes nimetatud Eesti teadlasi ei ole päriselt olemas ja kirjeldatud teadustöid polnud võimalik leida'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Complainants contesting a felling permit sent the Tallinn Administrative Court a document citing scientific work on clear-cutting; the court found that the Estonian scientists named do not exist and that the studies could not be found.","causal_attribution":"The court's finding as reported by two outlets giving the same account (one chain); the ruling was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Tallinna Halduskohus määras trahvi kaebajatele, kes esitasid kohtule tehisaru abil koostatud dokumendi, mis sisaldas viiteid välja mõeldud teadlaste töödele'; 'Kaebajad vastasid, et tehisaru kasutamine pole keelatud ja nad ei tahtnud kohut eksitada'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Tallinna halduskohus määras esimest korda kohtusse pöördujatele trahvi, sest kaebuses leidus tehisaru loodud valeväiteid'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The document was drafted with the help of AI according to the reports, and the complainants, asked how it was produced, replied that using AI is not forbidden and that they had not meant to mislead the court.","causal_attribution":"The outlets' description and the complainants' reported reply; no tool is named."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Seejärel määras halduskohus ühele kaebuse esitajale trahvi 150 eurot ja veel üheksale kaebajale 50 eurot'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Seejärel määras halduskohus ühele kaebuse esitajale trahvi 150 ja veel üheksale kaebajale 50 eurot'; 'kaebajad vastutavad kohtule esitatud väidete õigsuse eest'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine other complainants 50 euros each, saying that complainants are responsible for the accuracy of what they submit to the court.","causal_attribution":"Court step as reported; the ruling was not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Samuti andis kohus kaebajatele võimaluse esitada viidatud teadustööd kirjalike tõenditena ja hoiatas, et võib neid muidu kohtu eksitamise katse eest trahvida'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Before fining them, the court gave the complainants the chance to submit the cited works and warned that it could fine them for attempting to mislead the court.","causal_attribution":"Court step as reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Trahvimise peale esitatud määruskaebust arutanud Tallinna Ringkonnakohus nõustus halduskohtuga'; 'Riigikohus ei võtnud sel nädalal asja menetlusse, mistõttu on trahv nüüd jõustunud'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Tallinn Circuit Court agreed with the administrative court, and Delfi Ärileht reports that the Supreme Court declined to take the case that week, so the fines are in force.","causal_attribution":"Appeal steps as reported by Delfi Ärileht; the appeal rulings were not read."}],"effects":[{"label":"a court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine others 50 euros each over a document drafted with AI","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the document the complainants submitted cited scientists who do not exist and studies that could not be found","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://arileht.delfi.ee/artikkel/120593306/valjamoedud-teadlased-ja-uuringud-kohus-maaras-tehisaru-luulude-eest-eesti-esimese-ai-trahvi","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"et","translation_note":"Read in Estonian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-05 (Delfi Ärileht, published 26 June 2026); no human translator reviewed it. Its account of the case matches the ERR report sentence for sentence, which indicates a common court announcement; same chain as the other source. The court rulings were not read. Estonian 'tehisaru' is rendered as AI, 'kaebajad' as complainants and 'määruskaebus' as an appeal against the ruling.","independence_group":"tallinn-administrative-court-ai-fine-announcement-2026-06"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.err.ee/1610063551/kohus-maaras-tehisaru-loodud-valevaidete-tottu-kaebajatele-trahvid","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"et","translation_note":"Read in Estonian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-05 (ERR, published 26 June 2026); no human translator reviewed it. Its account of the case matches the Delfi Ärileht report sentence for sentence; same chain as the other source. It adds remarks by the chair of the court to ERR. The court rulings were not read.","independence_group":"tallinn-administrative-court-ai-fine-announcement-2026-06"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used and which of the complainants used it.","The dates on which the document was submitted and the fines were imposed.","The outcome of the felling-permit dispute itself.","The case numbers and full reasoning of the three courts."],"geography":{"basis":"The events recorded are court events in Estonia. Both reports say the complainants sent the document to the Tallinn Administrative Court, which fined them, and Delfi Ärileht calls it Estonia's first AI fine and says the Tallinn Circuit Court and the Supreme Court dealt with the appeals. The reports do not state where the complainants live or where the tool was used.","court_countries":["EE"],"event_countries":["EE"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter: complainants who submitted a court document drafted with AI, citing scientists who do not exist, were fined by the court, and the fines are reported in force. The account is one court announcement as carried by Delfi Ärileht and ERR (one chain); all claims are reported because the rulings were not read. No complainant is named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Delfi Ärileht reports that the complainants submitted a document drafted with the help of AI, and ERR that the complaint contained false statements created by AI; both report that the complainants, asked how the document was produced, replied that using AI is not forbidden. The tool gave the complainants the content they submitted (communicated_with). No tool is named and the rulings were not read.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Estonia: Tallinn Administrative Court is reported to have fined ten complainants in a felling-permit case over a document drafted with AI that cites the work of scientists who do not exist; the fines of 150 and 50 euros are reported in force in June 2026","summary":"According to Delfi Ärileht and ERR (both 26 June 2026), complainants who went to the Tallinn Administrative Court to contest a felling permit sent the court a document that cited scientific work on the effects of clear-cutting. The court found that the Estonian scientists named in the references do not exist and that the studies described could not be found. It asked the complainants how the document had been produced, gave them the chance to submit the cited works, and warned that it could fine them for attempting to mislead the court. The complainants replied that using AI is not forbidden and that they had not meant to mislead the court. The court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine others 50 euros each, saying that complainants are responsible for the accuracy of what they submit. Delfi Ärileht reports that the Tallinn Circuit Court agreed with the administrative court and that the Supreme Court declined the case that week, so the fines are in force. No report names the AI tool.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-06-26","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tool with which, according to the reports of the court's ruling, the complainants' document was drafted; the document cited scientists who do not exist","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine others 50 euros each for submitting a document, drafted with AI, that cited scientists who do not exist; Delfi Ärileht reports that the Circuit Court agreed with the ruling and that the fines are in force (Delfi Ärileht; ERR for the fines).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":10,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine other complainants 50 euros each, ten people in all (Delfi Ärileht; ERR). The reports treat the complainants together as the submitters of the document drafted with AI and do not say which of them used the tool.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"EE","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://arileht.delfi.ee/artikkel/120593306/valjamoedud-teadlased-ja-uuringud-kohus-maaras-tehisaru-luulude-eest-eesti-esimese-ai-trahvi","primarySourceLabel":"Delfi Ärileht, 26 June 2026: Invented scientists and studies, court imposes Estonia's first AI fine","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:33:19.084955+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:33:19.084955+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated-citations","court-filing","court-fine","estonia","tallinn","administrative-court","own-use","estonian-language"]},{"id":"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"]}]}