{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-31T07:32:58.804Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"compensation","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":4,"mixedRelations":2,"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":"2025-sixth-circuit-removes-appointed-defence-lawyer-over-cocounsel-drafted-briefs-delaying-indigent-defendants-appeal","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'qualified for a two-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines for his leadership role during drug-trafficking activities.'; 'serving as court-appointed counsel for an indigent defendant through a publicly funded program'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act represented an indigent defendant appealing a two-level leadership enhancement to his drug-trafficking sentence in the Sixth Circuit.","causal_attribution":"The court's own description of the appointment and the appeal."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The first tell was the file name of the principal brief:'; '“CoCounsel Skill Results.” CoCounsel is the name of Westlaw’s internal artificial-intelligence'; 'But the purported direct quotations do not appear in their cited sources.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The first tell was the file name of the principal brief: \"CoCounsel Skill Results.\" CoCounsel is the name of Westlaw's internal artificial-intelligence platform.'; 'But the purported direct quotations do not appear in their cited sources.'; 'misrepresent the holdings of both United States v. Washington'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court found that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results', that three quotations in the briefs appear in no legal authority, and that the briefs misrepresented the holdings of two precedents.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings, quoted verbatim in the Volokh post; the opinion PDF carries the same text."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'he directed an unnamed “staff” member to'; 'upload district court documents to Westlaw’s CoCounsel program to create a first draft of the'; 'repeated that same process for the reply brief.'; 'He concedes that the three inaccurate quotations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'he directed an unnamed \"staff\" member to upload district court documents to Westlaw's CoCounsel program to create a first draft of the principal brief.'; 'He concedes that the three inaccurate quotations identified above were the product of artificial intelligence, that they do not appear in any legal authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer admitted that a staff member uploaded district court documents to Westlaw's CoCounsel to create a first draft of the principal brief, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the three inaccurate quotations were produced by artificial intelligence and not verified.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's show-cause response as the court records it; the court's opinion documents the admission."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'shall not be compensated under the Criminal Justice Act for his time spent on'; 'to consider disciplinary proceedings under Sixth'; 'Disciplinary Clerk for the Kentucky Bar Association'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court ordered that the lawyer receive no Criminal Justice Act compensation for the appeal, forwarded the opinion to the circuit's chief judge to consider disciplinary proceedings, and served it on the Kentucky Bar Association's disciplinary clerk.","causal_attribution":"The court's orders."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'different appellate counsel to file new briefs—further delaying resolution of'; 'reset the briefing schedule upon appointment of replacement counsel.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"By a separate order the same day the court removed the lawyer, directed the appointment of replacement counsel, locked the briefs he had filed and reset the briefing schedule, which the court said further delayed resolution of the defendant's criminal appeal.","causal_attribution":"The court's own account of its separate order and of the delay."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'utilizing Westlaw CoCounsel “in this way for a Court of Appeals brief.”'; 'has never been disciplined over his 40-year career'; 'candor in acknowledging his improper use of artificial intelligence.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'first time utilizing Westlaw CoCounsel \"in this way for a Court of Appeals brief.\"'; 'has never been disciplined over his 40-year career'; 'his candor in acknowledging his improper use of artificial intelligence.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer said this was his first use of CoCounsel in this way for an appeals brief and that he had not been disciplined in a 40-year career; the court acknowledged his timely response and candour while finding his conduct inexcusable.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's explanations and the court's assessment, as the opinion records them; recorded as mitigation."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'***LOCKED PURSUANT TO ORDER ENTERED 04/03/2026***APPELLANT BRIEF filed by'; 'Certificate of Service: 10/21/2025. Argument Request: not requested. [25-5623]'; '***LOCKED PURSUANT TO ORDER ENTERED 04/03/2026***REPLY BRIEF filed by Attorney'; 'Certificate of Service: 12/26/2025. [25-5623]'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The docket records that the principal brief for the defendant was filed on 21 October 2025 and the reply brief on 26 December 2025, and that both entries were locked under the order of 3 April 2026.","causal_attribution":"Clerk docket entries; they date the filings and do not describe their contents."}],"effects":[{"label":"indigent defendant's criminal appeal delayed while replacement counsel files new briefs","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"},{"label":"court-appointed lawyer denied compensation for the appeal and referred for disciplinary consideration","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0105p-06.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Sixth Circuit published per curiam opinion, No. 25-5623, decided and filed 3 April 2026; PDF read in full (HTTP 200).","independence_group":"sixth-circuit-opinion-3-apr-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/04/09/the-first-tell-was-the-file-name-of-the-principal-brief-cocounsel-skill-results/","kind":"commentary_with_filing_excerpt","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Volokh Conspiracy (Reason), 9 April 2026, quoting the same opinion at length; read in full (HTTP 200). Same origin as the opinion.","independence_group":"sixth-circuit-opinion-3-apr-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?q=docket_id%3A70724463%20BRIEF&type=rd","kind":"court_docket_index","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"CourtListener search API listing of docket entries for Sixth Circuit No. 25-5623 (RECAP), read on 2026-10-19 (HTTP 200); entry descriptions as entered by the clerk. Party and counsel names in the entries are not reproduced.","independence_group":"sixth-circuit-docket-25-5623"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["How long the appeal is delayed, and the outcome of any disciplinary proceedings."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal is from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the lawyer practises in Kentucky (opinion).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published with communicated_with and informed_decision_about: the court documents that a court-appointed defence lawyer filed briefs drafted with Westlaw's CoCounsel that carried quotations found in no authority, and, acting on those briefs, removed him, ordered new counsel and briefing that delayed the indigent defendant's criminal appeal, and denied him compensation. The harm reaches a criminal defendant who did not use the tool.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results' and that three quotations in the briefs appear in no legal authority. The lawyer admitted that a staff member used Westlaw's CoCounsel to produce the first draft, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the false quotations were produced by artificial intelligence. Reading those briefs, the court removed him, ordered new counsel and new briefs for the defendant, and denied him compensation.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Sixth Circuit removes court-appointed defence lawyer over CoCounsel-drafted briefs with false quotations, delaying an indigent defendant's appeal","summary":"In a published opinion of 3 April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed the briefs a lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act had filed for an indigent defendant appealing a sentencing enhancement in a drug-trafficking case. The court noticed that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results' and found three quotations that appear in no legal authority and misstatements of two precedents. The lawyer admitted that a staff member had used Westlaw's CoCounsel to create the first draft, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the false quotations came from artificial intelligence he did not verify. The court denied him compensation for the appeal, referred the opinion for possible disciplinary proceedings and to the Kentucky Bar Association, and by separate order removed him, locked his briefs and ordered replacement counsel to file new ones, which it said further delayed resolution of the defendant's appeal. The court acknowledged his candour and his 40 years without discipline.","incidentDate":"2025-10-21","incidentEndDate":"2026-04-03","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-04-03","aiSystem":"Westlaw CoCounsel (Thomson Reuters), used by a lawyer's staff member to produce the first drafts of a principal and a reply brief","aiProduct":"CoCounsel","aiCompany":"Thomson Reuters","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court documents that briefs drafted with Westlaw's CoCounsel and filed unverified by a court-appointed lawyer led it to remove him and order new counsel and briefs, further delaying an indigent defendant's criminal appeal; the lawyer was denied compensation for the appeal and referred for disciplinary consideration.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two: the defendant, whose appeal the court says was further delayed, and the lawyer, who was denied compensation and referred. The lawyer's staff member ran the tool and is not counted; no other harmed person is described.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0105p-06.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 25-5623, opinion decided and filed 3 April 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-19T03:16:56.688661+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-19T03:16:56.688661+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["legal","ai-fabricated-quotations","court-appointed-counsel","criminal-appeal","sanction","cocounsel"]},{"id":"2026-chatgpt-pro-subscriber-says-openai-ai-support-assistant-refund-ended-restored-subscription-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On September 30, 2026, I paid $200 for a ChatGPT Pro subscription'; 'OpenAI explicitly acknowledged that my account had been disabled in error and apologized'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says they paid $200 for ChatGPT Pro on 30 September 2026, the account was disabled two days later and appeals were rejected for about two weeks, and on 17 October OpenAI acknowledged in an email that it had been disabled in error.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account; the acknowledgement email was not retrieved. No AI involvement in the suspension is described."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I contacted its AI-powered support system to request compensation for the lost days'; 'The AI assistant explained that it could not directly provide credits, usage-limit resets, or discounts'; 'offered me a proportional refund of'; 'The assistant stated that accepting the refund would immediately cancel my ChatGPT Pro subscription'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says that when they asked OpenAI's AI-powered support assistant for compensation, it said it could not give credits, usage resets or discounts and offered a proportional refund of $86.67, warning that accepting it would immediately cancel the subscription.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account of the assistant's replies; the conversation was not retrieved."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The AI did warn me about cancellation'; 'Yes, I approve'; 'I had repeatedly expressed my desire to continue using the subscription'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says they confirmed the refund after the warning while having said they wanted to keep the subscription.","causal_attribution":"Records the poster's own confirmation, which bears on causation."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The assistant told me that my paid access had ended and that my account would return to the Free plan'; 'The assistant explained that it could not reverse a refund once it had been processed'; 'It suggested purchasing another subscription'; 'This was extremely frustrating'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says the assistant then told them the paid access had ended, said it could not reverse the refund and suggested buying another subscription, which the poster found extremely frustrating.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The support system eventually confirmed that my request had been forwarded to a specialist'; 'As of this post, I am still waiting for a substantive resolution'; 'At the time of writing, I have not independently confirmed that the $86.67 refund has actually arrived'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says the request was forwarded to a human specialist and was unresolved at the time of posting, and that the refund had not yet been confirmed as received.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."}],"effects":[{"label":"AI support assistant's refund ended a restored Pro subscription the poster wanted to keep (poster's account)","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPTcomplaints/comments/1x8oayw/i_paid_200_for_chatgpt_pro_openai_banned_me_after/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-18 at about 03:06 UTC from the entry for this post in Reddit's sitewide search RSS feed (full self-text). The arctic_shift archive copy shows '[removed]', with the removal recorded as made by Reddit rather than the subreddit's moderators (reason not stated). The thread's comment feed, re-read at about 03:09 UTC on 18 October, showed two comments by other users and no reply by the poster. The poster's handle is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-chatgptcomplaints-pro-refund-poster"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The content of the support conversation and the acknowledgement email, which the poster describes but did not publish in the text read.","Whether a human set or reviewed the refund-with-cancellation terms the assistant offered.","Why the account was disabled and whether that decision involved automated systems.","Whether the human specialist restored the subscription or offered other compensation, and whether the refund arrived.","Why Reddit removed the post."],"geography":{"basis":"The post does not say where the poster was when the events occurred, and no country is recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of an AI support assistant's refund decision ending a subscriber's restored paid access when they sought compensation. Described with attribution and without corroboration, including the poster's acknowledgement that the assistant warned of cancellation and that they confirmed; the poster's handle is not recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-18"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The poster says OpenAI's AI-powered support assistant declined the compensation the poster proposed, offered a proportional refund conditional on immediate cancellation, processed it on the poster's confirmation, ended the paid access and said it could not reverse the refund. The poster connects these replies and actions to the loss of the restored subscription. The poster acknowledges being warned and confirming; the conversation was not retrieved and whether a human set or reviewed the refund terms is not known.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","made_decision_about"]},"name":"ChatGPT Pro subscriber says OpenAI's AI support assistant, asked for compensation, processed a refund that ended a restored subscription (first-person account)","summary":"In a public post to r/ChatGPTcomplaints created on 17 October 2026, a ChatGPT Pro subscriber writes that OpenAI disabled their account two days after they paid $200 on 30 September, rejected their appeals for about two weeks, and on 17 October restored the account, acknowledging in an email that it had been disabled in error. The poster says they then asked OpenAI's AI-powered support assistant for compensation for the lost days while keeping the subscription. According to the poster, the assistant said it could not give credits, usage resets or discounts, offered a proportional refund of $86.67 and warned that accepting it would immediately cancel the subscription; the poster replied 'Yes, I approve', and the assistant then said the paid access had ended, that it could not reverse the refund, and suggested buying another subscription. The poster acknowledges the warning and their confirmation but says they misunderstood the consequence and had asked about the lost period, not the remaining one. The request was forwarded to a human specialist and was unresolved at the time of posting. The account is uncorroborated; the post was later removed by Reddit for an unstated reason.","incidentDate":"2026-10-17","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-17","aiSystem":"OpenAI's AI-powered support assistant for ChatGPT subscribers (as described by the poster), which handled a compensation request and processed a refund with cancellation","aiProduct":"OpenAI support assistant (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The poster says OpenAI's AI support assistant, asked for compensation after an acknowledged wrongful ban, processed a refund that immediately ended their restored Pro subscription, could not reverse it, and suggested buying a new one (first-person account, uncorroborated; the poster confirmed the refund after a warning).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the poster, who used the support assistant.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPTcomplaints/comments/1x8oayw/i_paid_200_for_chatgpt_pro_openai_banned_me_after/","primarySourceLabel":"r/ChatGPTcomplaints, 17 October 2026: \"I paid $200 for ChatGPT Pro. OpenAI banned me after 2 days...\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-18T03:11:31.45341+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-18T03:11:31.45341+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","openai","ai-customer-support","refund","subscription"]},{"id":"2025-shanghai-yangpu-man-used-ai-faked-food-poisoning-medical-records-to-extort-restaurants-convicted","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'要求商家赔偿2000元医疗费，否则将投诉和曝光'; '最终转账赔付'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'店家赔了钱'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A customer told a Yangpu barbecue restaurant he had fallen ill after eating there, produced a hospital visit record and invoice, demanded 2,000 yuan in medical costs under threat of complaints and publicity, and the restaurant paid.","causal_attribution":"Police account relayed by Shangguan; the Procuratorate Daily feature gives the same episode briefly. Different reporting chains on the same police case; marked reported because the details (amount, threat) come from the police account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'材料均系伪造'; '利用AI软件对图片进行篡改，替换姓名、调整日期、伪造金额'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'从未有过相关就医记录'; '于是用手机AI工具生成了虚假材料'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Police found the man had no hospital record and the materials were forged; police say he confessed to altering images of other people's medical records with AI software, replacing the name, date and amount.","causal_attribution":"The AI use rests on the man's admission as reported by police (Shangguan) and in China Voice's report of the investigation (Xinhua). The tool is not named, and the accounts differ on whether existing record images were altered or materials generated."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'成功敲诈勒索两起，未遂两起，非法获利2500元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'去年11月第一次索赔成功后，一个月内他又以同样方式对四家餐厅提出索'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Police say he succeeded twice and failed twice, obtaining 2,500 yuan; Xinhua reports that after a first successful claim in November of the previous year he made similar claims against four more restaurants within a month.","causal_attribution":"Counts come from the police account (Shangguan) and the China Voice report; they are not reconciled (two plus two versus one plus four), so the record keeps both."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'上海市杨浦区人民法院审理认定'; '判处拘役四个月、缓刑四个月，并处罚金2000元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'利用AI技术伪造就医材料、恶意投诉、敲诈勒索商家的案件依法提起公诉'; '法院审理后以敲诈勒索罪判处'; '利用AI软件生成急性肠胃炎诊断证明和逼真的呕吐物照片'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Yangpu District People's Procuratorate prosecuted him in June 2026, and the Yangpu District People's Court convicted him of extortion and sentenced him to four months' criminal detention, suspended for four months, and a 2,000 yuan fine; the Procuratorate Daily says he used AI software to generate gastroenteritis diagnosis certificates and vomit photos.","causal_attribution":"Two reporting chains give the same sentence; both relay the court outcome and the judgment itself was not read, so the claim is reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"restaurants paid compensation demanded with AI-forged medical records (police: 2,500 yuan from two successful claims)","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.shobserver.cn/sgh/detail?id=1713109","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17; no human reviewer inspected the text. Shangguan News report of the Yangpu public security sub-bureau's account, 26 February 2026.","independence_group":"yangpu-police-account-2026-02"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://app.xinhuanet.com/news/article.html?articleId=20260616b5cfed558eda4c739780064335734766","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17; no human reviewer inspected the text. Xinhua client carry of a China Media Group China Voice report (reporters named in the text), 16 June 2026, drawing on the police investigation and the court judgment.","independence_group":"cmg-china-voice-2026-06"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.chinanews.com.cn/fz/2026/10-14/10714250.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17; no human reviewer inspected the text. China News Service carry of a Procuratorate Daily feature ('来源：检察日报'), 14 October 2026.","independence_group":"procuratorate-daily-2026-10"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The AI tool used, and whether it altered existing record images or generated documents and photos from text.","How many restaurants were targeted and paid: the police account gives two successful and two failed claims, Xinhua a first claim plus four more within a month.","The date of the judgment; the text of the judgment was not read."],"geography":{"basis":"The restaurants are in Yangpu district, Shanghai, and the Yangpu police, procuratorate and court handled the case (Shangguan, Xinhua, Procuratorate Daily).","court_countries":["CN"],"event_countries":["CN"],"affected_person_countries":["CN"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case (made_claim_about): Yangpu police say a man used AI software to forge medical records claiming food poisoning and obtained 2,500 yuan from restaurants, which he admitted; the Yangpu court convicted him of extortion. Three reporting chains (police account, China Voice, Procuratorate Daily).","reviewed_on":"2026-10-17"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Yangpu police say the man confessed to altering images of other people's medical records with AI software, changing the name, date and amount and adding a beef food-poisoning note, after the hospital confirmed he had no record (Shangguan). China Voice (Xinhua) says he used an AI tool on his phone to generate the false materials, and the Procuratorate Daily says he used AI software to generate diagnosis certificates and vomit photos and was prosecuted for using AI to forge medical materials. The AI output is the forged documents and photos asserting that the restaurants' food had made him ill (made_claim_about), which the restaurants relied on when they paid. The tool is not named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Shanghai court convicts a man who, police say, used AI software to fake food-poisoning medical records and extort restaurants into paying compensation","summary":"Police in Yangpu district, Shanghai, say a customer extorted restaurants with medical records he had forged using AI software; Xinhua dates his first successful claim to November 2025. In the police account (Shangguan News, 26 February 2026) he claimed to have fallen ill after eating at a barbecue restaurant, showed a hospital visit record and medical invoice, and demanded 2,000 yuan in medical costs, threatening complaints and publicity; the restaurant paid. Police checked with other diners and the hospital, found he had no hospital record and the materials were forged, and say he confessed to using AI software to alter images of other people's medical records, replacing the name, date and amount. Police say he succeeded twice and failed twice, obtaining 2,500 yuan, and that he also filed complaints to market regulators with the forged material to pressure the restaurants. According to Xinhua's June report and the Procuratorate Daily, the Yangpu District People's Court convicted him of extortion and sentenced him to four months' criminal detention, suspended for four months, and a 2,000 yuan fine.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-02-26","aiSystem":"AI software on the man's phone that, according to Yangpu police, he used to alter images of other people's medical records (name, date, amount) and, according to later reports, to generate gastroenteritis diagnosis certificates, receipts and vomit photos; the tool is not named","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to Yangpu police, restaurants paid compensation demanded with AI-forged medical records: a barbecue restaurant paid 2,000 yuan, and the man obtained 2,500 yuan in total from two successful claims, with two more attempts failing.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Police say two extortions succeeded and two failed. One payer is described: the barbecue restaurant's person in charge, who paid 2,000 yuan (Shangguan). The second paying restaurant's people are not described, so the count is 1 plus an unquantified remainder.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.shobserver.cn/sgh/detail?id=1713109","primarySourceLabel":"Shangguan News, 26 February 2026: Yangpu police on a barbecue restaurant that paid 2,000 yuan over forged medical records","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-17T03:18:51.274802+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-17T03:18:51.274802+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["fake-medical-records","food-poisoning-claim","extortion","restaurants","criminal-conviction","shanghai","china","made-claim-about"]},{"id":"2026-abc-ai-medical-scribe-false-drug-use-record","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'she was asked whether she consented to having the appointment transcribed by artificial intelligence (AI)'; 'with the AI scribe making up the serious but false claim that'; 'it made up that I take [psychedelic] mushrooms. I have never done mushrooms in my life'; 'only picked up the mistake after her kidney stone surgery in March, when she read the post-operative letter her specialist sent to her GP'; 'micro-dosed mushrooms and that could be the reason for prior bleeding around the kidneys'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The patient consented to AI transcription of her first urology appointment; after her March 2026 kidney-stone surgery she found that the post-operative letter to her GP stated she micro-dosed mushrooms and that this could explain earlier bleeding around the kidneys, a claim she says is false.","causal_attribution":"Patient's account to ABC; the attribution of the false entry to the AI scribe is hers and ABC's framing."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I was gobsmacked and in tears'; 'was particularly stressed as she was receiving workers' compensation and felt any mention of illegal drugs on her medical record could impact her case'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"She reported distress and feared the entry could affect her workers' compensation case.","causal_attribution":"Patient's account."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the urologist sent a letter apologising'; 'Please be assured that we take the accuracy of our documentation very seriously, and we are truly sorry that this occurred'; 'it appeared to be from an error during the \"dictation or transcription process\"'; 'The urologist corrected the correspondence and in her letter said she would review how AI was used in her practice'; 'The doctor did not provide any responses to the ABC's questions about what changes, if any, have been made since'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"After her complaint the urologist apologised in writing, said the cause could not be determined but appeared to be an error in the dictation or transcription process, corrected the correspondence and said she would review her use of AI; she did not answer ABC's questions about changes made.","causal_attribution":"Doctor's letter as quoted by ABC; the doctor does not confirm the scribe as the origin."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'AHPRA, said clinicians must always check all output from an AI scribe for accuracy to ensure they meet their professional obligations'; 'said it was clear her doctor did not do this'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"AHPRA told ABC that clinicians must always check all output from an AI scribe for accuracy; the patient said it was clear her doctor had not.","causal_attribution":"Regulator comment and patient's view; context for the case."}],"effects":[{"label":"a false claim of psychedelic-mushroom use entered the patient's medical record and reached her GP; distress and fear for her workers' compensation case","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the correspondence was corrected and the doctor apologised after the patient complained","claim_id":"c3","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-14/ai-medical-scribe-error-leaves-patient-devastated/107031672","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-09-20 (HTTP 200; saved body 402,866 bytes). Feature by the ABC Specialist Reporting Team based on the patient's interview and the letters she received, plus regulator and peak-body comment.","independence_group":"abc-news-2026-08-14"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["health"],"unknowns":["The AI scribe product and vendor are not named.","The location of the clinic and the patient's residence are not stated.","The date of the appointment at which the transcription was made is not stated. The report gives the surgery as 'in March' without a year; 2026 is taken from the 14 August 2026 publication date.","Whether the false claim originated in the scribe's output or in a later dictation or editing step is not established; the doctor's letter says the cause could not be determined.","What changes the practice made afterwards are not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"No inspected source states where the appointment or the patient is located. The ABC report frames the case within Australian regulation (AHPRA, RACGP, TGA) and quotes Australian bodies, but does not locate the patient or the clinic, so the event and affected-person countries are left unknown rather than inferred from the publisher. No court proceeding.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an everyday-assistance and health case in which an AI system made a false claim about a person in her medical record, with reported distress and a corrected record. Single ABC News report read in full; claims recorded as reported and attributed to the patient and the doctor's letter. The patient is named in the report but not in this record; the doctor and clinic are unnamed.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-20"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The patient told ABC that the appointment was transcribed by an AI scribe with her consent and that the false mushroom claim appeared in the resulting post-operative letter; the doctor's apology attributes the claim to an error during the 'dictation or transcription process' without confirming the scribe as the origin. The product is not named. Single ABC report.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Reported by ABC News (Australia): an AI scribe used at a urology appointment inserted a false claim that the patient took psychedelic mushrooms into her record; the error reached her GP in a post-operative letter and was corrected only after she complained","summary":"A patient who consented to having her first urology appointment transcribed by an artificial-intelligence scribe discovered, after her kidney-stone surgery in March 2026, that the post-operative letter her specialist sent to her GP stated she micro-dosed psychedelic mushrooms and that this could explain earlier bleeding around the kidneys. She says she has never taken mushrooms. She was receiving workers' compensation and feared that any mention of illegal drugs on her medical record could affect her case. After she complained, the urologist sent a letter of apology saying the practice takes documentation accuracy seriously, that she could not determine how the claim came to be included but that it appeared to be an error during the 'dictation or transcription process', that the correspondence had been corrected and that she would review how AI was used in her practice. The doctor did not answer ABC's questions about what changes had been made. Australia's practitioner regulator AHPRA told ABC that clinicians must check all AI-scribe output; the patient says it was clear her doctor had not. The account is a single ABC News report (14 August 2026) based on the patient's interview and the letters she received; the scribe product and the clinic's location are not named.","incidentDate":"2026-03-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-08-14","aiSystem":"AI medical scribe (product not named in the report)","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI medical scribe","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The patient reports distress ('gobsmacked and in tears') and fear for her workers' compensation case after a false illegal-drug claim entered her medical record and was sent to her GP; the record was corrected after her complaint. The false entry is attributed by the patient to the AI scribe and by the doctor to an error in the dictation or transcription process.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One patient whose record carried the false claim (ABC report). The clinician used the AI tool, so the patient is counted as another person harmed rather than a participant user. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-14/ai-medical-scribe-error-leaves-patient-devastated/107031672","primarySourceLabel":"ABC News (Specialist Reporting Team), 14 August 2026: Error by AI scribe during medical appointment leaves patient devastated","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-20T03:28:12.119063+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:22.846812+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-scribe","medical-records","health","transcription-error","false-record","workers-compensation","abc-news"]}]}