{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-31T07:34:05.634Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"compensation","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":1,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":3,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"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":"2025-revolut-chatbot-said-loyalty-points-worth-1119-pounds-ombudsman-raised-compensation","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'In September 2025 Mr M got in touch with'; 'Revolut through its chatbot.'; 'It said it would refund £22.38 to his account'; 'and deduct the 1,119 loyalty points he’d earned using that feature.'; 'he was told then that 1,119 points equated to £22.38'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In September 2025 the customer contacted Revolut through its chatbot to ask for a refund of loyalty points earned through its spare change feature; Revolut said it would refund £22.38 and deduct the 1,119 points, which Revolut later described as the chatbot telling him the points equated to £22.38.","causal_attribution":"Facts set out in the ombudsman's decision."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The chatbot confirmed it could refund 1,119 points as a one-time goodwill gesture.'; 'It said this had a cash value of £1,119.'; 'chatbot confirmed it had done that.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Four days later the chatbot confirmed it could refund the 1,119 points as a one-time goodwill gesture, said they had a cash value of £1,119, and confirmed it had processed the refund.","causal_attribution":"Facts set out in the ombudsman's decision; the chatbot's own statements."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'A few hours later the chatbot said the'; 'information it had given was incorrect and the refund of £1,119 wasn’t being processed.'; 'Mr M then asked to speak to a ‘live agent’ who confirmed that the refund of £1,119 was'; 'It said it had'; 'issued a refund for £22.38.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Later that day the chatbot said its information was incorrect and the £1,119 refund was not being processed; a live agent then said it was being processed; the next day the chatbot said it had issued £22.38.","causal_attribution":"Facts set out in the ombudsman's decision."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'There’s no doubt Revolut gave Mr M the wrong information.'; 'Revolut misled Mr M'; 'not once but on several occasions over the course of that day.'; 'Mr M was never entitled to £1,119'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The ombudsman found there was no doubt Revolut gave the customer wrong information, repeated later the same day, and that it misled him on several occasions over that day; the ombudsman held he was never entitled to £1,119.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's findings."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'He says the financial pressure of'; 'losing the expected refund was substantial and destabilising.'; 'He also gave us a letter from his GP that'; 'confirmed his heightened anxiety, insomnia, headaches, and persistent overthinking.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The customer told the ombudsman the financial pressure of losing the expected refund was substantial and destabilising, and provided a GP letter that, according to the decision, confirmed heightened anxiety, insomnia, headaches and persistent overthinking.","causal_attribution":"The customer's account and his GP's letter as summarised by the ombudsman; the ombudsman also noted he was likely aware the higher figure was wrong."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'I uphold this complaint and direct Revolut Ltd to pay Mr M a further £50 on top of the £50 it’s'; 'already paid him'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Revolut had paid £50; the ombudsman upheld the complaint and directed Revolut to pay a further £50.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's final decision."}],"effects":[{"label":"told by the chatbot that his points were worth £1,119 and the refund was processed, then reversed; described financial pressure and anxiety","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-6062372.pdf","kind":"ombudsman_decision","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-15 from the Financial Ombudsman Service PDF (full text, two pages). The decision names neither the customer (Mr M) nor the date it was issued; it asks for acceptance before 5 February 2026.","independence_group":"financial-ombudsman-service-drn-6062372"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The date the decision was issued (the text gives only the 5 February 2026 acceptance deadline).","Whether the customer accepted the decision.","The chatbot's technology and the chat transcript.","Where the customer lives."],"geography":{"basis":"The decision is by the Financial Ombudsman Service and amounts are in pounds, but it does not say where the customer lives or where the exchanges took place; no country is recorded from the ombudsman's remit or the currency.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse experience with a bank's chatbot: an ombudsman's final decision records the chatbot's statements that the customer's points were worth £1,119 and the refund was processed, finds that Revolut misled him on several occasions that day, and raises his compensation for the impact.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Financial Ombudsman Service's decision sets out what Revolut's chatbot told the customer: that 1,119 loyalty points had a cash value of £1,119, that it could refund them as a goodwill gesture and had processed the refund, and hours later that this was incorrect. A human live agent then also confirmed the £1,119 refund. The ombudsman found Revolut gave him wrong information on several occasions that day and awarded compensation for the impact. The decision calls the system a chatbot and does not describe its technology.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Ombudsman finds Revolut misled a customer after its chatbot said his loyalty points were worth £1,119 and confirmed a refund; compensation raised to £100","summary":"In September 2025 a Revolut customer asked the bank, through its chatbot, to cash in loyalty points he had earned through its spare change feature. According to the Financial Ombudsman Service's final decision (DRN-6062372), the chatbot first said the 1,119 points would be refunded as £22.38; four days later it told him the 1,119 points had a cash value of £1,119, offered that as a one-time goodwill gesture and confirmed it had processed the refund. A few hours later the chatbot said that information was wrong; a live agent then said the £1,119 refund was being processed, and the next day the chatbot said it had issued £22.38. Revolut upheld his complaint and paid £50. The ombudsman found that Revolut gave him the wrong information on several occasions that day, held that he was never entitled to £1,119, and directed Revolut to pay a further £50. The customer said the lost expected refund caused financial pressure, and gave a GP letter describing anxiety and insomnia.","incidentDate":"2025-09-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","aiSystem":"Revolut's customer chatbot, which answered a customer's requests to cash in loyalty points and stated the refund value and whether it had been processed","aiProduct":"Revolut chatbot","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Financial Ombudsman Service, Revolut's chatbot told a customer his loyalty points were worth £1,119 and confirmed the refund, then reversed itself; the customer described substantial financial pressure and anxiety, and the ombudsman raised his compensation to £100.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the customer whose complaint the Financial Ombudsman Service decided (Mr M in decision DRN-6062372). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-6062372.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Financial Ombudsman Service final decision DRN-6062372 (Revolut Ltd), acceptance deadline 5 February 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:09:28.982046+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:09:28.982046+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["customer-service-chatbot","banking","wrong-refund-information","ombudsman-decision","loyalty-points"]},{"id":"2023-asturias-court-security-guard-dismissal-unfair-after-switch-to-ai-camera-surveillance","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'La vigilancia presencial permanente dio paso a un sistema de cámaras con inteligencia artificial, rondas itinerantes y respuesta a alarmas'; 'Duro Felguera contrató el nuevo servicio con Securitas el 1 de agosto de 2023'; 'Securitas sustituyó el 95% del sistema anterior, instaló nuevas cámaras e incorporó cámaras con IA para el análisis de vídeo'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"From 1 August 2023 Duro Felguera replaced the continuous on-site guarding provided by Protectum with a Securitas service that combined cameras with artificial intelligence for video analysis, roving patrols and alarm response, according to La Razón's account of the judgment.","causal_attribution":"La Razón's account of the proven facts of the judgment; the judgment was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'dejó a los vigilantes de la anterior contrata fuera del nuevo contrato'; 'que había extinguido el contrato del empleado el 31 de julio de 2023'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The guards of the outgoing contract were left out of the new contract, and Protectum ended the claimant guard's employment on 31 July 2023.","causal_attribution":"La Razón's account of the case."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'La sentencia 1385/2024 del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias, fechada el 29 de julio de 2024'; 'la nueva adjudicataria quedó absuelta porque el sistema de rondas y vigilancia electrónica era diferente'; 'El despido, sin embargo, fue declarado improcedente'; 'El fallo le reconoció 30.672,72 euros por la extinción del contrato'; 'a razón de 58,76 euros diarios'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The High Court of Justice of Asturias (judgment 1385/2024, 29 July 2024) absolved Securitas of taking on the guard because the new service differed from the old, declared the dismissal unfair and ordered Protectum to pay €30,672.72 plus processing wages at €58.76 a day.","causal_attribution":"La Razón's account of the judgment."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'aunque siguió habiendo intervención humana'; 'La presencia de esa tecnología formaba parte de la reorganización acreditada, pero no convirtió el despido en procedente'; 'El tribunal señala que el nuevo contrato era más barato'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"La Razón states that human intervention continued in the new service and that the presence of AI was part of the established reorganisation without making the dismissal lawful; the court also noted that the new contract was cheaper.","causal_attribution":"La Razón's analysis and its account of the judgment; this limits how far the job loss can be attributed to AI."}],"effects":[{"label":"a security guard lost his job when the client replaced continuous on-site guarding with a remote-monitoring service that included AI video-analysis cameras and roving patrols","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.larazon.es/tecnologia-consumo/inteligencia-artificial/justicia-avala-empresa-reemplace-sus-vigilantes-fisicos-camaras-automatizadas-inteligencia-artificial-mantener-su-plantilla_202610096ac8c68ffb06971aadff1a69.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Read in full in Spanish by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. The article reports the content of TSJ Asturias judgment 1385/2024, which was not itself inspected.","independence_group":"larazon-tsj-asturias-1385-2024-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The location of the guarded installations and how many guards of the outgoing contract lost their jobs.","What the AI cameras analysed and how much of the reduction in on-site guarding they accounted for, as against roving patrols and remote operators.","Whether an appeal for the unification of doctrine was lodged and whether the compensation has been paid.","The text of judgment 1385/2024, which was not inspected."],"geography":{"basis":"The case was decided by the Gijón labour court and the High Court of Justice of Asturias (La Razón). The article does not state where Duro Felguera's guarded installations are, so no event country is recorded from the court's seat; the guard's residence is not stated.","court_countries":["ES"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a consequential-response case: according to La Razón's account of the judgment, a guard's employment ended when the client replaced on-site guarding with a service built on AI video-analysis cameras, and the High Court of Justice of Asturias declared the dismissal unfair. The AI connection and the ruling are reported from one newspaper account; the guard is a private person and is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"La Razón attributes the harm to a client's decision to adopt a security service that included cameras with AI for video analysis. La Razón, describing the proven facts of the judgment, reports that continuous on-site guarding gave way to a system of cameras with artificial intelligence for video analysis, roving patrols and alarm response, and that the guards of the outgoing contract were left out. It also reports that human guards still intervened and that the new contract was cheaper, so the AI cameras are one part of the reorganisation that ended the post. As La Razón reports it, the court's reasoning turned on the changed identity of the service (roving patrols and electronic surveillance, a 95% equipment renewal, a cheaper contract), and the AI cameras appear in its proven facts as one element of that renewal. No source says an AI system produced any output about the guard, so the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Asturias court rules a security guard's 2023 dismissal unfair after a client replaced on-site guarding with AI cameras and patrols, La Razón reports","summary":"According to La Razón's account of a July 2024 judgment of the High Court of Justice of Asturias, Duro Felguera replaced the continuous on-site guarding provided by the contractor Protectum with a Securitas service that, from 1 August 2023, combined cameras with artificial intelligence for video analysis, roving patrols and alarm response. The guards of the outgoing contract were left out of the new one. Protectum ended a guard's employment on 31 July 2023. The court held that Securitas did not have to take him on because the new service was different, declared the dismissal unfair and ordered Protectum to pay him €30,672.72 in compensation plus processing wages. La Razón notes that human guards still intervened in the new service and that the presence of AI was part of the reorganisation without making the dismissal lawful.","incidentDate":"2023-07-31","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-09","aiSystem":"Cameras with artificial intelligence for video analysis, installed by Securitas as part of a remote-monitoring, roving-patrol and alarm-response service that replaced continuous on-site guarding; no product is named","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI video-analysis system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to La Razón's account of the judgment, the guard lost his job when the client replaced continuous on-site guarding with a service built on AI video-analysis cameras, roving patrols and alarm response; the court declared the dismissal unfair and awarded him €30,672.72 plus processing wages against his former employer. Other guards of the outgoing contract were also left out; their outcomes are not reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One counted: the guard whose dismissal the court ruled on. La Razón says the guards (plural) of the previous contract were left out of the new contract but gives no number and does not report whether the others lost their jobs, so only the claimant is counted, as a documented minimum.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"ES","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.larazon.es/tecnologia-consumo/inteligencia-artificial/justicia-avala-empresa-reemplace-sus-vigilantes-fisicos-camaras-automatizadas-inteligencia-artificial-mantener-su-plantilla_202610096ac8c68ffb06971aadff1a69.html","primarySourceLabel":"La Razón, 9 October 2026: report on a High Court of Justice of Asturias judgment on guards replaced by AI cameras","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:24.169189+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:24.169189+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["dismissal","workplace-ai","security-guards","video-analytics","labour-court","unfair-dismissal","consequential-response"]}]}