{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-06T08:32:50.415Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"consent","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":1,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":3,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"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":"2025-shanghai-voice-actor-ai-synthesised-voice-company-promotion-appeal-ruling","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'2026年9月29日，上海市第一中级人民法院依法审结上海首例人工智能合成语音引发的自然人声音权益保护纠纷案件，判决平台运营方构成声音侵权，赔偿权利人经济损失5万元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'上海市第一中级人民法院依法判决：驳回上诉，维持原判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'驳回上诉，维持原判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'经上海市第一中级人民法院二审，于2026年9月29日驳回上诉，维持原判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 29 September 2026 the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court concluded a voice-rights case arising from AI-synthesised speech, described as the first in Shanghai, holding that the platform operator infringed and must pay 50,000 yuan for economic loss; the appeals were dismissed and the first-instance judgment upheld.","causal_attribution":"Court outcome as relayed by outlets citing the court; the judgment was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'2025年1月'; '从好友处了解到'; 'A公司在其互联网推广拉新活动中疑似使用了'; '该活动使用的自己声音疑似AI合成，于是对相关音频进行了公证以固定证据'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In January 2025 the voice actor learned from a friend that Company A appeared to be using the voice actor's voice in an online user-acquisition promotion, judged the audio to be AI-synthesised and had it notarised before suing.","causal_attribution":"The claimant's case as summarised in the court account."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'其从未与A公司进行过合作和任何授权，A公司擅自使用其声音构成侵权，遂要求A公司停止侵权并赔偿经济损失30万元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The voice actor said there had been no cooperation with or authorisation of Company A and asked the court to stop the use and award 300,000 yuan.","causal_attribution":"The claimant's position as summarised in the court account."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A公司辩称，案涉音频确为该公司开发的AI生成，但具体的来源和投喂的素材因前员工离职无法确认'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Company A said the audio was generated by AI the company had developed, but that its source and the material fed to the system could not be confirmed because a former employee had left.","causal_attribution":"The company's defence as summarised in the court account; the company denied using the voice actor's voice."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'在28个共振峰声学指标中'; '有24个偏离度小于10%，其中16个小于5.36%，两者较为相似及高度相似的部分达到90%'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A forensic comparison found that 24 of 28 formant indicators deviated by less than 10 percent and that the parts rated fairly or highly similar reached 90 percent.","causal_attribution":"Forensic opinion as summarised in the court account."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A公司的行为构成人工智能生成声音侵权'; '赔偿5万元'; '双方均不服一审判决，提起上诉'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'并向长宁区人民法院提出起诉'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The first-instance court awarded 50,000 yuan and both sides appealed; the Legal Daily report carried on Sina Finance says the claim was filed in the Changning District People's Court.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history as relayed from the court account."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'未经自然人同意，使用自然人的声音作为训练语料，模仿该自然人的音色、语调和发音风格等生成能够识别该自然人的合成人声，应当认定侵害自然人声音权益'; '应承担举证不能的不利后果'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appeal court held that using a person's voice as training material without consent to generate an identifiable synthetic voice infringes that person's voice rights, and that Company A bore the consequence of failing to prove the lawful source of its material.","causal_attribution":"The appeal court's reasoning as relayed; it rests on a presumption from similarity and access, because the company did not produce its training records."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'涉案语音上架持续时间较短，属流程播报提示音效'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appeal court noted that the audio was online for a short time and was a process prompt sound in the promotion.","causal_attribution":"The appeal court's reasoning on the amount, as relayed."}],"effects":[{"label":"courts reported to have found a voice actor's voice identifiable in AI-synthesised audio used without consent in a company promotion","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://news.ifeng.com/c/8woTv1MjTRx","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"The Paper's article as carried on ifeng, read in the original Chinese on 2026-10-05 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. Relays the Shanghai High People's Court WeChat account; the judgment itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"shanghai-no1-intermediate-court-release"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20260929A0C6NK00","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Southern Metropolis Daily N Video on Tencent News, read in Chinese on 2026-10-05 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. The reporter cites the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court; same court account as s1.","independence_group":"shanghai-no1-intermediate-court-release"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://finance.sina.com.cn/jjxw/2026-09-29/doc-initpatz6144930.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Legal Daily article carried on Sina Finance, read in the original Chinese on 2026-10-05 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. Same court account with the first-instance court named and a judge's commentary.","independence_group":"shanghai-no1-intermediate-court-release"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["Which company and which speech-synthesis product were involved; the court account anonymises both.","When the promotion began and how long the audio was in use.","Whether the company used the voice actor's recordings as training material; the court presumed it because the company did not prove otherwise.","The dates of the filing and of the first-instance judgment.","Where the voice actor lives."],"geography":{"basis":"The case was decided by the Changning District People's Court and the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court in China. The reports anonymise the company and the app and do not say where the company is based, where its online promotion ran or where the voice actor lives, so no event or affected-person country is recorded.","court_countries":["CN"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): the Shanghai courts found that a company imitated a voice actor's voice with AI-synthesised audio in a promotion without consent and awarded 50,000 yuan. One reporting chain (the court's release, read in three Chinese outlets); the parties are anonymised by the court.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"In the court account, the company said the audio was generated by AI it had developed, and both courts found AI-generated voice infringement. The audio imitated the voice actor's voice (depicted_or_impersonated). The company denied using the voice actor's recordings; the appeal court relied on a forensic similarity report and on the company's failure to prove the source of its training material.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Shanghai: an appeal court upheld a 50,000 yuan award to a voice actor after finding that AI-synthesised audio in a company's online promotion was identifiable as the voice actor's voice","summary":"Chinese outlets reported on 29 September 2026, citing the Shanghai courts, that the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court had concluded what it called Shanghai's first voice-rights case arising from AI-synthesised speech. According to the court's account, a voice actor who publishes work on an app learned from a friend in January 2025 that a company appeared to be using the voice actor's voice in an online user-acquisition promotion, judged the audio to be AI-synthesised, had it notarised and sued for 300,000 yuan. The company said the audio was generated by AI it had developed but that the training material could not be confirmed, and denied using the voice actor's voice. A forensic comparison rated about 90 percent of the measured features as fairly or highly similar. The first-instance court awarded 50,000 yuan and both sides appealed. The appeal court held that the company had put an identifiable synthetic voice to commercial use without consent, dismissed the appeals and upheld the award.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-29","aiSystem":"AI speech synthesis developed by the defendant company (anonymised as Company A in the court account), which the courts found had generated audio imitating the voice actor's voice for an online promotion","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's account as relayed by Chinese outlets, the Shanghai courts found that AI-synthesised audio used in a company's online promotion was identifiable as a voice actor's voice and had been used without consent, causing economic loss, and awarded 50,000 yuan.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the voice actor who brought the claim (court account relayed by The Paper, Southern Metropolis Daily and Legal Daily). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://news.ifeng.com/c/8woTv1MjTRx","primarySourceLabel":"The Paper via ifeng, 29 September 2026: AI took a voice actor's voice, company ordered to pay 50,000 yuan","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:16:35.611187+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:16:35.611187+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["voice-cloning","voice-rights","voice-actor","court-ruling","shanghai","china","depicted-or-impersonated"]},{"id":"2024-us-otter-notetaker-recorded-non-users-meetings-privacy-suit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'participated in a Zoom meeting in California on February'; '24, 2025, where the Otter Notetaker was used by a meeting participant to transcribe the'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in California in March 2025'; 'used Zoom to communicate with a medical professional, and'; 'Illinois on January 10, 2025 and May 19, 2025 where the Otter Notetaker was used to'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in Washington state in March'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state who'; 'participated in virtual meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their'; 'consent to record, transcribe, and store the contents of their communications.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the'; 'allegations concerning the named Plaintiff’s personal knowledge, experiences, expectations, or'","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'who alleges his privacy was \"severely invaded\" upon realizing Otter was secretly recording a confidential conversation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Seven people who were not Otter account holders allege that, on Zoom or Microsoft Teams calls (six give dates between March 2024 and May 2025), another participant used Otter Notetaker and Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations without their consent; the calls include one with a medical professional and meetings with a financial professional.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs attribute the recording to Otter's product design, which they say lets the notetaker record without every participant's consent; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'other personal information for its own commercial use, including to train its automatic speech'; 'The Illinois Plaintiffs allege that, during their virtual meetings, Otter'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter claims that before the audio of meetings is fed into its machine learning systems to help improve an AI speech recognition feature, it is \"de-identified,\"'","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter keeps their conversational data on its servers and uses it to train its speech-recognition and machine-learning models, and that it captured the Illinois plaintiffs' voiceprints; Otter's policy, as reported by NPR, says it trains on transcripts with users' permission and de-identifies audio.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'felt frustrated, embarrassed, and stressed to learn that his'; 'conversation was recorded without his consent, and his information, voice, and'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One California plaintiff alleges that he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn that his conversation had been recorded without his consent.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs as a consequence of Otter's recording."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ ECPA claim is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ BIPA claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'The motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend as to Count 2'; 'The motion is DENIED in all other respects.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 13 August 2026 the court denied Otter's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, holding that the alleged interception and retention of private conversations was a concrete injury, let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, and dismissed some other claims.","causal_attribution":"Procedural ruling on the pleadings; no finding that Otter recorded anyone unlawfully."}],"effects":[{"label":"the plaintiffs say Otter's notetaker recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations on calls they joined, without their consent, including a medical call and calls with a financial professional","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the plaintiffs say their conversations stay on Otter's servers for training its models and that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"one plaintiff says he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn he had been recorded","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.35.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 35, filed 5 December 2025; RECAP PDF (68 pages) read on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200), plaintiffs' experience sections read in full. Plaintiffs' allegations, not findings.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part, ECF 68, 13 August 2026 (Judge Eumi K. Lee); RECAP PDF read in full on 2026-09-29. Rules on the pleadings and accepts the allegations as true for that purpose; it makes no finding of fact.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.80.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Otter.ai's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 80, 17 September 2026; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29, plaintiff-experience paragraphs and responses read.","independence_group":"otter-answer"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Brewer v. Otter.ai, Inc., original Class Action Complaint, ECF 1, filed 15 August 2025; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.npr.org/2025/08/15/g-s1-83087/otter-ai-transcription-class-action-lawsuit","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"NPR, 15 August 2025, read live on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200). Reports the original complaint and summarises Otter's privacy policy; says neither side responded to requests for comment.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.79.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order, ECF 79, 16 September 2026; read on 2026-09-29. Procedural facts only.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","work","health","finance"],"unknowns":["Whether Otter's product notified the plaintiffs on their calls that the notetaker was present, and what the other participants' Otter settings were.","Whether the plaintiffs' conversations were in fact used to train Otter's models, and in what form.","The exact date of one Illinois plaintiff's meetings, which the complaint places only within the limitations period."],"geography":{"basis":"The consolidated complaint places the plaintiffs' calls in California, in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois, and in Washington state; the order describes the plaintiffs as individuals from California, Illinois and Washington state. The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a bounded series of concrete privacy harms reported by identified people in a pending federal suit: each named plaintiff describes a call on which another participant's AI notetaker recorded and transcribed them without consent. The account rests on the plaintiffs' pleadings and the court's ruling on them; Otter denies the allegations. Plaintiff names are omitted.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Each plaintiff alleges that the Otter Notetaker, an AI transcription assistant, was used on their call and recorded and transcribed it; the relation recorded is that the AI produced speaker-attributed transcripts and, the complaint alleges, voiceprints identifying each speaker, a record of who said what (ECF 35 paras 10-11). Otter admits it offers an AI meeting assistant called Otter Notetaker but says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' calls and denies the allegations.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"United States: seven people who say they did not hold Otter accounts say Otter's AI Notetaker recorded and transcribed their Zoom and Teams meetings without their consent, including a medical call and calls with a financial professional, and kept the data to train its models; a federal court let their core privacy claims proceed","summary":"Seven people in California, Illinois and Washington state are suing Otter.ai in a consolidated class action in the Northern District of California. Each says another meeting participant used Otter's AI Notetaker on a Zoom or Microsoft Teams call they joined, and that Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversation without their consent; six of them date their calls between March 2024 and May 2025. They say they were not Otter account holders. The calls they describe include a medical consultation, meetings with a financial professional and work discussions. They allege that Otter keeps the recordings and uses them to train its speech-recognition models, that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs, and one of them says learning of the recording left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed. On 13 August 2026 the court found that the alleged interception of private conversations was a concrete injury and let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, while dismissing some claims. Otter's answer to the consolidated complaint, filed on 17 September 2026, says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' experiences and denies the allegations.","incidentDate":"2024-03-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-19","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-08-15","aiSystem":"Otter Notetaker, Otter.ai's AI meeting assistant, joined to Zoom and Microsoft Teams calls by another participant's Otter account","aiProduct":"Otter Notetaker","aiCompany":"Otter.ai, Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter recorded, transcribed and kept their private conversations on calls they joined without their consent, including medical and financial discussions, used them to train its models and took voiceprints, and one plaintiff says learning this left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed (plaintiffs' allegations in a pending suit; Otter denies them).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":7,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The court order says 'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state' who participated in meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their consent; each describes their own call in the consolidated complaint. They were not Otter account holders (one says only that to her knowledge she did not create an account), so they are counted as other people. The proposed class members are not counted. Documented minimum 7.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Order granting motion to dismiss in part, In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, No. 5:25-cv-06911-EKL (N.D. Cal.), 13 August 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:04:08.493618+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:54.438217+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["otter-ai","ai-notetaker","meeting-transcription","privacy","wiretap","bipa","voiceprint","training-data","class-action","non-user"]},{"id":"2026-st-clair-v-xai-grok","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On or about January 4, 2026, Ms. St. Clair discovered a public post on X by xAI's AI chatbot Grok, published via its @Grok account on X, that had artificially altered a photo of her'; 'After a follow up exchange, Grok stated, \"I confirm that your images will not be used or altered without explicit consent in any future generations or responses.\"'; 'X users dug up photos of Ms. St. Clair fully clothed at 14 years old and requested Grok undress her and put her in a bikini. Grok obliged.'; 'was stripped and put in a string bikini covered with swastikas.'; 'In response, she received an email that there was no violation found.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The lawsuit alleges that even though Grok confirmed her \"images will not be used or altered without explicit consent in any future generations or responses,\" xAI continued to allow users to create more explicit AI-generated images of her and instead retaliated by demonetizing her X account.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"'In one instance, X users allegedly dug up photos of St. Clair fully clothed at 14 years old and requested Grok undress her, the suit alleged. The chatbot obliged, according to the suit.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"}],"assertion":"St. Clair's complaint alleges that on or about 4 January 2026 she found that Grok, prompted by another X user, had altered a photo of her into a sexualized image and published it through the @Grok account on X; that after she told @Grok she did not consent, Grok replied that her images would not be used or altered without explicit consent; and that Grok then produced and published many more sexualized images of her at other users' requests, including one made from a photo of her at 14 and one covered in swastikas, while X's reporting channel told her no violation was found.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegations in her complaint, relayed by the news reports; xAI has not answered the merits and no court has made findings on them."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'\"I have suffered and continue to suffer serious pain and mental distress as a result of xAI's role in creating and distributing these digitally altered images of me,\" St Clair said in a document attached to the lawsuit.'; '\"I am humiliated and feel like this nightmare will never stop so long as Grok continues to generate these images of me,\" she said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"'I felt so disgusted and violated.'; 'It's still happening. People are still able to produce these images on the stand-alone Grok app and website,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s11"},{"locator":"'removed Ms. St. Clair's Premium subscription, her verification checkmark, and demonetized her account'; 'Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, serious personal injuries, including but not limited to emotional distress, psychological trauma, loss of privacy, reputational harm, and fear of continued dissemination.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"St. Clair says she suffered and continues to suffer pain and mental distress and humiliation from the images, told Fortune she felt disgusted and violated and that the images were still being produced in late January 2026, and alleges that X removed her Premium subscription, verification checkmark and monetization after she complained.","causal_attribution":"St. Clair's own statements (lawsuit declaration via Al Jazeera, interview with Fortune, complaint); one account."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'On January 15, 2026, Plaintiff commenced an action in Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.'; 'That same day, Defendant X.AI Holdings Corp. removed the State Court Action to this Court'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Case 7:26-cv-00005-O Document 1 Filed 01/15/26'; 'The xAI Entities bring this action to secure a declaration that Defendant's actions in commencing the New York suit constitute a violation of the forum-selection clause, injunctive relief to stop Defendant from infringing Plaintiffs' rights under the Terms of Service, and'; 'monetary damages, including reasonable attorney's fees incurred in defending the New York'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'On Thursday, xAI sued St. Clair in federal court in Texas, saying she violated xAI's terms of service and claiming damages of over $75,000.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"St. Clair sued xAI in New York Supreme Court on 15 January 2026 and xAI removed the case to the Southern District of New York the same day; also on 15 January 2026 X.AI LLC and X.AI Holdings Corp. sued her in the Northern District of Texas, alleging that suing in New York breached the forum-selection clause of the xAI terms of service and seeking a declaration, an injunction and damages including attorneys' fees.","causal_attribution":"Court records (filing and removal dates recited in the SDNY opinion; the Texas complaint itself)."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'For the reasons discussed above, Defendants motion to transfer is hereby GRANTED.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS filed in USCA 2nd Circuit.'; 'to the extent that Petitioner seeks an administrative stay pending review by a three-Judge panel, the motion is GRANTED.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'A Writ of Mandamus is currently pending before the Second Circuit.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"'SCHEDULING ORDER: This case is set for trial on March 1, 2027.'; 'AMENDED COMPLAINT against Ashley St Clair filed by X.AI LLC, X.AI Holdings LLC, X Corp..'; 'REPLY filed by Ashley St Clair re: 48 MOTION to Dismiss'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"'hereby stipulate to stay discovery through the resolution of any motion to dismiss.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"On 23 June 2026 the Southern District of New York granted xAI's motion to transfer St. Clair's case to the Northern District of Texas under the forum-selection clause in X's terms of service; St. Clair petitioned the Second Circuit for a writ of mandamus, and on 8 July 2026 the Second Circuit granted an administrative stay pending review by a three-judge panel, which her 24 August 2026 filing describes as still pending; in the Texas action (amended in May 2026 to add X Corp.) trial is set for 1 March 2027, her motion to dismiss was fully briefed on 24 August 2026, and the parties stipulated to stay discovery until any motion to dismiss is resolved.","causal_attribution":"Court records read on 2026-09-27; the newest entries found are dated 24 August 2026 (Texas) and 12 August 2026 (New York)."}],"effects":[{"label":"sexualized Grok-generated images of the plaintiff, including one made from a photo of her at 14, published on X after she objected (alleged)","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"reported distress and humiliation, and loss of X Premium status and monetization after complaining (her account)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"sued by xAI in Texas over where she brought her claims (court records)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.656279/gov.uscourts.nysd.656279.36.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"First Amended Complaint, St. Clair v. X.AI Holdings Corp., No. 1:26-cv-00386 (S.D.N.Y.), ECF 36, filed 3 February 2026; RECAP PDF read in full on 2026-09-27. Plaintiff's allegations, not findings.","independence_group":"st-clair-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.656279/gov.uscourts.nysd.656279.96.0.pdf","kind":"court_opinion","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Opinion & Order of Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr., ECF 96, 23 June 2026, granting the defendants' motion to transfer to the Northern District of Texas on the forum-selection clause in X's terms of service; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-27. It recites the filing and removal dates and decides venue only.","independence_group":"sdny-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72148688/st-clair-v-xai-holdings-corp/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"CourtListener docket page read newest-first on 2026-09-27 (page last updated 1 Sept 2026; last known filing ECF 107, 12 Aug 2026). Carries the Second Circuit order of 8 July 2026 (USCA 26-1777) and the later extension order.","independence_group":"sdny-court-record"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.656279/gov.uscourts.nysd.656279.106.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Stipulation staying discovery, ECF 106, filed 7 August 2026, signed by counsel for both sides and referring to both the New York and the Texas actions; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-27.","independence_group":"sdny-court-record"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.413941/gov.uscourts.txnd.413941.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Complaint, X.AI LLC v. St. Clair, No. 7:26-cv-00005-O (N.D. Tex., Wichita Falls Division), ECF 1, filed 15 January 2026; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-27. xAI's allegations.","independence_group":"xai-filings"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72147630/xai-llc-v-st-clair/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"CourtListener docket page for the Texas action read newest-first on 2026-09-27; newest entry is ECF 55 (24 August 2026). Scheduling order, amended complaint adding X Corp., motion to dismiss and mediation deadline.","independence_group":"ndtx-court-record"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.413941/gov.uscourts.txnd.413941.55.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"St. Clair's reply in support of her motion to dismiss the Texas action, ECF 55, filed 24 August 2026; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-27. States that the mandamus petition and the Second Circuit stay were still pending on that date.","independence_group":"st-clair-account"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ashley-st-clair-sues-xai-grok-sexual-images-rcna254302","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"NBC News, 15 January 2026, read live on 2026-09-27 (the historical primary source). Reports the complaint and the Texas suit.","independence_group":"st-clair-account"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/15/business/elon-musk-son-mom-sues-grok-images","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"CNN Business, 15 January 2026, read live on 2026-09-27. Reports the complaint, the Texas suit and St. Clair's CNN interview.","independence_group":"st-clair-account"},{"id":"s10","url":"https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/17/mother-of-elon-musks-child-sues-his-ai-company-over-grok-deepfake-images","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Al Jazeera, 17 January 2026, read live on 2026-09-27. Quotes the statement attached to the lawsuit and counsel.","independence_group":"st-clair-account"},{"id":"s11","url":"https://fortune.com/2026/01/28/ashley-st-clair-elon-musk-grok-x-deepfakes-lawsuit-xai/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Fortune, 28 January 2026, read live on 2026-09-27. St. Clair's own interview account to Fortune; not independent of her complaint.","independence_group":"st-clair-account"},{"id":"s12","url":"https://globalnews.ca/news/11616630/ashley-st-clair-sues-xai-grok-fake-sexual-images/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Global News (Canada), 16 January 2026, read live on 2026-09-27. Relays the complaint (legal documents obtained by NBC News and viewed by Global News).","independence_group":"st-clair-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","justice","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["When images of St. Clair were first generated; Al Jazeera reports her saying they began appearing in 2025, while the amended complaint dates her discovery of the first @Grok image to on or about 4 January 2026.","How many images were made of her and how widely they were viewed; the complaint says the images it lists are only those she was able to locate.","The Second Circuit's decision on the mandamus petition (USCA 26-1777) and the Texas court's ruling on her motion to dismiss; neither had been found as of 27 September 2026.","xAI's response on the merits; its filings found so far address forum and contract only."],"geography":{"basis":"The amended complaint alleges that St. Clair resided in New York County at all relevant times and that a substantial part of the events occurred and her damages were suffered there; xAI's Texas complaint also describes her as a resident of New York. The images were published on X, which is reachable worldwide. The courts are in New York and Texas and the appeal is in the Second Circuit.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Restored under the 2026-09-15 charter as a depiction case brought by a public figure suing in her own name. The complaint, the New York and Texas dockets and orders, and five news reports were read. Her account of the images and their effects is recorded as allegation. The procedural history is taken from the court records. Her child is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-27"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges that the images were generated and published by xAI's Grok through the @Grok account on X at other users' requests, and that @Grok replied to St. Clair's objection with an assurance about her images (FAC paras. 68-75). xAI's own Texas complaint states that X.AI LLC operates Grok. No court has made findings about the images.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated","communicated_with"]},"name":"St. Clair v. xAI: a writer says Grok made and published sexualized images of her on X, including from a photo of her at 14, after it told her it would not; xAI sued her in Texas and her New York case was ordered transferred there, an order the Second Circuit has stayed pending her mandamus petition","summary":"Ashley St. Clair, a writer and political commentator with about 1 million followers on X, sued xAI in New York on 15 January 2026. She alleges that from on or about 4 January 2026 Grok, prompted by other X users, altered photos of her into sexualized images and published them on X, including one made from a photo of her at 14. She says @Grok told her that her images would not be used or altered without explicit consent, but many more images followed. She also says X's reporting channel found no violation and that X removed her Premium subscription, verification checkmark and monetization. She says she has suffered serious pain, mental distress and humiliation. The same day, xAI sued her in federal court in Texas, arguing that its terms of service required her to sue there. On 23 June 2026 the New York federal court ordered her case transferred to Texas. On 8 July the Second Circuit stayed that order administratively while it considers her mandamus petition, which was still pending on 24 August. The Texas case is set for trial on 1 March 2027.","incidentDate":"2026-01-04","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-01-15","aiSystem":"Grok (xAI's generative AI chatbot with image editing, used through the @Grok account on X)","aiProduct":"Grok","aiCompany":"xAI (X.AI Holdings Corp., X.AI Corp. and X.AI LLC; the amended complaint says SpaceX acquired X.AI Holdings Corp. on 2 February 2026)","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse","psychological_distress","reputational_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"St. Clair alleges that Grok generated and published sexualized images of her, including one made from a photo of her at 14, and says she suffered pain, mental distress and humiliation (First Amended Complaint; her statement via Al Jazeera; her interview with Fortune). The complaint also alleges reputational harm and loss of privacy. xAI's Texas suit against her seeks damages including attorneys' fees (court records). None of these allegations has been adjudicated.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the plaintiff, is described as harmed in this case. Other people depicted by Grok in the same period are not counted here.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ashley-st-clair-sues-xai-grok-sexual-images-rcna254302","primarySourceLabel":"NBC News, 15 January 2026: Ashley St. Clair, the mother of one of Elon Musk's children, sues xAI over Grok sexual images","firstPublishedAt":"2026-01-29T09:21:27.594424+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:54.448524+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["grok","xai","x","deepfake","non-consensual-imagery","lawsuit","forum-selection","public-figure","depicted-or-impersonated","communicated-with","restored"]}]}