{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-30T07:25:40.823Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"consumer-protection","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"unknown","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":2,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":0,"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":"2024-utah-home-warranty-ai-chatbot-agreed-3000-air-conditioner-payout-firm-refused-then-paid-after-tv-inquiry","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"contacted his warranty provider, Choice Home Warranty, again through its online chat portal and asked them to replace the unit. ... He declined the company's initial offer, which would have cost him $1,800, and he made a counteroffer. ... Can I just get the maximum payout of $3,000.00 and I will order and get it installed myself.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The homeowner contacted Choice Home Warranty through its online chat portal to ask for a replacement air conditioner, declined an initial offer that would have cost him $1,800, and asked for the maximum $3,000 payout.","causal_attribution":"Homeowner's account as reported by KSL."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The warranty company agreed to his offer, writing, \"We will proceed with the payout option of $3,000.00 as per your request.\" ... said he was assured several times thereafter that the \"payout has been initiated,\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The chat replied that the company would proceed with the $3,000 payout, and the homeowner says he was told several times afterwards that the payout had been initiated.","causal_attribution":"Chat text and the homeowner's account as reported by KSL."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"He said, 'We've had this AI up for about a week and it's really confusing and it's miscommunicating to people.' ... It was a bot, programmed to represent the company — artificial intelligence that was apparently on the fritz.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"By the homeowner's account, when he called about the missing payment a company representative said the firm had had 'this AI' up for about a week and that it was confusing and miscommunicating to people; KSL reports that the chat partner was an AI bot programmed to represent the company.","causal_attribution":"The representative's statement is relayed by the homeowner; KSL's description of the bot is the outlet's narrative, hedged as apparently malfunctioning."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"He told the company he expects them to honor what was promised. He said they refused.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The homeowner says he asked the company to honour the promised payout and it refused.","causal_attribution":"Homeowner's account."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The chatbot did it' is not going to be an excuse when it comes to deceptive acts and practices in the State of Utah ... In the end, the division won't be investigating his experience with an AI chatbot.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The director of the Utah Division of Consumer Protection told KSL that 'the chatbot did it' is not an excuse for deceptive practices in Utah; the division did not investigate this case.","causal_attribution":"Regulator's statement to KSL; general, not a finding about this company."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"the company told him that they would honor their chatbot's offer after all. ... He has since received his check. There is still no comment from the warranty company for this story.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"After KSL contacted the company, the homeowner said it agreed to honour the chatbot's offer, and he received the check; the company did not comment to KSL.","causal_attribution":"Homeowner's account as reported by KSL; no company statement."}],"effects":[{"label":"$3,000 payout agreed in the AI chat refused by the company (homeowner's account)","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"company paid the agreed amount after a TV consumer reporter contacted it (homeowner's account)","claim_id":"c6","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.ksl.com/article/51137100/what-is-a-companys-obligation-when-ai-chatbot-makes-a-promise-that-cant-be-kept","kind":"news_article","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-30 (HTTP 200); article dated 29 Sep 2024 15:09 MDT (page metadata and byline line). The accompanying video was not viewed. The AOL/Moneywise relay found by search returned 404 and was not read.","independence_group":"ksl-investigates-warranty-chatbot"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The dates of the chat, the refusal and the payment, which the report does not give beyond preceding 29 September 2024.","Which AI system ran the company's chat and why it agreed the payout.","Whether the company's account of the episode differs; it did not comment."],"geography":{"basis":"KSL reports from Draper, Utah, on a warranty claim for the homeowner's air conditioner, which a technician sent by the company had repaired, and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection commented on the case. The company is described as New Jersey-based.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a reported consumer case: a company's AI chat agreed a $3,000 warranty payout to a described customer, the company refused it citing its AI miscommunicating, and paid only after a television consumer reporter intervened. The account rests on one outlet's report of the customer's statements and screenshots; the company did not comment.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-30"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"KSL reports that the homeowner negotiated in the company's online chat, declining an $1,800 offer and asking for $3,000, and that the chat replied 'We will proceed with the payout option of $3,000.00 as per your request'; the company then refused the payout. By the homeowner's account a company representative attributed this to 'this AI', up for about a week and miscommunicating to people, and KSL describes the chat partner as an AI bot that was apparently malfunctioning. The company did not comment and no technical detail of the system is published.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Utah homeowner says home warranty firm's AI chatbot agreed a $3,000 air-conditioner payout, the firm refused it, then paid after a TV inquiry","summary":"KSL TV reported on 29 September 2024 that a homeowner in Draper, Utah, asked Choice Home Warranty through its online chat to replace a failing air conditioner. He declined an offer that would have cost him $1,800, asked for the maximum $3,000 payout, and the chat replied that the company would proceed with the $3,000 payout. When the money did not arrive he called, and a company representative told him, by his account, that the firm had had 'this AI' up for about a week and it was miscommunicating to people; the firm refused to pay. After KSL contacted the company, the homeowner said it agreed to honour the offer, and he received the check. The company did not comment to KSL.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2024-09-29","aiSystem":"The online chat on Choice Home Warranty's customer portal, which KSL describes as an AI bot programmed to represent the company and which a company representative, as relayed by the homeowner, called 'this AI'","aiProduct":"Choice Home Warranty chatbot","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The homeowner says the warranty company refused to pay a $3,000 payout its AI chat had agreed, leaving him without the money for a failing air conditioner until a television consumer reporter intervened, after which the company paid (KSL report; the company did not comment).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the homeowner who used the chat and was refused the payout. The other customers the representative said the AI was miscommunicating with are not described and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.ksl.com/article/51137100/what-is-a-companys-obligation-when-ai-chatbot-makes-a-promise-that-cant-be-kept","primarySourceLabel":"KSL.com (KSL Investigates), 29 Sep 2024: What is a company's obligation when AI chatbot makes a promise that can't be kept?","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-30T03:13:59.589935+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-30T03:13:59.589935+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["customer-service-ai","chatbot-promise","home-warranty","consumer-protection","payout"]},{"id":"2026-guangzhou-court-treble-damages-clothing-shop-ai-generated-product-photos-misled-online-buyer","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"通过某购物平台向某服装公司经营的店铺购买两件女士上衣，共支付411元。 ... 商家答复“我们店铺的图片都是实物拍摄”，并提供了模特身高、体重及尺码信息。","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court's typical-case release of 12 March 2026, as reported, a buyer paid 411 yuan on a shopping platform for two women's tops from a shop run by a clothing company; before buying, the buyer asked whether the model photos and clothes were real shots, and the seller replied that all the shop's pictures were real photographs and gave the model's height, weight and size.","causal_attribution":"The court's account of the facts, relayed by one outlet."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"实物与宣传图片存在显著差异，两件服装在花纹、版型、造型等方面与图片有明显不同。经审查，案涉商品图片均系“AI”生成，商品的详情页面均仅有“AI”图片，没有实物图片或照片，也未有案涉图片系“AI”生成的说明、提示或标识。","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"案涉服装在花纹、版型等方面与AI宣传图的差异“已远超‘合理美化’‘适度修图’和‘细微差异’的边界”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the court's account, the garments received differed markedly from the product pictures in pattern, cut and style; on review the pictures were all AI-generated, the product pages carried only AI images with no real photographs, and nothing said or indicated that the images were AI-generated.","causal_attribution":"The court found the images were AI-generated and differed significantly from the goods."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"认为商家构成欺诈，故诉请退货退款并要求三倍赔偿。","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The buyer considered the seller's conduct fraud and sued for return of the goods, a refund and treble damages.","causal_attribution":"The buyer's claim as described in the court's release."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"经营者对利用人工智能技术生成的介绍、宣传等内容，负有审查义务。 ... 某服装公司利用“AI”技术生成与实物差异显著的图片，并在消费者询问时虚假陈述，存在明显的欺诈故意，应承担三倍赔偿责任。","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"法院确立了一条裁判规则：经营者对利用AI技术生成的宣传内容负有审查义务，应确保其客观、准确反映实际状况；若AI生成图片与实物存在显著差异且未如实告知，导致消费者陷入错误认识而购买，构成消费欺诈。","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court held that a business has a duty to review content it generates with AI, that undisclosed AI-generated information differing significantly from the goods which leads a consumer to buy constitutes consumer fraud, and that the clothing company, which used AI to generate pictures differing significantly from the goods and made a false statement when asked, had a clear intent to defraud and must pay treble compensation.","causal_attribution":"The court's holding, relayed from its release."}],"effects":[{"label":"a buyer paid for two tops that differed markedly from the shop's AI-generated product pictures, which the seller had called real photographs, court finds","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.yzwb.net/news/sh/202603/t20260313_331265.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-10-24; quoted passages were translated into English by the research agent (an AI), not by a human translator. Yangtse Evening Post (Ziniu News) report of 13 March 2026 relaying the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court's 12 March 2026 release of ten consumer-protection typical cases; read in full (HTTP 200).","independence_group":"guangzhou-intermediate-court-consumer-cases-release-2026-03-12"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.chinanews.com.cn/m/cj/2026/10-22/10719197.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-10-24; quoted passages were translated into English by the research agent (an AI), not by a human translator. China News Service investigation of 22 October 2026 into AI-generated clothing models on shopping platforms, which summarises the same court typical case; read in full (HTTP 200). It draws on the same court release as s1, so the two share one independence group.","independence_group":"guangzhou-intermediate-court-consumer-cases-release-2026-03-12"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","justice"],"unknowns":["When the purchase and the judgment took place; the release gives neither, and the record dates the case by the release of 12 March 2026.","Which court decided the case at first instance, whether it went on appeal, and the case number.","The amount of the compensation awarded and whether the refund for return was granted as claimed.","Which shopping platform and shop were involved and which image tool generated the pictures.","How the court established that the pictures were AI-generated."],"geography":{"basis":"The case was released by the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court in China. The relayed release does not say where the buyer or the shop was or which court heard the case at first instance, so no event or affected-person country is recorded.","court_countries":["CN"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-10-11 operator-published-content ruling: a court found that a shop's product pictures were all AI-generated and differed markedly from the goods, that a described buyer relied on them (and on the seller's claim that they were real photographs) when buying two tops, and that this was consumer fraud warranting treble compensation. The account rests on the court's typical-case release as relayed by two outlets.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found, on review, that all the shop's product pictures were AI-generated, that they differed markedly from the garments in pattern, cut and style, and that the product pages showed no real photographs and no AI label. The buyer relied on those pictures, and on the seller's false answer that they were real photographs, when paying 411 yuan; the court held that the AI-generated pictures together with the false statement deceived the buyer into the purchase. The release as relayed does not say which image tool was used or how the court established that the pictures were AI-generated.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Chinese court orders clothing shop to pay treble damages after its AI-generated product photos, claimed as real, misled an online buyer","summary":"In a consumer-protection typical case released on 12 March 2026, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court described a buyer who paid 411 yuan on a shopping platform for two women's tops after asking whether the model photos were real and being told that all the shop's pictures were real photographs. The garments that arrived differed markedly from the pictures in pattern, cut and style, and on review the pictures were all AI-generated, with no real photographs and no AI label on the product pages. The buyer sued for a refund and treble damages. The court held that businesses must review content they generate with AI, that undisclosed AI images differing significantly from the goods which lead a consumer to buy amount to consumer fraud, and that the clothing company must pay treble compensation. The release as relayed does not give the dates, the court of first instance or the amount.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-03-12","aiSystem":"An unidentified image-generation tool used by an online clothing shop to produce all its product pictures, including model photos (per the court's typical-case release as reported)","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to a Chinese court's typical-case release, a buyer paid 411 yuan for two tops relying on a shop's product pictures, which the shop called real photographs; the court found the pictures were AI-generated and differed markedly from the goods, held this was consumer fraud and ordered treble compensation.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The court's release, as relayed, describes one buyer who paid 411 yuan for two tops; no other buyers are described.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.yzwb.net/news/sh/202603/t20260313_331265.html","primarySourceLabel":"Yangtse Evening Post (Ziniu News), 13 Mar 2026: online clothes bought from AI-generated pictures; shop ordered to pay treble damages for fraud","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-24T03:07:42.681363+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-24T03:14:10.733674+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-generated-images","online-shopping","consumer-fraud","court-ruling","product-listing","china"]}]}