{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T14:08:06.054Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"copilot","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"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":"2026-taipei-district-court-fines-litigant-for-repeated-retrial-petitions-built-on-copilot-conversations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'自己的手機號碼遭詐團盜用'; '敗訴確定，不過他屢次聲請再審，還利用AI寫訴狀，但皆遭駁回'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"CTWANT reports that the petitioner's underlying damages claim, over fraudsters' misuse of his mobile number, was finally rejected and that he then repeatedly applied for a retrial, writing the petitions with AI.","causal_attribution":"CTWANT's account of the proceedings."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'僅將他與Microsoft Copilot（下稱Copilot）之生成式AI（Artificial Intelligence）系統間之對話轉貼至聲請狀'; '待Copilot回覆後再將整個對話複製至書狀，此性質上僅是他意見之陳述，也非客觀證據'; '逕以裁定駁回之'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to CTWANT, the court's fourth civil division (case 115 Sheng-Zai No. 13, August 2026) found that the petitioner had only pasted his conversations with Microsoft Copilot's generative AI system into the petition, that he had copied news articles into Copilot and copied the exchange into his filing, that this was a statement of opinion rather than objective evidence, and dismissed the petition.","causal_attribution":"The court's reported finding; the ruling itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'疑似係再審聲請人將生成式AI系統對話內容載於書狀，並未具體提出其所謂未經斟酌之證物'; '堪認基於惡意、浪費司法資源之不當目的而一再聲請再審'; '依民事訴訟法第249條之1第1項、第3項規定，對他罰鍰3萬元'; '倘再行濫訴，本院得再另行加重裁罰，附此敘明。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to CTWANT, in September 2026 the second civil division (case 115 Sheng-Zai No. 31) said the new petition appeared to place generative AI conversation content in the filing, found that the petitioner had repeatedly petitioned on the same or similar grounds with a malicious purpose of wasting judicial resources, fined him NT$30,000 under Article 249-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and warned that further abusive filings could be fined more heavily.","causal_attribution":"The court's reported reasons; the fine rests on repetition on the same grounds as well as on the AI content."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'成為司法史首件AI濫訴判罰案例'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"CTWANT describes the fine as the first case in Taiwan's judicial history of a fine for abusive litigation with AI.","causal_attribution":"CTWANT's characterisation; not independently checked."}],"effects":[{"label":"a litigant was fined NT$30,000 for abusive repeated retrial petitions that the court said contained generative AI conversation content","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"a retrial petition consisting of pasted Copilot conversations was dismissed, the court saying the AI dialogue was opinion and not objective evidence","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.ctwant.com/article/503340/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Traditional Chinese on 2026-10-23 from the publisher page. Translated by the research agent (an AI); quotations are Chinese originals and English renderings are the agent's translations. CTWANT describes the two rulings and quotes them; the rulings were not inspected. LINE TODAY, Yahoo Taiwan and PChome carry the same CTWANT text.","independence_group":"ctwant-taipei-ai-petition-fine"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The full text and exact dates of both rulings; they were not inspected.","Whether the petitioner challenged the fine.","The content of the Copilot conversations and what answers Copilot gave."],"geography":{"basis":"The proceedings and the fine took place in the Taipei District Court, Taiwan, where the petitions were filed. The petitioner's residence is not used.","court_countries":["TW"],"event_countries":["TW"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete court sanction on a private person whose retrial petitions, according to the court's reported rulings, consisted of pasted conversations with Microsoft Copilot. The record rests on one news report that quotes the rulings; the rulings were not read, and the fining ruling's AI wording is hedged. The fine also rests on repeated petitions on the same grounds. The litigant is not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"According to CTWANT's account of the August 2026 ruling, the court found that the petitioner had pasted his conversations with Microsoft Copilot's generative AI system into his retrial petition and had fed news articles into Copilot and copied the exchange into his filing; the court dismissed that petition. The September 2026 ruling that imposed the fine says, more cautiously, that the new petition appeared to be generative AI conversation content placed in the filing. The connection to the harm is the court's response to the AI-written petitions. The rulings were not inspected and no source reproduces the conversations.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Taipei District Court fines a litigant NT$30,000 for abusive retrial petitions that pasted in Copilot conversations, CTWANT reports","summary":"CTWANT reported on 22 October 2026 two rulings of the Taipei District Court in Taiwan. In August 2026 a civil division dismissed a retrial petition into which, it said, the petitioner had only pasted his conversations with Microsoft Copilot's generative AI; it said this was not in itself impermissible but that retrial grounds had not been lawfully stated, and that his copying of online news articles into Copilot and then of the whole exchange into his filing was a statement of his opinion and not objective evidence. He petitioned again and, in September 2026, a three-judge panel of another civil division said the new petition appeared to be generative AI conversation content placed in the filing, found that he had repeatedly petitioned on the same or similar grounds with a malicious purpose of wasting judicial resources, and fined him NT$30,000 under Article 249-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, warning that further abusive filings could bring a heavier fine. CTWANT describes it as the first court fine in Taiwan for abusive litigation with AI. The underlying claim, about fraudsters' misuse of his mobile number, had already been finally rejected. The rulings themselves were not inspected.","incidentDate":"2026-08-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-22","aiSystem":"Microsoft Copilot, a generative AI chat system, whose conversations with the petitioner were pasted into his retrial petitions (as described in the court's reported rulings)","aiProduct":"Microsoft Copilot (reported)","aiCompany":"Microsoft","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"CTWANT reports that the Taipei District Court dismissed the litigant's retrial petitions, which it said consisted of pasted Copilot conversations, and in September 2026 fined him NT$30,000 for abusive litigation.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the petitioner whom the court fined (CTWANT account of the rulings). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"TW","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.ctwant.com/article/503340/","primarySourceLabel":"CTWANT, 22 Oct 2026: Taipei District Court issues first fine for abusive litigation with AI-written petitions","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:06:20.950085+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:06:20.950085+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["justice","court-fine","ai-drafted-filing","own-use","taiwan","microsoft-copilot"]}]}