{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-16T06:18:21.541Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"costs","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":16,"coverage":{"cases":16,"countries":7,"languages":6,"unknownLocation":4,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":3,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":4,"minors":0,"coreRelations":13,"contextualRelations":6,"mixedRelations":4,"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-massachusetts-federal-court-sanctions-out-of-state-lawyer-who-admitted-ai-drafting-brief-with-fictitious-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Defendants filed a Motion to Strike the Second Amended Complaint on November 21, 2025'; 'Within five hours of the Enterprise Defendants' filing of the Motion to Strike'; 'The Strike Opposition was replete with inaccurate citations, including:'; 'Attributing a quotation to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation.'; 'Citing to a non-existent case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that an opposition filed on 21 November 2025 by the plaintiff's pro hac vice lawyer was replete with inaccurate citations, including a quotation attributed to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation, and that a later opposition cited a non-existent case.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings on the filings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'admitted to using AI to draft the Strike Opposition, explaining that he believed that'; 'the enterprise-level version of AI software he was using did not hallucinate cases'; 'a PDF version of [a] prior draft of the work product rather than the final, verified document'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the order, the lawyer admitted using AI to draft the first opposition, explaining a belief that the enterprise-level version of the AI software in use did not hallucinate cases, and said a prior draft had been filed by mistake.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's admission in the response to the order to show cause, as recorded by the court. It connects the AI tool's output to the fictitious citations in that filing."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'a prolonged bout of influenza'; 'has not admitted to using AI in the Travelers and'; 'whether AI was used or not'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The lawyer did not admit using AI for the later oppositions, attributing their errors to influenza; the court held sanctions warranted whether or not AI was used for them.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the lawyer's explanation and its reasoning. The AI contribution is established only for the first opposition."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'is GRANTED and the Court imposes sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.'; 'The Court revokes Attorney'; 'pro hac vice status'; 'These fees and costs shall not exceed $10,000.'; 'impose sanctions upon local counsel'; 'Dated: September 25, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 25 September 2026 the court granted the defence motion for sanctions under Rule 11, revoked the lawyer's pro hac vice admission and ordered the lawyer's firm to pay the defendants' reasonable fees and costs, not exceeding $10,000; local counsel was not sanctioned.","causal_attribution":"The sanctions order itself."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'indicates that this is not an instance of mere carelessness.'; 'pattern of neglecting to confirm the accuracy of his'; 'has since implemented citation-verification procedures'; 'completed Continuing Legal Education (\"CLE\") credits on the ethical use of AI'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that continued submission of false or misleading citations after notice was not mere carelessness and showed a pattern of neglecting to confirm the accuracy of submissions; it credited the lawyer's later citation-verification procedures and continuing legal education on the ethical use of AI.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings and its account of mitigation."}],"effects":[{"label":"lawyer's pro hac vice admission revoked and firm ordered to pay up to $10,000 of the defendants' fees","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.288446/gov.uscourts.mad.288446.155.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"d-mass-case-1-25-cv-12395-sanctions-order"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI product was used and how it was prompted","Whether AI was used for the two later oppositions, which the lawyer did not admit","The final amount of fees and costs, to be agreed or reported to the court by 23 October 2026","Whether the plaintiff suffered any consequence from the sanctions or the change of counsel"],"geography":{"basis":"The filings were made in, and the sanctions imposed by, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Where the lawyer drafted the filings and where the lawyer lives are not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a documented court sanction. A federal court order records a lawyer's admission that AI drafted a filing with fictitious citations, and the court revoked the lawyer's pro hac vice admission and ordered fees of up to $10,000. The lawyer, the plaintiff and the deceased are not named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions order records the lawyer's admission that an AI tool was used to draft the 21 November 2025 opposition, which the court found contained a quotation attributed to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation and other inaccurate citations. The tool's generated draft reached the lawyer, who filed it (communicated_with); the court then sanctioned the lawyer for this and two later filings. The lawyer did not admit AI use for the later filings, and the order does not name the AI product.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Massachusetts federal court revokes an out-of-state lawyer's admission and orders fees after briefs with false citations; the lawyer admitted AI drafted one","summary":"On 25 September 2026 a judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a defence motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against a California-barred lawyer admitted for one case (pro hac vice) to represent the plaintiff. The court found that an opposition the lawyer filed on 21 November 2025 was replete with inaccurate citations, including a quotation attributed to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation, and that later oppositions cited a non-existent case. In response to the court's order to show cause, the lawyer admitted using AI to draft the first opposition and explained a belief that the enterprise-level AI software in use did not hallucinate cases. The court revoked the lawyer's pro hac vice admission and ordered the lawyer's firm to pay the defendants' reasonable fees and costs, capped at $10,000. The order does not name the AI product.","incidentDate":"2025-11-21","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-25","aiSystem":"An unnamed enterprise-level AI software product that the lawyer admitted using to draft a court filing, according to the sanctions order","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's order, a lawyer who admitted using AI to draft a brief that contained fictitious citations had pro hac vice admission revoked, and the lawyer's firm was ordered to pay up to $10,000 of the defendants' fees and costs.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the sanctioned lawyer, who admitted using the AI tool (claims c2 and c4). Local counsel was not sanctioned and is not counted. The plaintiff is not counted because the order describes no consequence of the sanctions for the plaintiff.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.288446/gov.uscourts.mad.288446.155.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Memorandum and Order on sanctions, Dkt. 155, case 1:25-cv-12395 (25 September 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:10:29.878255+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:10:29.878255+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","massachusetts","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","pro-hac-vice"]},{"id":"2026-new-york-federal-court-defaults-client-and-orders-lawyer-to-pay-fees-over-ai-generated-false-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'motion to dismiss that was peppered with false citations'; 'Top alerted the Court to a series of faulty citations'; 'Defendants Top Experience Company LLC (“Top”) and'; 'cited that did not exist, and eight cases that did exist but did not contain the quotes'; 'Once again, his brief contained false citations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In June 2025 the defendant's lawyer filed a brief supporting its motion to dismiss that, a co-defendant's lawyer showed, cited at least thirteen cases that did not exist and eight real cases that did not contain the quoted words; a later response to the court and a proposed reply brief also contained false citations.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings in its sanctions opinion."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'unreported cases located via Google Scholar, Google search, or the AI-assisted platform vLex, and then cite-checking those cases by running the brief through a different AI program'; 'introduced citation errors that he mistook as corrections and thus neither reviewed nor fixed'; 'I used generative AI to confirm that the information that I wrote was correctly referencing the information that I had'; 'The tool he claimed to use was NotebookLM'; 'The Court does not find the second explanation credible'; 'Court finds that explanation extremely difficult to believe'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer said he located unreported cases through Google Scholar, Google search and the AI-assisted platform vLex, cite-checked the brief by running it through AI programs (vLex or Paxton AI) that he said introduced the errors, and used NotebookLM to review the content of his response; the court did not find his account of how the errors arose credible and found his NotebookLM account extremely difficult to believe.","causal_attribution":"Documented as the lawyer's statements recorded by the court; his account of how the errors arose is his own and the court rejected it in part."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'by submitting false citations to the Court produced by generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) and then lying about their genesis'; 'had acted in bad faith'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court later described the sanctioned conduct as submitting false citations produced by generative AI and then lying about their origin, and recalled its finding that the lawyer acted in bad faith.","causal_attribution":"The court's own characterisation in the 9 October 2026 order."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'by striking Affable’s submissions and entering default judgment against it'; 'nor a client from its attorney’s misdeeds'; 'to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Affable Avenue LLC'; 'Dated: February 5, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Court imposed terminal sanctions on Affable'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 5 February 2026 the court sanctioned the lawyer by striking his client's motion papers and entering default judgment against the client, holding that a client is not excused from its lawyer's misdeeds.","causal_attribution":"The court's order; the court ties the sanction to the false citations."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'then-counsel to Defendant Top Experience Company LLC (“Top”), who had provided substantial assistance to the Court by investigating and reporting'; 'awards his firm $38,877.59'; 'for a total award of $38,877.59'; 'must be made by'; 'within 30 days of this Opinion, unless'; 'Dated: October 9, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 9 October 2026 the court awarded the firm of a co-defendant's former lawyer, who had investigated and reported the false citations, $38,877.59 in fees and costs, payable by the sanctioned lawyer within 30 days.","causal_attribution":"The court's order."}],"effects":[{"label":"client's motion papers struck and default judgment entered against it as a sanction on its lawyer","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"lawyer ordered to pay $38,877.59 in fees and costs","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195.364.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed. ECF 364, 18 pp.","independence_group":"sdny-24-civ-9429-court-orders"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195.227.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed. ECF 227, 33 pp.","independence_group":"sdny-24-civ-9429-court-orders"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which tool generated each false citation; the lawyer's account names several tools and the court rejected parts of it.","Whether the lawyer has paid the award, appealed, or been referred to a disciplinary body; neither order mentions a referral.","The amount of damages to be assessed against the defaulted client."],"geography":{"basis":"The filings were made in, and the sanctions imposed by, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Where the lawyer and the client are based is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's two orders, read in full, record the lawyer's own account of using AI tools to find and check citations, describe the false citations as produced by generative AI, and impose default judgment on his client and a $38,877.59 fee award on him because of them.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawyer told the court he found cases through the AI-assisted platform vLex and cite-checked his brief by running it through AI programs (vLex or Paxton AI), which he said introduced the errors, and that he used NotebookLM to review a later submission (communicated_with). The court's 9 October 2026 order describes the sanctioned filings as false citations produced by generative AI. The court read those citations and, because of them, struck the client's papers, entered default judgment against the client and ordered the lawyer to pay fees (informed_decision_about). Which tool generated each false citation is not established.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"New York federal court enters default judgment against a defendant and orders its lawyer to pay $38,877 after false citations it found AI produced","summary":"In a federal trademark suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court on 5 February 2026 struck a company defendant's motion papers and entered default judgment against it as a sanction on its lawyer, after his filings repeatedly cited nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations. The lawyer said he had found and cite-checked cases with AI tools (vLex and Paxton AI) and used NotebookLM to review a later submission; the court rejected his explanations and found he acted in bad faith. On 9 October 2026 the court described the citations as produced by generative AI and ordered the lawyer to pay $38,877.59 in fees and costs to the firm of a co-defendant's former lawyer, who had reported the false citations to the court.","incidentDate":"2026-02-05","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-09","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-02-05","aiSystem":"AI legal research and cite-checking tools the lawyer said he used (vLex with AI functionality, Paxton AI) and NotebookLM, which he said he used to review his response to the court; the court found the citations were produced by generative AI","aiProduct":"vLex, Paxton AI and NotebookLM (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's orders, the defendant's motion papers were struck and default judgment entered against it as a sanction for its lawyer's filings with false citations, which the court describes as produced by generative AI, and the lawyer was ordered to pay $38,877.59 in fees and costs.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the lawyer, who described his own use of AI tools and was ordered to pay $38,877.59. The client against which default judgment was entered is a company; the people behind it are not described and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-NY","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195.364.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Opinion and Order on fees, ECF 364, 24 Civ. 9429 (9 October 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:05:26.378079+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:05:26.378079+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","new-york","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","default-judgment","attorney-fees"]},{"id":"2026-india-supreme-court-rebukes-lawyer-who-blamed-clients-for-filing-alleged-ai-generated-non-existent-judgments","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'On behalf of the appellants, a compilation of judgments was placed on record to which the respondents raised immediate serious objection.'; 'According to them, the compilation was replete with AI generated non-'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'According to them, the compilation was replete with AI generated non-existent judgments,\" the Court recorded.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"During the hearing, the respondents objected that a compilation of judgments placed on record for the appellants was replete with AI-generated non-existent judgments.","causal_attribution":"The judgment documents that the respondents made this objection. Whether the judgments were AI-generated or non-existent is the respondents' claim and is not found by the Court."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'appellants, facing the Court’s query, sought to shift'; 'the entire blame on the appellants while at the same time feigning ignorance of what the compilation contained.'; 'sought to take the blame on himself and prayed for forgiveness on behalf of the appellants.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The senior counsel appearing for the appellants subsequently accepted responsibility and sought forgiveness on their behalf.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"When questioned by the Court, the appellants' advocate-on-record sought to shift the entire blame onto the appellants while feigning ignorance of what the compilation contained; the appellants' senior counsel then took the blame on himself and prayed for forgiveness on their behalf.","causal_attribution":"Recorded by the Court in its judgment."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Exemplary costs were proposed to be imposed while coming down heavily on the appellants.'; 'It is for such reason that the order requiring payment of costs has been deleted by “no order as to costs”.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'However, it Court ultimately refrained from imposing costs after being informed of the death of the first appellant'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Court proposed exemplary costs against the appellants over the incident and later deleted the direction to pay costs after being informed of the first appellant's death; it made no order as to costs.","causal_attribution":"Recorded by the Court in its judgment."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judgment did not identify the allegedly fabricated decisions or record a separate finding that particular judgments had been generated using AI.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judgment does not identify the allegedly fabricated decisions or record a separate finding that particular judgments were AI-generated.","causal_attribution":"Bar and Bench's reading of the judgment; consistent with paragraph 74, which records the objection as the respondents' claim."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Court dismissed both appeals, upheld the NCLT orders as affirmed by the NCLAT, and directed that the insolvency resolution processes concerning both companies proceed in accordance with law.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'this Court finds no merit in either of these appeals and are, therefore dismissed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Court dismissed both appeals on their merits and upheld the insolvency proceedings against the two hotel-operating companies.","causal_attribution":"The merits outcome is unrelated to the compilation; recorded as context."}],"effects":[{"label":"advocate-on-record criticised in a Supreme Court judgment for shifting blame onto the clients over the disputed compilation","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"exemplary costs proposed against the appellants, later deleted","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2026-10-15/xlwz6h1p/Deepak_Raheja_Vs_Omkara.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full (50 pages, text extracted from the PDF); the AI incident is in paragraph 74.","independence_group":"india-supreme-court-judgment-15-oct-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-laments-lawyer-blaming-client-for-ai-generated-fake-judgments","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full. A report of the judgment, so it shares the judgment's independence group.","independence_group":"india-supreme-court-judgment-15-oct-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://courtbook.in/posts/supreme-court-criticises-lawyer-for-blaming-client-over-ai-generated-fake-judgments","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full. A report of the judgment, so it shares the judgment's independence group.","independence_group":"india-supreme-court-judgment-15-oct-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which judgments in the compilation were disputed and whether they exist.","Whether an AI tool was used to prepare the compilation, which tool, and by whom.","The date of the hearing at which the objection was raised.","Whether any disciplinary step against the advocate-on-record followed."],"geography":{"basis":"The hearing and the judgment took place in the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi, as the judgment states. The lawyers' and appellants' own countries are not stated.","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a court's consequential response to alleged AI use in a filing: the Supreme Court of India recorded the opposing side's objection that a compilation was full of AI-generated non-existent judgments, criticised the filing advocate-on-record for blaming the clients, and proposed exemplary costs that it later deleted. The facts rest on the judgment itself; the AI generation remains the respondents' claim.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the Supreme Court's response to alleged AI use in a filing: the respondents objected that a compilation of judgments filed for the appellants was replete with AI-generated non-existent judgments, the Court questioned the appellants' lawyers about it, criticised the advocate-on-record in its judgment for shifting the blame onto the clients, and proposed exemplary costs that it later deleted. The Court did not rely on the disputed judgments and made no finding that they were AI-generated, and no source names a tool or says who prepared the compilation, so the relation is recorded as unknown under the consequential-response exemption and the AI involvement as suspected.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"India Supreme Court rebukes lawyer who blamed the clients for a filing that the other side said was full of AI-generated non-existent judgments","summary":"In a judgment of 15 October 2026 dismissing two appeals against insolvency proceedings concerning two hotel-operating companies, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India recorded that during the hearing the appellants' side had placed on record a compilation of judgments which, according to the respondents, was replete with AI-generated non-existent judgments. The Court recorded that the appellants' advocate-on-record, when questioned, sought to shift the entire blame onto the appellants while feigning ignorance of what the compilation contained, and that the appellants' senior counsel then took the blame on himself and prayed for forgiveness on their behalf. The Court had proposed exemplary costs against the appellants over the incident but deleted that direction after being told that the first appellant had died. The judgment does not identify the disputed judgments, does not make its own finding that they were AI-generated, and does not name any AI tool.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-15","aiSystem":"No AI tool is named. The respondents said that a compilation of judgments filed for the appellants was replete with AI-generated non-existent judgments; the Court recorded that objection and made no separate finding","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Supreme Court criticised the appellants' advocate-on-record in a reportable judgment for shifting blame onto the clients over a compilation the respondents said contained AI-generated non-existent judgments; exemplary costs proposed against the appellants were later deleted (judgment, 15 October 2026).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The judgment criticises one advocate-on-record by role, so 1 is a documented minimum. The appellants faced proposed exemplary costs that were deleted; they are not counted because no consequence to them was carried out, and the number of people behind the appellants is not stated. Whoever used AI, if anyone, is not established, so no one is counted as a direct AI user.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2026-10-15/xlwz6h1p/Deepak_Raheja_Vs_Omkara.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Supreme Court of India, judgment in Civil Appeal No. 12195 of 2025 (2026 INSC 1134), 15 October 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:01:30.734181+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:01:30.734181+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["alleged-ai-generated-judgments","court-rebuke","lawyer-conduct","supreme-court-of-india","ai-involvement-suspected"]},{"id":"2026-israel-magistrates-court-strikes-expert-report-resting-on-ai-hallucinated-case-law-costs","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'התרשלה בתפקידה כנאמנת'; 'ביום 10.3.26הגישה הנתבעת 2חוות דעת'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, a lawyer acting as trustee, negligently transferred estate money to another person's account; the defendant filed a third-party notice against two banks and, on 10 March 2026, a banking expert's opinion.","causal_attribution":"The decision's own account of the pleadings; the negligence claim is an allegation in a continuing suit."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'מבוססת על פסיקה ,חקיקה וספרות פיקטיביות שהומצאו ע\"י בינה מלאכותית ,ובכלל זה פסק דין שאינו קיים'; 'כאשר שאלת השימוש בבינה מלאכותית מקומה להתברר בחקירה נגדית'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One bank asked the court to strike the opinion as resting on case law, legislation and literature invented by artificial intelligence, including a ruling that does not exist; the defendant replied that the question of AI use should be examined in cross-examination.","causal_attribution":"The parties' submissions as recorded by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'הליך שלא ניתן לאתרו לפי מספר או שם הצדדים'; 'מבדיקה עצמאית לא נמצא כי קיים ספר ,מאמר או ציטוט כזה'; 'מבלי שהוגשה התייחסותו של המומחה לטענות המופנות כנגד חוות דעתו ,ומחדל זה פועל לחובתה של הנתבעת'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Checking the sources itself, the court could not locate the cited Supreme Court ruling by number or party names, found no book, article or quotation matching the cited legal text, and found that the quoted statutory sections say something else; the defendant filed no response from the expert.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings after its own check of the sources."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'משנמצא כי לב חוות הדעת והנספחים המצורפים אליה נשענים על \"הזיות בינה מלאכותית\" מובהקות ועל עיוות מוחלט של לשון חוק שירותי תשלום'; 'הגשת חוות דעת המבוססת על הזיות של בינה מלאכותית מהווה פגם מהותי המצדיק את הוצאתה המידית מהתיק עוד לפני שלב ההוכחות'; 'ומורה על מחיקת חוות דעתו'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rest on clear AI hallucinations and a distortion of the statute, that an opinion resting on AI hallucinations is a substantive defect justifying its removal before the evidence stage, and struck it from the file.","causal_attribution":"The court attributes the defects to AI hallucinations; that attribution rests on the invented content, with no admission or named tool."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'שעה שהתיקון של ההודעה לצד שלישי מבוסס על חוות דעת המומחה מטעם המודיעה ,חוות דעת שמצאתי אותה פגומה והוריתי על מחיקתה מהתיק'; 'דין הבקשה לתיקון ההודעה לצד שלישי להידחות'; 'תישא בהוצאות הבקשות לטובת הצד דים השלישיים בסך של'; '₪ 2,500לכל אחד מהם בנפרד'; 'ניתנה היום ,כ\"ז תשרי תשפ\"ז 08 ,אוקטובר'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court refused the defendant's request to amend the third-party notice, giving as one reason that the amendment rested on the struck opinion, and ordered her to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each of the two banks within 30 days regardless of the outcome; the decision is dated 8 October 2026.","causal_attribution":"The court's orders. The refusal also rests on independent procedural grounds (no supporting affidavit, lateness, lack of good faith)."}],"effects":[{"label":"defendant's expert opinion struck from the file as resting on AI-hallucinated authorities","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"defendant's amendment refused and costs of 2,500 shekels ordered to each of two banks","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3278/Avaragl_v._Yaakov_Israel.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"he","translation_note":"Read in full in Hebrew by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from the copy of the decision hosted on the AI Hallucination Cases database (HTTP 200, 10 pages, text extracted with pdftotext and bidirectional-control characters removed); the English renderings in this record are the research agent's own translation, with no human translator involved.","independence_group":"nof-hagalil-nazareth-magistrates-court-civil-file-38820-04-24-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","finance"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool, if any, the expert used; the decision names none and records no account from the expert.","Whether the defendant appeals the decision or pays the costs, and how the suit and the third-party notice are decided.","Whether the expert faces any professional consequence."],"geography":{"basis":"The opinion was filed in, and struck by, the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel. Where the parties live is not stated and is not used.","court_countries":["IL"],"event_countries":["IL"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's decision, read in full, finds that a filed expert opinion rests on AI-hallucinated authorities and distorted statute text, and on that basis strikes it, refuses the amendment built on it and orders the filing defendant to pay costs. The case is an expert witness's report excluded from evidence before trial.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's decision finds that the heart of the expert opinion and its annexes rest on clear 'AI hallucinations': a Supreme Court ruling the court could not locate, a cited book it could not find and statutory sections quoted with text the statute does not contain. The court read that output in the filed opinion and, because of it, struck the opinion, refused the amendment that rested on it and ordered the defendant to pay costs (informed_decision_about). The attribution to AI is the court's own finding after checking the sources; no admission, tool or account by the expert is recorded.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Israeli court strikes a defendant's expert report it found rested on AI-hallucinated case law and orders her to pay the banks' costs","summary":"On 8 October 2026 the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel, struck from the file a banking expert's opinion that a defendant in a civil negligence suit had filed, finding that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rested on clear 'AI hallucinations': a Supreme Court ruling the court could not locate, a book it could not find and statutory sections quoted with text the statute does not contain. The court also refused the defendant's request to amend her third-party notice against two banks, partly because the amendment relied on the struck opinion, and ordered her to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each bank. No AI tool is named, and the decision records no response from the expert.","incidentDate":"2026-10-08","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-08","aiSystem":"Unidentified generative AI tool; the court found that the expert opinion rests on AI hallucinations but names no tool, and the expert did not respond","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's decision, the defendant's expert evidence was struck and her amendment refused because the opinion rested on what the court found were AI-hallucinated authorities and distorted statute text, and she was ordered to pay 2,500 shekels in costs to each of two banks.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the defendant who filed the opinion, whose evidence was struck, whose amendment was refused and who was ordered to pay costs. The expert is not counted because the decision orders nothing against him; the plaintiff and the banks are not harmed by the ruling.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IL","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3278/Avaragl_v._Yaakov_Israel.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Magistrates' Court, Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, civil file 38820-04-24, decision (8 October 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:01:26.843634+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:01:26.843634+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["israel","expert-evidence","hallucinated-citations","court-decision","costs","banking"]},{"id":"2026-alabama-supreme-court-dismisses-family-trust-appeal-over-lawyer-ai-hallucinated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'filed briefs in this appeal that contain numerous invalid, inaccurate, and/or irrelevant citations to legal authorities'; 'They appear to be artificial-intelligence (\"AI\") \"hallucinations,\" i.e., fake authorities created by an AI system'; 'Most of the legal authorities in the briefs are misquoted or nonexistent'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appellants' lawyer filed briefs whose citations the court found numerous, invalid, inaccurate or irrelevant, most of them misquoted or nonexistent, and which the court said appear to be AI hallucinations.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'first use of an AI research tool that summarized commentary not readily available through standard legal databases'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, the lawyer attributed two misquotations to an AI research tool that summarised commentary.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's statement as quoted in the opinion."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall admitted that many of the legal authorities in his briefs do not exist and that he improperly used AI to obtain those authorities'; 'Hall also informed the Court that he had self-reported his actions to the Alabama State Bar'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At the 4 February 2026 show-cause hearing the lawyer admitted that many authorities in his briefs did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them, and said he had self-reported to the Alabama State Bar.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the hearing."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Because those briefs are grossly deficient under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal'; 'the dismissal of this appeal is imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts before us'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court dismissed the appeal because the briefs were grossly deficient, and said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall is hereby ordered to pay attorney fees and costs'; 'in the amount of $17,200'; 'Hall is ordered to pay double costs'; 'We also refer Hall to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court ordered the lawyer to pay $17,200 in attorney fees and costs and double costs of the appeal, and referred him to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'SELLERS, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I do not agree that dismissal of the appeal is appropriate as a sanction for the conduct of a lawyer'; 'I would affirm the judgment of the Mobile Circuit'; 'MENDHEIM, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I concur in the dismissal of this appeal'; 'His representation on appeal was of no benefit to them'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Justice Sellers, concurring in part and dissenting in part, disagreed that dismissal was an appropriate sanction for a lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits; Justice Mendheim, who concurred in the dismissal, wrote that the lawyer's representation on appeal was of no benefit to the clients.","causal_attribution":"Two separate opinions in the same record; neither is the court's holding."}],"effects":[{"label":"two appellants' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on AI-obtained authorities that were fake or misquoted","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 and double costs, barred from filing alone in the court and referred to the state bar","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from CourtListener's archived copy of this court PDF (storage.courtlistener.com, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext) because the court portal URL returned HTTP 403 to the agent; no translation was needed.","independence_group":"alabama-supreme-court-sc-2025-0106"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the lawyer used; the opinion names none.","Whether the dismissal changed the clients' substantive position; the trial court's summary judgment stands, the main opinion does not decide the merits, and one justice would have affirmed the judgment.","The outcome of the Alabama State Bar referral."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama on appeal from the Mobile Circuit Court. The appellants' residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the Supreme Court of Alabama's opinion establishes that it dismissed two appellants' appeal as a sanction after their lawyer filed briefs built on fabricated authorities that he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI, and that it sanctioned the lawyer and referred him to the state bar. The opinion was read in full.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found the briefs' authorities appeared to be AI hallucinations, the lawyer admitted at the show-cause hearing that he had improperly used AI to obtain authorities that do not exist, and his reply-brief footnote quoted by the court says an AI research tool misattributed quotations. The AI output reached the court through the briefs, and the court dismissed the clients' appeal because those briefs rested on fabricated authorities (informed_decision_about for the clients); the lawyer received the fabricated output from the tool (communicated_with) and was sanctioned.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Alabama Supreme Court dismisses two siblings' family-trust appeal as a sanction after their lawyer admits using AI that produced fake citations","summary":"On 24 April 2026 the Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed an appeal by two siblings in a family dispute over living trusts because their lawyer, W. Perry Hall, had filed briefs in which most of the legal authorities were misquoted or did not exist. The court said they appeared to be AI hallucinations, and at a show-cause hearing in February 2026 Hall admitted that many authorities did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them. The court ordered Hall to pay the opposing party's fees and costs of $17,200 and double appeal costs, barred him from filing in the court without a co-signing attorney and referred him to the Alabama State Bar. It said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts. One justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part, objected to dismissing the appeal as a sanction for the lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the judgment against the clients on the merits.","incidentDate":"2026-04-24","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-04-24","aiSystem":"An AI research tool that, according to the lawyer's reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, summarised legal commentary and misattributed quotations; the lawyer admitted using AI to obtain authorities that do not exist. No product is named in the opinion","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI research tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Supreme Court of Alabama, the siblings' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on authorities that were misquoted or did not exist, which he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI; the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 in fees and costs plus double appeal costs and was referred to the state bar.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One AI user: the appellate lawyer, sanctioned and referred to the bar. Two other people: the two appellants whose appeal was dismissed. The appellee, whose fees were reimbursed, is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","primarySourceLabel":"Supreme Court of Alabama, opinion in SC-2025-0106 (released 24 April 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","alabama","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","appeal-dismissed"]},{"id":"2025-quebec-appeal-court-costs-self-represented-appellant-ai-drafted-filings-nonexistent-judgments","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Elle réclame aussi 10 000 $ en dommages-intérêts'; 'références juridiques inexistantes générées par l’intelligence artificielle dans ses actes de procédure'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The respondent asked the Court of Appeal for $10,000 in damages, alleging that the appellant had included non-existent legal references generated by artificial intelligence in his filings.","causal_attribution":"The decision documents that the respondent made this request; the allegation is hers."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'parce qu’il a utilisé l’intelligence artificielle pour la rédaction'; 'déclaration d’appel et de son exposé, qui comportent deux références à des arrêts inexistants et une référence inexacte quant à un paragraphe cité'; 'L’appelant a contrevenu à cet Avis de la Juge en chef'; 'une forme de négligence plutôt que de la mauvaise foi'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Ruling on the respondent's request, the court described the appellant's notice of appeal and brief as written with artificial intelligence and as containing two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph, and found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use through negligence rather than bad faith.","causal_attribution":"Finding stated in the Court of Appeal decision of 1 October 2026; the decision does not name the tool."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'une telle connaissance de la part de l’appelant n’a pas été démontrée'; 'il y a lieu de le condamner aux frais de justice en vertu de l’article 340 C.p.c.'; 'en matière familiale, de chacune'; 'REJETTE la demande visant à sanctionner un manquement au déroulement'; 'LE TOUT, avec les frais de justice en faveur de l’intimée.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Because knowledge of the invented references was not shown, the court rejected the separate monetary sanction but ordered court costs against the appellant under article 340 C.p.c. to sanction the conduct.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the decision; the costs are the court's response to the AI-drafted filings."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'ACCUEILLE en partie l’appel'; 'peine de 100 heures de travail d’utilité sociale'; 'une mesure coercitive d’emprisonnement de 30 jours'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On the merits the court partly allowed the appeal for reasons unrelated to AI and reduced the contempt penalty to 100 hours of community work and 30 days of coercive imprisonment.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the decision; the contempt arose from non-compliance with family-court orders, not from AI use."}],"effects":[{"label":"a self-represented appellant was ordered to pay court costs because his AI-drafted appeal filings cited non-existent judgments","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3266/Droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-QCCA-1300.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read in full in French by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 from the copy of the decision hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database (PDF, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator or reviewer was involved. The locators quote the French original.","independence_group":"qcca-2026-qcca-1300-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the appellant used and what it produced beyond the two non-existent judgments and the inaccurate paragraph reference.","The amount of the court costs ordered against the appellant.","Whether the appellant has complied with the underlying orders or served the coercive imprisonment."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was heard and decided by the Quebec Court of Appeal from a Quebec Superior Court judgment (decision caption and paragraph 1), and the filings were made in that court. The decision states no residence for the appellant, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["CA"],"event_countries":["CA"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the court's own decision: the Quebec Court of Appeal described a self-represented appellant's appeal filings as written with AI and as citing non-existent judgments, held that he had breached its AI notice and ordered costs against him. The facts are documented by the decision; the appellant is a private party in a family matter and is not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Ruling on the respondent's request (paragraph 28), the Quebec Court of Appeal decision describes the appellant's notice of appeal and brief as written with artificial intelligence and as containing two references to non-existent judgments and an inaccurate paragraph reference. The court treated that AI drafting and those references as established: it held that he had breached its AI notice (paragraph 30), contrasted his lack of shown knowledge of the hallucinations with an earlier case (paragraphs 31-32) and ordered costs against him for that reason. The AI output reached him as drafted text he filed (communicated_with) and informed the court's costs decision about him (informed_decision_about). The decision does not identify the tool or quote its output.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Quebec Court of Appeal orders costs against a self-represented appellant whose AI-drafted filings cited two non-existent judgments (1 Oct 2026)","summary":"On 1 October 2026 the Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against a self-represented appellant in a family-law contempt appeal as a sanction for appeal filings that, in the court's description, he had written with artificial intelligence and that contained two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph. The court held that AI may be used to draft appeal filings only if the litigant verifies the authorities, found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use, and described his conduct as negligence rather than bad faith. It rejected the respondent's request for a separate $10,000 sanction and, for reasons unrelated to AI, reduced the contempt penalty imposed at first instance. The decision does not name the AI tool.","incidentDate":"2025-12-15","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-01","aiSystem":"Artificial intelligence, not identified in the decision, which the self-represented appellant used to draft his notice of appeal and brief","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against the self-represented appellant as a sanction for filings he drafted with AI that cited non-existent judgments, holding that he breached the court's AI notice through negligence (2026 QCCA 1300, 1 October 2026). The amount of the costs is not stated.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used AI to draft the filings and against whom costs were ordered. The respondent and other family members are not counted as harmed by the AI-related sanction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3266/Droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-QCCA-1300.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Quebec Court of Appeal, Droit de la famille — 261553, 2026 QCCA 1300, 1 October 2026 (copy hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:20.356128+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:20.356128+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","self_represented_litigant","costs_order","family_law","canada","quebec"]},{"id":"2025-uk-upper-tribunal-asylum-appeal-chatgpt-grounds-fake-cases-invented-quotes-sra-self-report","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"the grounds of appeal were completely infected by the use of AI. In addition to the citation of fake cases, and paragraphs from cases which are not contained in those judgments, the Grounds of Appeal also quote paragraphs from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal which do not appear in that decision.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was pure invention, which was not to be found anywhere in Judge Balroop’s decision, yet criticism of it formed the basis for one aspect of ground (3) in the grounds of appeal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"In this case, Mr Badar identified at least 18 separate errors in the grounds of appeal and withdrew three of the four grounds.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appellant's then solicitors drafted grounds of appeal that her counsel accepted were completely infected by the use of AI, citing fake cases and paragraphs not contained in the cited judgments and quoting passages from the First-tier Tribunal decision that do not appear in it; the tribunal found one purported quotation to be pure invention.","causal_attribution":"Established by the tribunal's own findings and its record of counsel's concession in the published decision. The Gazette repeats the decision and adds no independent origin."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Both were produced by a junior member of staff, namely a paralegal, using ChatGPT, which itself raises significant concerns about client confidentiality and legal privilege.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This occurred because Sarker Solicitors did not check the accuracy of the grounds of appeal, did not consider the grant of permission and did not check the accuracy of the skeleton argument.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"They accepted that AI was used to generate the grounds of appeal filed in the FtT and the skeleton argument filed in the UT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The grounds of appeal and skeleton argument were drafted by an unnamed paralegal working for east London firm Sarker Solicitors.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The tribunal found that both the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument were produced by a junior member of staff, a paralegal, using ChatGPT, and that the firm did not check their accuracy; the solicitors had accepted that AI was used to generate both documents.","causal_attribution":"The product identification and the failure to check are the tribunal's findings in the decision, recorded with the solicitors' acceptance that AI generated the documents. The Gazette's statement that the drafter was an unnamed paralegal relays the decision (same independence group)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"A hearing was listed before Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Hobbs on 17 September 2025 to consider whether Judge Balroop had erred in law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Judge Hobbs adjourned the hearing, with directions which included the following:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We note that issues (2) to (4), which occupied a great deal of time at the hearing before us, only arose because of Sarker Solicitors’ inappropriate use of AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant withdrew the original grounds (1), (2) and (4).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant’s application for permission to amend ground (3) is granted.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We accept Mr Terrell’s submission that it is not in the interests of justice in this case that the appellant be permitted to advance entirely new grounds, or to replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, well beyond the original time limit for seeking permission to appeal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We therefore refuse the application for permission to amend in respect of the new grounds (4) and (5).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant’s application for permission to amend grounds (4) and (5) is refused. For completeness, grounds (4) and (5) have been considered in the alternative and disclose no error of law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"However, ground (3) discloses no error of law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant’s appeal therefore fails.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The judge declined to set aside permission to appeal but dismissed the appeal in any case. The Home Office was invited to file and serve any wasted costs application on Sarker Solicitors within 28 days.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The error-of-law hearing listed for 17 September 2025 was adjourned, and three of the five issues at the final hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of the solicitors' use of AI. The appellant withdrew three of her four original grounds. The tribunal allowed an amended version of her surviving ground (3) but found that it disclosed no error of law. It refused permission to add new grounds (4) and (5), holding that it was not in the interests of justice to let her advance entirely new grounds, or replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, well beyond the original time limit, and in the alternative found those grounds without merit. Her appeal failed.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history and disposition are directly established by the decision. The decision attributes the adjournment and the wasted hearing time to the solicitors' misuse of AI. It gives the misrepresentation-riddled original grounds and the late application as its reasons for refusing the new grounds (para 65), and it also found those grounds without merit in the alternative (para 74). It states separately that the surviving ground failed on its merits, so the dismissal itself is not attributed to the AI output."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and so we will say nothing about the professional conduct issues involved.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The respondent shall file and serve on Sarker Solicitors any wasted costs application, or confirmation that costs are not being pursued, within 28 days of this decision being sent to the parties.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Two individuals involved in filing court documents using ChatGPT which were riddled with mistakes and invented quotes have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and directs the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm within 28 days; no costs decision has been taken.","causal_attribution":"The self-reports and the costs directions are stated in the decision itself. The Gazette repeats them from the decision (same independence group), so the claim is documented, not corroborated. Whether the two individuals are the paralegal and the supervising solicitor is not stated."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"It would be misleading to describe them as having been caused by AI, rather than by the solicitors’ misuse of AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI, rather than a mere mis-citation of particular cases.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The tribunal said it would be misleading to describe the irregularities as caused by AI rather than by the solicitors' misuse of AI. It recorded the Home Office's submission that this was one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal's own qualification, preserved as contrary evidence on causation: the decision places responsibility with the solicitors. The Home Office's characterisations (at best negligent, at worst reckless, and one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI) are relayed in the decision as its submissions (para 43)."}],"effects":[{"label":"Appellant's protection appeal pursued on AI-generated grounds containing fake cases and invented quotations; hearing adjourned and three of four grounds withdrawn","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Two individuals self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; wasted costs application against the firm invited","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2025-002601","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ut-decision-ui-2025-002601"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/duo-self-report-to-sra-over-grounds-of-appeal-infected-with-ai/5128148.article","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ut-decision-ui-2025-002601"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The date on which the paralegal generated the grounds of appeal is not stated; it falls between the First-tier decision of 23 April 2025 and the hearing listed for 17 September 2025.","Whether the two individuals who self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority are the paralegal and the supervising solicitor is not stated, and the outcome of any SRA consideration is unknown.","Whether the Home Office pursued wasted costs, and any amount, was not decided in the published decision.","What prompts were given to ChatGPT, and whether client material was entered into it, is not described; the tribunal only notes that the use raises confidentiality and privilege concerns.","Whether the appellant's appeal would have succeeded on properly drafted grounds cannot be known. The tribunal found that her surviving, amended ground disclosed no error of law, and that the two new grounds it refused to admit disclosed none either when considered in the alternative."],"geography":{"basis":"The decision is an Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision heard at Field House, London, in an appeal against a UK Home Office refusal; the solicitors are described by the Gazette as an east London firm. The appellant is a Namibian national whose appeal concerns her removal from the UK, so her country is recorded as GB on the basis of the proceedings in which she was harmed, and Namibia is not recorded because no harm occurred there.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"The published Upper Tribunal decision (tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk, UI-2025-002601) and the Law Society Gazette report of 8 October 2026 were read in full on 2026-10-09, and the decision was re-read on 2026-10-11 for this correction. The decision records what ChatGPT generated (fake cases, misattributed paragraphs, invented quotations from the First-tier judge) and ties that output to the adjourned hearing, the wasted hearing time, the withdrawn grounds, the refusal of permission to add new grounds, the regulator self-reports and the costs directions. The appellant is anonymised by tribunal order and is described only by nationality and appeal type; the firm is named because the operative costs directions are addressed to it; the paralegal is unnamed. The tribunal's statement that the solicitors' misuse, not AI, caused the irregularities is preserved.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Upper Tribunal's published decision finds that the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument filed on the appellant's behalf were produced by a paralegal using ChatGPT, and describes what that output contained: citations of fake cases, paragraphs not found in the cited judgments, and purported quotations from the First-tier judge's decision that the tribunal calls pure invention. The decision connects that output to the harm: the September 2025 hearing was adjourned after the Home Office queried the citation errors, three of the five issues at the final hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of the solicitors' use of AI, the appellant withdrew three of four grounds, and the tribunal invited a wasted costs application and noted two self-reports to the regulator. The FtT judge granted permission on those grounds while noting the misquotations, and the Upper Tribunal's decisions not to set aside permission and to refuse the new grounds were taken in the express context of the misrepresentations (paras 46-47, 65 and 74). The tribunal itself states that the irregularities were caused by the solicitors' misuse of AI rather than by AI, and the decision records the solicitors' own acceptance that AI was used. The firm's acceptance and the tribunal's findings come from one record, so the status is supported rather than corroborated by an independent source.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["acted_on_behalf","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"UK Upper Tribunal: solicitors' ChatGPT-drafted grounds in an asylum appeal cited fake cases and invented quotes; two individuals self-report to the SRA","summary":"A published Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision issued on 21 September 2026 records that the grounds of appeal and skeleton argument in a Namibian national's protection appeal were produced by a paralegal at her then solicitors using ChatGPT. The tribunal recorded her counsel's acceptance that the grounds cited fake cases, quoted passages absent from those judgments and attributed to the First-tier judge sentences he never wrote, and itself called one purported quotation pure invention. The September 2025 error-of-law hearing was adjourned, and the appellant later withdrew three of her four original grounds. The tribunal allowed an amended version of her one surviving ground but found that it disclosed no error of law. It refused her permission to add two new grounds, holding that she should not be allowed to advance entirely new grounds, or replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, so long after the time limit, and in the alternative found those grounds without merit. It directed the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; the Law Society Gazette reported the decision on 8 October 2026.","incidentDate":"2025-09-17","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-21","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-06","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, used by a paralegal to generate grounds of appeal and a skeleton argument (as found in the Upper Tribunal decision)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The tribunal records that the appellant's error-of-law hearing in September 2025 was adjourned, that three of the five issues at the eventual hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of her solicitors' inappropriate use of AI, that she withdrew three of her four original grounds, that it refused her permission to add two new grounds, holding that she should not be allowed to advance entirely new grounds, or replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, long after the time limit, and that her appeal fails. It found her one surviving, amended ground disclosed no error of law and, in the alternative, that the two refused grounds disclosed none either. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and directs the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm; no costs decision has been taken.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the appellant, whose appeal proceeded on AI-generated grounds she did not draft (the decision describes her as the appellant throughout). The paralegal who used ChatGPT and the supervising solicitor face professional consequences of their own conduct (self-report to the SRA, possible wasted costs) and are not counted as harmed persons; the two self-reporting individuals are not named as the paralegal and the solicitor in the decision.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"chatbot","primarySourceUrl":"https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2025-002601","primarySourceLabel":"Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), UI-2025-002601, decision issued 21 September 2026, published 6 October 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:28:56.311373+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:43:28.275795+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":[]},{"id":"2026-openai-deactivated-chatgpt-account-for-cyber-abuse-android-developer-building-remote-support-tool-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I build Android apps and run a small company in Pakistan'; 'I was building a remote ADB support tool'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says they build Android apps, run a small company in Pakistan, and were building a remote ADB support tool when the account was deactivated.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The account was deactivated for'; 'I pay $200 a month, and the account holds 62,500 credits I can no longer reach'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says the account was deactivated for \"Cyber Abuse\", that they pay $200 a month, and that the account holds 62,500 credits they can no longer reach.","causal_attribution":"Poster links the deactivation to their ChatGPT questions about ADB and remote connections; OpenAI did not say what was flagged."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It was rejected with no explanation, and the reply said no further appeals would be considered'; 'The case was closed and they told me they would not respond'; 'A support agent then replied with a generic message telling me to appeal again'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says the appeal was rejected with no explanation, support closed the case, and the Informal Dispute Resolution form produced a generic message telling them to appeal again.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'An automated system made the call'; 'I wrote it as if I knew no person looked'; 'A support tool and a RAT share most of the plumbing'; 'neither of them said what was flagged beyond the words'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The post says an automated system made the decision; in a later reply the poster says they wrote as if they knew no person had looked, that they do not know this, and that a support tool and a remote-access trojan share most of their plumbing.","causal_attribution":"Poster attributes the decision to automation and qualifies that attribution in a reply."}],"effects":[{"label":"paid ChatGPT account deactivated for \"Cyber Abuse\", with 62,500 credits out of reach (poster's account)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"appeal, support and dispute routes closed without a stated reason (poster's account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1wxaawk/openai_deactivated_my_account_for_cyber_abuse/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-05: full self-text and 31 comments (8 by the poster), retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID. The poster handle is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-openai-cyber-abuse-adb-poster"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","finance"],"unknowns":["What OpenAI flagged, and whether a person reviewed the deactivation or the appeal.","When the account was deactivated, and whether it or the credits were later restored or refunded.","What the prompts contained beyond the poster's description."],"geography":{"basis":"The poster says they \"build Android apps and run a small company in Pakistan\", recorded as the affected person's country on that statement; the poster does not separately say where they live. No event country is recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["PK"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter's public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of a paid AI account being deactivated with no stated reason and no working appeal route, described with attribution, with the poster's own qualification recorded and without corroboration. The poster's handle is not recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The account is for an AI product, and the poster says the deactivation followed their ChatGPT conversations about a remote support tool. The poster states that an automated system made the decision and later concedes they do not know whether a person reviewed it.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"First-person forum account: a poster who says they build Android apps and run a small company in Pakistan writes that OpenAI deactivated their $200-a-month ChatGPT account for \"Cyber Abuse\" while they were building a remote support tool, and that the appeal, support and dispute routes all closed without a stated reason","summary":"In a public post to r/OpenAI on 4 October 2026, a person who says they build Android apps and run a small company in Pakistan writes that OpenAI deactivated their ChatGPT account for \"Cyber Abuse\" while they were asking about ADB, remote connections and networking for a customer support tool. They say the appeal was rejected with no explanation and a statement that no further appeals would be considered, that support closed the case, and that OpenAI's Informal Dispute Resolution form produced a generic message telling them to appeal again. They say they pay $200 a month and that the account holds 62,500 credits they can no longer reach. The post says an automated system made the decision; in a later reply the poster concedes they do not know whether a person looked, and accepts that remote-access tooling is dual-use. OpenAI's reasons are not known and the account is uncorroborated.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-04","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, on an account the poster says costs $200 a month, and OpenAI's account enforcement and appeal process; the poster first called the decision automated and later said they do not know whether a person looked","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The poster says OpenAI deactivated their paid ChatGPT account for \"Cyber Abuse\" during ordinary development work, leaving 62,500 credits out of reach on a $200-a-month plan, and that the appeal, support and dispute routes closed without a stated reason (first-person account, uncorroborated; the poster concedes they do not know whether a person reviewed the decision).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the poster. The company's staff and customers are not counted because no harm to them is described. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1wxaawk/openai_deactivated_my_account_for_cyber_abuse/","primarySourceLabel":"r/OpenAI, 4 October 2026: \"OpenAI deactivated my account for \"Cyber Abuse\" while I was building a remote ADB support tool. Appeal rejected with no explanation.\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:16:16.171676+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:16:16.171676+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","openai","chatgpt","account-deactivation","cyber-abuse-flag","appeal","no-stated-reason","pakistan","communicated-with"]},{"id":"2022-taiwan-ai-voice-changer-romance-fraud-ring-20000-victims-nt900m-57-indicted","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'更導入AI系統，將男員工、大媽的聲音變成甜美女生，在各大交友平台鎖定多金對象，談起網戀，要求對方送高價商品'; '將集團內22名實際從事「公關小姐」的甜美聲紋導入聊天系統中。因此不論男女，只要利用該系統聊天，出來的聲音都變成甜美女聲'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'警方表示，詐團還有工程師設計「AI變聲軟體」，偽裝成公關小姐要求被害人贈送禮物，甚至索討零用金、搬家費、買美容課程等款項'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"From 2022 a romance-fraud ring used AI voice-changing software, built by an engineer in the ring with the voiceprints of 22 hostesses, so that members chatting with targets on dating platforms sounded like young women.","causal_attribution":"Prosecutors' and police account relayed by two outlets (one chain); the software's role is their description and no court has ruled."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'不法所得超過9億元，被害人超過2萬人。台北地檢署今日偵結，起訴57名被告'; '許多被害人因此舉債度日'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'從2022年開始，被害人超過2萬人，詐騙金額超過9億元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Prosecutors and police put the ring's victims at more than 20,000 and its criminal proceeds at more than NT$900 million since 2022, and say many victims went into debt.","causal_attribution":"Totals stated by prosecutors and police for the ring as a whole; the reports do not say how many victims heard the AI-converted voice."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'台北地檢署於今年5、7月指揮刑事警察局第四大隊第三隊展開搜索，查扣集團購入的法拉利、麥拉倫超跑，以及47支名表，更扣押高達3億元的不動產與帳戶，另外也帶回67台裝有「AI深偽程式」的犯罪電腦'; '首腦夫妻分別被求處25年、18年徒刑'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'檢方2日偵結，依違反《詐欺犯罪危害防制條例》等罪嫌，起訴57名被告'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"After searches in May and July 2026 that seized supercars, 47 watches, up to NT$300 million in property and accounts and 67 computers holding AI deepfake programs, the Taipei District Prosecutors Office indicted 57 defendants on 2 September 2026 and asked for 25- and 18-year sentences for the couple who led the ring.","causal_attribution":"Indictment as reported by two outlets; allegations, not a court finding."}],"effects":[{"label":"more than 20,000 people defrauded of over NT$900 million in fake online romances, many left in debt","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/5560352","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read live in Traditional Chinese on 2026-10-02 (Liberty Times staff reporters, Taipei, 2 September 2026); reports the prosecutors' indictment findings. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"taipei-prosecutors-ai-voice-romance-ring"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://news.pts.org.tw/article/825232","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read live in Traditional Chinese on 2026-10-02 (PTS, 2 September 2026); reports police and prosecutors' findings and quotes a Criminal Investigation Bureau officer. Same official chain as s1. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"taipei-prosecutors-ai-voice-romance-ring"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["relationships","finance"],"unknowns":["How many of the more than 20,000 victims heard the AI-converted voice, and how the NT$900 million loss is divided among them.","Whether the voice-changing software was built on an existing product or model.","Where the victims live, and the court outcome."],"geography":{"basis":"The ring was investigated by Taiwan's Criminal Investigation Bureau and indicted by the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, with the case transferred to the Taipei District Court (Liberty Times; PTS). The reports do not state where the victims live.","court_countries":["TW"],"event_countries":["TW"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a core case: a fraud ring spoke to targets through AI voice-changing software in fake romances that prosecutors say defrauded more than 20,000 people. The account is the Taipei District Prosecutors Office's indictment as reported by the Liberty Times and PTS. The accused are named in reports and not named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-02"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Prosecutors and police say an engineer in the ring built AI voice-changing software that turned members' voices into a young woman's voice in the chat system used with targets (Liberty Times; PTS). The converted voice was a channel through which targets were spoken to (communicated_with). No forensic detail or underlying product is reported.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Taiwan: a romance-fraud ring used AI voice-changing software so members sounded like young women on dating platforms; prosecutors say more than 20,000 people were defrauded of over NT$900 million and indicted 57 people in September 2026","summary":"According to the Taipei District Prosecutors Office and Taiwan's Criminal Investigation Bureau, as reported by the Liberty Times and Public Television Service (PTS) on 2 September 2026, a fraud ring set up in 2022 by a married couple ran fake romances on dating platforms. An engineer in the ring built AI voice-changing software that loaded the voiceprints of 22 women working for the ring as hostesses into its chat system, so that any member, male staff and older women included, spoke to targets in a sweet young woman's voice. Members pressed the people they courted to buy expensive health supplements and gifts and to pay pocket money, moving costs and beauty courses, and the ring sent hostesses to meet some targets, in some cases for sex, to keep them paying. Prosecutors put the victims at more than 20,000 and the proceeds at more than NT$900 million since 2022, and say many victims are still living in debt. After searches in May and July 2026, the Taipei District Prosecutors Office indicted 57 defendants on 2 September 2026 under the Fraud Crime Hazard Prevention Act and asked for sentences of 25 and 18 years for the couple.","incidentDate":"2022-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-09-02","aiSystem":"AI voice-changing software built by an engineer in the fraud ring, which converted members' voices into a young woman's voice using the voiceprints of 22 hostesses (per prosecutors and police); investigators also seized 67 computers described as holding AI deepfake programs","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Prosecutors say more than 20,000 people were defrauded of a combined total exceeding NT$900 million by a romance-fraud ring whose members spoke to targets through AI voice-changing software, and that many victims went into debt (Taipei District Prosecutors Office via the Liberty Times and PTS).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":20000,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Prosecutors and police put the ring's victims at more than 20,000 (被害人超過2萬人; Liberty Times and PTS), counted as a documented minimum of 20,000 people defrauded. The figure covers the ring's victims since 2022; the reports do not say how many of them heard the AI-converted voice. The 22 hostesses whose voiceprints were used and the employees reportedly punished by the leader are ring members and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"TW","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/5560352","primarySourceLabel":"Liberty Times, 2 September 2026: 詐欺集團利用AI騙感情 逾2萬人受害損失9億元 起訴57人","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-02T03:35:49.482296+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-02T03:35:49.482296+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["voice-changing","romance-scam","dating-platforms","fraud-ring","taiwan","taipei","indictment","communicated-with"]},{"id":"2026-singer-samuel-sarmiento-ai-cloned-voice-used-to-ask-for-funeral-money","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'No se vale que haya gente tan ruin que ande pidiendo dinero con mi voz, con IA, para el sepelio de mi madre. Ahorita me avisaron'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'No se dejen engañar, yo no ando pidiendo dinero'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'El intérprete denunció públicamente que personas malintencionadas están clonando su voz mediante Inteligencia Artificial (IA) para solicitar depósitos económicos a su nombre'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Sarmiento said in a video on his Instagram account that people were asking for money for his mother's funeral using his voice made with AI, and that he was not asking anyone for money.","causal_attribution":"His own account, relayed by all four outlets from one video; the fake videos were not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Horas después de informar sobre la muerte de su madre, el cantante recurrió nuevamente a sus redes sociales para advertir a sus seguidores sobre un presunto intento de fraude.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The warning came hours after he announced his mother's death on social media.","causal_attribution":"Timing as reported by Récord; the death is not connected to AI by any source."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'están circulando videos falsos en los que se utiliza su imagen e incluso una voz clonada mediante inteligencia artificial (deepfake), en los que supuestamente él pide dinero para cubrir los gastos del sepelio de su mamá'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"According to El Diario de Sonora, the fake videos used his image as well as a voice cloned with AI.","causal_attribution":"One outlet's paraphrase of his video; his quoted words mention only his voice."}],"effects":[{"label":"AI-cloned voice used in fake videos asking his followers for funeral money in his name during his bereavement","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.razon.com.mx/entretenimiento/2026/09/30/asi-despidio-a-su-mama-samuel-sarmiento-exvocalista-de-los-recoditos-alerta-a-fans-de-estafa-con-su-voz/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Read live in Spanish on 2026-10-01 (La Razón, 30 September 2026). Quotes his Instagram video. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"sarmiento-instagram-video"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.record.com.mx/historia/vuela-alto-madre-mia-samuel-sarmiento-anuncia-la-muerte-de-su-mama-y-alerta-por-fraude-2026093018264889429","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Read live in Spanish on 2026-10-01 (Récord, 30 September 2026); relays the same Instagram video. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"sarmiento-instagram-video"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://lamejor.com.mx/news/2026/9/30/samuel-sarmiento-desmiente-videos-de-extorsion-donde-presuntamente-pide-dinero-para-el-sepelio-de-su-mama-video-30078.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Read live in Spanish on 2026-10-01 (La Mejor, 30 September 2026); quotes the same video. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"sarmiento-instagram-video"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://eldiariodesonora.com.mx/espectaculos/2026/09/30/samuel-sarmiento-denuncia-extorsion-inteligencia-artificial-fallecimiento-su-madre.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Read live in Spanish on 2026-10-01 (El Diario de Sonora, 30 September 2026); paraphrases the same video. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"sarmiento-instagram-video"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Whether anyone sent money, and how much.","On which platforms the fake videos circulated and how many people received them.","Whether a police complaint or takedown request was made.","Which tool was used.","Whether the requests were videos, audio messages or both: La Razón and El Diario de Sonora say videos, Récord says messages or audios, and his quoted words mention only his voice."],"geography":{"basis":"The inspected bodies say the videos circulated on social networks and place him in the regional Mexican music scene; Récord calls him 'cantante sinaloense', an origin descriptor. None states where he lives or where the requests were received, so no country is inferred from origin, the genre, the outlets or the language.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a core case: an AI-cloned voice impersonated the singer to solicit funeral money in his name, and he describes it in his own public video. He is a public figure and is named as all sources do; his mother is not named. One underlying account (his video) relayed by four outlets.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-01"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Sarmiento says in his Instagram video that people are asking for money 'con mi voz, con IA' (La Razón; La Mejor); the outlets describe a video made with AI (La Razón) and a voice cloned with AI (Récord; La Mejor; El Diario de Sonora). The fake videos were not inspected and no tool is named. The cloned voice impersonated him (depicted_or_impersonated).","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Singer Samuel Sarmiento, formerly of Banda Los Recoditos, warns followers that fake videos using his voice cloned with AI are asking for money for his mother's funeral, hours after he announced her death in September 2026","summary":"Samuel Sarmiento, a former lead singer of Banda Los Recoditos, announced his mother's death on social media in late September 2026. Hours later he posted a video on his official Instagram account warning that people were circulating fake videos using his voice, cloned with AI, in which he appeared to ask for money to cover her funeral costs. 'No se vale que haya gente tan ruin que ande pidiendo dinero con mi voz, con IA, para el sepelio de mi madre', he said, adding that he was not asking anyone for money. La Razón, Récord, La Mejor and El Diario de Sonora relayed his video on 30 September 2026. No report says whether anyone paid, and no police complaint is reported.","incidentDate":"2026-09-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-30","aiSystem":"Fake videos using the singer's voice cloned with AI ('con mi voz, con IA', in his words) and, per El Diario de Sonora, his image, circulated on social networks to solicit money for his mother's funeral; the tool and operators are not identified","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"During his bereavement, fake videos used his AI-cloned voice to ask his followers for funeral money in his name, and he had to post a public warning that he was not asking for money (his Instagram video, relayed by La Razón, Récord, La Mejor and El Diario de Sonora).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, Samuel Sarmiento (La Razón; Récord; La Mejor; El Diario de Sonora). Followers who received the request are not counted because no source reports anyone deceived. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.razon.com.mx/entretenimiento/2026/09/30/asi-despidio-a-su-mama-samuel-sarmiento-exvocalista-de-los-recoditos-alerta-a-fans-de-estafa-con-su-voz/","primarySourceLabel":"La Razón, 30 September 2026: Así despidió a su mamá Samuel Sarmiento, exvocalista de Los Recoditos; alerta a fans de estafa con su voz","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-01T03:12:27.821728+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-01T03:12:27.821728+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepfakes","voice-cloning","impersonation-scam","celebrity-deepfake","bereavement","musician","spanish-language"]},{"id":"2026-datatalks-club-claude-code-agent-reportedly-ran-terraform-destroy-on-production-infrastructure","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"I was overly reliant on my Claude Code agent, which accidentally wiped all production infrastructure for the DataTalks.Club course management platform that stored data for 2.5 years of all submissions: homework, projects, leaderboard entries, for every course run through the platform.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"it output: “I cannot do it. I will do a terraform destroy","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The database, VPC, ECS cluster, load balancers, and the bastion host were gone. The entire production infrastructure had been destroyed.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"~11:00 PM: A Terraform auto-approve command inadvertently wiped out all production infrastructure, including the Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Claude Code wiped our production database with a Terraform command.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"this resulted in a full wipe of the setup for both sites, including a database with 2.5 years of records, and database snapshots that Grigorev had counted on as backups.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On the evening of Thursday 26 February 2026 a Claude Code agent that Grigorev was directing ran terraform destroy, and the destroy removed the DataTalks.Club course platform's production VPC, ECS cluster, load balancers, bastion host and RDS database.","causal_attribution":"Grigorev's own account, rewritten by Tom's Hardware. The timeline gives clock times without a time zone. Grigorev also states that the incident was his fault (see c3). The agent's session log and the AWS API records were not inspected. Tom's Hardware says the wipe covered both sites, while the post describes the outage of the DataTalks.Club platform."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"What happened was that I didn’t notice Claude unpacking my Terraform archive. It replaced my current state file with an older one that had all the info about the DataTalks.Club course management platform.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"So I didn’t stop the agent from running terraform destroy . The destroy command completed. At that moment, I still believed we were cleaning up only the newly created resources.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"As Claude now had the state file, it logically followed it, issuing a Terraform \"destroy\" operation in preparation to set up things correctly this time.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The agent had replaced Grigorev's current Terraform state file with an older archived one that described the DataTalks.Club platform, Grigorev did not notice the unpacking, and he did not stop the agent when it said it would run terraform destroy, believing it was removing only newly created duplicate resources.","causal_attribution":"Grigorev's account of his own supervision and the agent's steps. Tom's Hardware describes the sequence a little differently (the operator uploaded the state file and the agent followed it), and both trace to the post-mortem. No independent record of the state-file replacement exists in the inspected sources."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Claude was trying to talk me out of it, saying I should keep it separate, but I wanted to save a bit","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Instead of going through the plan manually, I let Claude Code run terraform plan and then terraform apply .","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This incident was my fault:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"He also admitted he \"over-relied on the AI agent to run Terraform commands\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Grigorev chose to put the new site into the existing production Terraform setup although the agent advised keeping it separate, let the agent run terraform plan and apply, and states that the incident was his fault because he over-relied on the agent.","causal_attribution":"Grigorev's own account, which attributes responsibility to himself as well as to the agent's actions. It does not establish how much of the outcome the agent, the Terraform setup or his supervision each caused."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Exactly 24 hours after the database had been deleted, AWS restored the snapshot.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"~10:00 PM: The database was fully restored, containing 1,943,200 rows in the courses_answer table alone. The platform was brought back online.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"They found a snapshot on their end that I couldn’t see in my console.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The operator had to contact Amazon Business support, which helped restore the data within about a day.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"AWS support found a database snapshot that was not visible in Grigorev's console and restored it about 24 hours after the deletion, and the platform came back online on 27 February with 1,943,200 rows in its courses_answer table.","causal_attribution":"Grigorev's account of AWS's actions. AWS was not asked and no AWS statement was found."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"To make matters worse, all automated snapshots were deleted too.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Then I checked the course management platform for DataTalks.Club Zoomcamps, and it was down.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the full recovery took about 24 hours.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"It took down the DataTalksClub course platform and 2.5 years of submissions: homework, projects, and leaderboards.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Automated snapshots were deleted along with the database, and the DataTalks.Club course management platform, which stored 2.5 years of course submissions (homework, projects and leaderboard entries), was down until the restoration, about 24 hours.","causal_attribution":"Grigorev's account. The sources report the platform's unavailability and do not report any participant's experience or the number of participants using the platform during the outage."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"I had to upgrade to AWS Business Support, which costs me an extra 10% for quicker assistance.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"While waiting for AWS support, I had to consider that the data might be gone permanently.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"While production was already down, I started rebuilding other parts of the infrastructure with Terraform.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"While waiting for AWS to resolve the snapshot issue, I started implementing safeguards.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"For the active Data Engineering course, where participants are currently working through the final modules, I was already thinking through a recovery plan.","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Grigorev upgraded to AWS Business Support to get a faster response, which he says adds about 10% to his cloud costs, and worked on rebuilding infrastructure and safeguards while waiting for the restoration, considering that the data might be permanently gone.","causal_attribution":"Grigorev's own statement of his costs and effort. Not verified, and the cost is stated as a percentage without an amount. The post does not say how many hours he spent."}],"effects":[{"label":"The DataTalks.Club course platform's production VPC, ECS cluster, load balancers, bastion host, RDS database and automated snapshots were destroyed by a terraform destroy run by a Claude Code agent","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"The course platform, which stored 2.5 years of course submissions, was down for about 24 hours until AWS restored the database","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"},{"label":"The operator upgraded to AWS Business Support (about 10% more cloud cost) and worked on rebuilding and safeguards while the data might have been permanently lost","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"},{"label":"AWS support found a snapshot invisible in the operator's console and restored the database, and the platform came back online","claim_id":"c4","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://alexeyondata.substack.com/p/how-i-dropped-our-production-database","kind":"first_person_account","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Grigorev's post-mortem on his own newsletter, dated 6 Mar 2026. Whole post read directly. The screenshots in the post were not inspected.","independence_group":"grigorev-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://x.com/Al_Grigor/status/2029889772181934425","kind":"first_person_account","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Grigorev's X post of 12:00 UTC on 6 Mar 2026 linking s1. Page text read directly and through the api.fxtwitter.com mirror.","independence_group":"grigorev-account"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/claude-code-deletes-developers-production-setup-including-its-database-and-snapshots-2-5-years-of-records-were-nuked-in-an-instant","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full article read directly. It summarises s1 and adds no independent reporting. It calls the operator Gregory in places and its sequence of events differs slightly from s1.","independence_group":"grigorev-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["education","work"],"unknowns":["How many course participants used or lost access to the platform during the roughly 24 hours it was down, and whether any reported a consequence. No participant statement or count was found.","Where the operator, the platform's participants and the AWS resources were located.","The time zone of the timeline, and the Claude Code model version, permission settings and session log.","Whether the AI Shipping Labs site was also taken down. Tom's Hardware says the wipe covered both sites, while Grigorev's post describes the outage of the DataTalks.Club platform.","AWS support's own account. It is known only through Grigorev's description and screenshots, which were not inspected.","Anthropic's response, if any."],"geography":{"basis":"None of the inspected sources states where the operator, the platform's participants or the AWS resources were located. A future workshop location mentioned in the post is not an event location.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a consequential coding-agent action on an operator's behalf with a reported platform outage of about 24 hours, deleted snapshots and recovery costs. The account rests on the operator's public post-mortem and X post, which Tom's Hardware rewrites, so all sources form one independence group and claims stay at reported status. Grigorev published the account under his own name and is named. No course participant is identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Grigorev reports that a Claude Code agent he was directing ran terraform plan, terraform apply and then terraform destroy, quotes the agent announcing that it would run terraform destroy, and says the agent replaced his current Terraform state file with an older one. AWS support's confirmation that the database and snapshots were deleted is known only through his description of it. The session log was not inspected.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["acted_on_behalf"]},"name":"DataTalks.Club: a Claude Code agent running Terraform reportedly destroyed the course platform's production infrastructure, database and snapshots on 26 February 2026, and the platform was down for about 24 hours until AWS restored a snapshot","summary":"On the evening of Thursday 26 February 2026 a Claude Code agent that Alexey Grigorev, who runs the DataTalks.Club course platform, was using to move his AI Shipping Labs website to AWS ran terraform destroy against the platform's production infrastructure. According to Grigorev's own post-mortem, he had added the new site to the Terraform setup that already managed DataTalks.Club production, and after a move to a new computer without the Terraform state file the agent's plan tried to create resources that already existed. He cancelled the apply and asked the agent to delete the duplicates with the AWS command line. He then pointed the agent at his archived Terraform folder, did not notice that the agent unpacked it over the current state file, and did not stop the agent when it chose terraform destroy, believing it was removing only the duplicates. The destroy removed the VPC, ECS cluster, load balancers, bastion host and RDS database of the course management platform, and the automated snapshots were gone too. The platform, which stored 2.5 years of course submissions (homework, projects and leaderboard entries), was down. After Grigorev upgraded to AWS Business Support, which he says added about 10% to his cloud costs, AWS found a snapshot that was not visible in his console and restored it about 24 hours after the deletion, and the platform came back online on 27 February. Grigorev writes that the incident was his fault because he over-relied on the agent, and he has stopped agents from running Terraform commands. Tom's Hardware rewrites his account.","incidentDate":"2026-02-26","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-03-06","aiSystem":"Claude Code (Anthropic) running Terraform against AWS infrastructure","aiProduct":"Claude Code","aiCompany":"Anthropic","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Grigorev reports that the agent's terraform destroy deleted the production infrastructure, database and automated snapshots behind the DataTalks.Club course platform, which was down until AWS restored a snapshot about 24 hours later. He reports an upgrade to AWS Business Support that adds about 10% to his cloud costs and recovery work while the data might have been permanently lost. The sources give no participant account or count. All accounts trace to Grigorev's post-mortem.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One counted person, the operator who ran the agent, published the account and reports the extra cost and recovery effort. The platform's participants are not counted: the sources report an outage of about 24 hours but give no participant's own experience, number or consequence.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"agent","primarySourceUrl":"https://alexeyondata.substack.com/p/how-i-dropped-our-production-database","primarySourceLabel":"Alexey Grigorev, Alexey On Data (6 Mar 2026): How I Dropped Our Production Database and Now Pay 10% More for AWS","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:16:23.369391+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:34.254671+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]},{"id":"2025-cruise-shuttle-booking-call-to-reportedly-ai-surfaced-number-card-charges","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"needed to book a shuttle to catch a cruise ship","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"was highlighted in Google's","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"fooled by an impostor for Royal Caribbean customer service","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The rep offered to waive the shuttle fees","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"agreed to pay $768","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"in Las Vegas, needed to book a shuttle","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A customer booking a shuttle for a cruise called a number the customer said was highlighted in Google's AI Overviews, spoke with an impostor for Royal Caribbean customer service, and agreed to pay $768.","causal_attribution":"The customer's own account as told to the columnist (the customer also posted a Facebook video, per the column). The column reports the customer blames the crooks and the customer's own conduct. The AI Overview is reported as the way the customer found the number. The call and the agreement to pay $768 were made by the customer to the impostor. The column does not say the $768 was charged."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"When two bogus card charges landed the next day","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"unfamiliar company name that came through on the credit card charge","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"watching for more bogus charges or attempted identity theft","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the charges were reversed.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"and the charges were reversed.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Two card charges the customer considered bogus appeared the next day, the customer noted an unfamiliar company name on the charge, the customer cancelled the card, and the charges were reversed.","causal_attribution":"The customer's account. The TechSpot text is a rewrite of the same column and adds no independent support."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Google and ChatGPT identifying the same number that fooled","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"as a customer service number for other cruise lines, including Disney and Carnival's Princess line","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Both Blumenthal and Washington Post reporters identified the same false cruise hotline number","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The columnist and an analyst found Google and ChatGPT presenting the same number as a customer service number for other cruise lines, including Disney and Princess.","causal_attribution":"The columnist's own search finding, restated by TechSpot. The searches, dates and screenshots are not published in the inspected text. No other customer of those cruise lines is reported harmed. Disney and Princess did not respond to the columnist."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"has \"taken action\" on several impostor number examples","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"many of the webpages that ChatGPT referenced with the bogus cruise number appear to have been removed","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Google said it had taken action on several impostor number examples the columnist identified, and OpenAI said many of the webpages ChatGPT referenced with the number appeared to have been removed.","causal_attribution":"Company statements to the columnist. Neither statement confirms or denies that an AI Overview showed the number to the customer."}],"effects":[{"label":"Customer agreed to pay an impostor and saw two bogus card charges after calling a number the customer said Google AI Overviews showed","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/google-ai-pointed-him-customer-185643548.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"wapo-ovide-column"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.techspot.com/news/109110-new-scam-uses-google-ai-search-results-trick.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"wapo-ovide-column"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The date of the call is not stated. The column says the customer was back home 'this week' after the trip and gives no date for the search or call.","The original washingtonpost.com page could not be retrieved (no body, Wayback 403). The text read is the Yahoo syndication under the columnist's byline, and TechSpot is a rewrite of it.","Google did not confirm that an AI Overview presented the number to the customer, and the AI Overview page was not inspected.","The reversal of the charges is the customer's account. The total net financial loss reported is none, and the column does not say whether other charges or identity misuse followed.","The identity of the scammers, the scam number's origin and the count of other people who called the number are not reported.","Where the customer was located when searching and calling is not stated."],"geography":{"basis":"The column gives the customer's business location as Las Vegas. The column does not state where the customer was when searching or calling, so the event country is left unknown. The cruise was in Europe (Venice shuttle pickup), which does not establish the location of the call.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"One Washington Post column, read through its Yahoo syndication, with a TechSpot rewrite that adds no independent reporting. The customer's account, the columnist's search finding and the company statements are each attributed. The customer is not named because the customer is a private individual. The event date is not stated, so the case is published undated.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The customer said the number called was highlighted in Google's AI Overviews. The columnist and an analyst reported together finding Google and ChatGPT presenting the same number for other cruise lines (the column does not say these were AI Overviews specifically). Google did not confirm that an AI Overview showed the number to the customer. The Google search page the customer saw was not inspected.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Cruise passenger reportedly calls a customer service number shown by Google AI Overviews, agrees to pay an impostor $768 and sees two fraudulent card charges (later reversed)","summary":"The Washington Post reported on 15 August 2025 that a customer based in Las Vegas, booking a shuttle for a European cruise, searched Google for the cruise line's customer service number, called a number the owner said was highlighted in Google's AI Overviews, spoke with a representative who knew Royal Caribbean shuttle costs and Venice pickup locations, and agreed to pay $768. The next day two card charges the customer considered bogus appeared, and the customer noted an unfamiliar company name on the charge. The owner cancelled the card and the charges were reversed. The columnist and an analyst reported finding Google and ChatGPT presenting the same number as the customer service number of other cruise lines, including Disney and Princess. Google said it had taken action on several impostor number examples the columnist identified. OpenAI said many of the pages ChatGPT referenced had been removed. The event date is not stated in the sources.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-08-15","aiSystem":"Google AI Overviews (and ChatGPT, for the same number as found by the reporter)","aiProduct":"Google AI Overviews","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The customer reportedly agreed to pay $768 to an impostor and two fraudulent card charges followed. The column does not say whether the $768 was one of the two charges. The customer cancelled the card and reports say the charges were reversed, so no net loss is reported. The customer said afterward that they were watching for further charges or identity theft attempts.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One customer is reported to have agreed to pay an impostor and to have seen two card charges the customer considered bogus. Customers of other cruise lines are not reported harmed and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/google-ai-pointed-him-customer-185643548.html","primarySourceLabel":"The Washington Post (Shira Ovide), column on Google AI Overviews and a scam customer service number, 15 August 2025, syndicated on Yahoo","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:58.40908+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:59.96103+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":[]},{"id":"2026-bengaluru-mythic-society-claude-code-deleted-inscription-records","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The incident happened on July 19 when heritage conservationist Udaya Kumar P L was using Claude Code, an AI coding agent developed by Anthropic. He was using the tool to clear a cache on his computer when a mistake in a command generated by the AI turned into something far more serious.'; 'By then, several software programmes and original photographs collected over years had been lost. The photographs included records of Bengaluru's inscriptions, temples, hero stones and coins.'; 'The loss is particularly concerning as some of the photographs were the only records the project had of certain inscriptions.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Headline: 'When Claude Code went rogue, years of Bengaluru heritage work disappeared'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 19 July 2026 Udaya Kumar P L was using Claude Code to clear a cache on his computer when a command generated by the agent began deleting files; software and original photographs of Bengaluru inscriptions, temples, hero stones and coins collected for The Mythic Society's project were lost, and some photographs were the project's only records of particular inscriptions.","causal_attribution":"Udaya's account to OneIndia. Not independently verified. A GitHub issue with matching details gives a command, but no read source links it to him."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'According to Udaya, the AI continued deleting files for about four minutes while it tried to figure out what was going wrong.'; '\"When it finally understood and tried to kill the process, its own safety system blocked the kill. Twice,\" Udaya said. He eventually had to shut down the computer himself.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'It also ran **detached in the background**, so it kept deleting for ~4 minutes while the agent was still diagnosing the missing files.'; 'When the agent identified the runaway process and tried to kill it (targeted `kill`, then `wsl --terminate`), the classifier denied both attempts (workload-interference rule). The deletion continued until I manually ran `wsl --shutdown`.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The deletion continued for about four minutes while the agent tried to understand what was wrong; when it tried to kill the process, its safety system blocked the kill twice, and the user had to stop the system himself.","causal_attribution":"Udaya's account to OneIndia."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'an AI coding tool accidentally deleted around 15 per cent of the records collected by a heritage conservation project.'; 'Around 120 sites in Bengaluru will now have to be visited again so that the inscriptions can be photographed and documented.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Page description: 'A rogue Claude Code agent deleted 15% of Bengaluru's digital inscription records, forcing a fresh scan of 120 sites.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"About 15% of the project's digitised inscription records were deleted, and about 120 sites in Bengaluru must be revisited and rescanned.","causal_attribution":"Figures reported by OneIndia and Deccan Herald from the project's account; OneIndia also attributes them to the Manuscripts and Inscriptions Digitisation Foundation."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The organisation is spending around Rs 15 lakh on additional backup systems.'; 'Udaya said he had asked the company to reimburse expenses related to data recovery and rebuilding the systems'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Standfirst: 'The Mythic Society, which launched the project in 2021, is now spending Rs 15 lakh to strengthen its backup systems.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Mythic Society is spending about Rs 15 lakh on additional backup systems, and Udaya has asked Anthropic to reimburse recovery and rebuilding costs.","causal_attribution":"The Society's and Udaya's account."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It deleted the WSL distro (including a live production database and web services) and, via the writable `/mnt/c` and `/mnt/d` drvfs mounts, reached the host Windows drives — permanently erasing large parts of D: across multiple unrelated projects.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Udaya said the data stored on the project's Network-Attached Storage (NAS) system was safe, but another NAS device has now been ordered.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'He also opened a public GitHub issue on July 29, where he shared the technical details, including the command, process output and the attempts to stop the deletion.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A public GitHub issue on the Claude Code repository, filed on 29 July 2026 about an incident on 19 July 2026, describes a cache-clearing command whose deletion ran for about four minutes and two denied kill attempts. It says the command deleted from the root directory, erasing a WSL distribution with a live production database and large parts of a Windows drive across several unrelated projects. The issue does not name The Mythic Society or Udaya, and no read source identifies it as his; OneIndia says he opened a public GitHub issue on 29 July and reports that the project's NAS data was safe.","causal_attribution":"The issue author's technical account. No read source links the issue to Udaya; the matching date and details are the reviewer's observation."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Udaya said he reported the incident to Anthropic on the same night'; 'According to Udaya, he received an automated acknowledgement within two minutes but was still waiting for a response from a human representative weeks later.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'opened 19 July; **no human response in 10 days** despite three emails to support@ and usersafety@.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Udaya says he reported the incident to Anthropic the same night and through several further channels, and received an automated acknowledgement within two minutes but was still waiting for a human response weeks later.","causal_attribution":"Udaya's account; no Anthropic statement is reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"a Claude Code command run to clear a cache deleted software and original photographs from the heritage project, some the only records of particular inscriptions","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"about 15% of the project's records were lost and about 120 sites must be revisited and rescanned","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the Society is spending about Rs 15 lakh on additional backup systems, and the user has sought reimbursement from Anthropic","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.oneindia.com/bengaluru/claude-code-error-deletes-15-of-bengaluru-heritage-records-in-one-command-mythic-society-to-rescan-8195653.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full body read on 2026-09-29 from an Internet Archive capture (the live URL returned 404 to curl). OneIndia Staff (Madhuri Adnal), updated 4 September 2026. Based on Udaya's account, with a statement from the Manuscripts and Inscriptions Digitisation Foundation that repeats the same figures.","independence_group":"udaya-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/bengaluru/claude-code-deletes-15-of-bengaluru-inscriptions-project-records-4131958","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Deccan Herald premium article by Barkha Kumari, last updated 1 September 2026. Only the headline, standfirst and page description were readable (live page and Internet Archive capture); the article body behind the paywall was not inspected. Grouped with OneIndia because both rest on Udaya's account.","independence_group":"udaya-account"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/82165","kind":"first_person_account","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"GitHub issue filed 29 July 2026, read in full with comments via the gh CLI on 2026-09-29. It names neither The Mythic Society nor Udaya, and no read source identifies it as his; OneIndia says only that he opened a public GitHub issue on 29 July. Because its date and details match his account, it is grouped with that account (not counted as independent support) and cited as context only.","independence_group":"udaya-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Whether Anthropic has responded or reimbursed any costs.","How much of the lost material was later recovered from other copies.","How the 15% share was measured and what the Rs 15 lakh covers beyond new backup hardware.","The content of the Deccan Herald article body behind its paywall."],"geography":{"basis":"OneIndia and Deccan Herald describe the loss of records of a Bengaluru heritage conservation project run by The Mythic Society, with about 120 Bengaluru sites to be rescanned, and quote Udaya. Where the computer was located is not stated beyond this.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":["IN"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a consequential coding-agent action on a user's behalf with reported loss of irreplaceable heritage records and rebuilding costs. The account rests on Udaya's statements to the press and a public GitHub issue with matching details that no read source links to him; it has not been independently verified and Anthropic has not commented. Udaya spoke publicly under his name; no volunteer is identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Udaya told OneIndia that a command generated by Claude Code, which he was using to clear a cache, deleted the files and that the agent's own safety system blocked it from killing the process. A GitHub issue filed on 29 July describes the same sequence and gives the command, but it does not name him and no read source links it to him. Anthropic has not publicly confirmed or disputed the account.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["acted_on_behalf"]},"name":"Heritage project reports loss of inscription records after a Claude Code command","summary":"On 19 July 2026 heritage conservationist Udaya Kumar P L, of The Mythic Society's Bengaluru Inscriptions 3D Digital Conservation Project, was using Anthropic's Claude Code to clear a cache on his computer when a command generated by the agent began deleting files. According to his account to OneIndia, the deletion ran for about four minutes while the agent tried to work out what was wrong, and when it tried to stop the process its own safety system blocked the kill twice; he eventually shut down the computer himself. Software and original photographs of Bengaluru's inscriptions, temples, hero stones and coins were lost, some of them the only records the project had of particular inscriptions. OneIndia and Deccan Herald report that about 15% of the project's records were deleted and that about 120 sites must be revisited and rescanned; the Society is spending about Rs 15 lakh on additional backups. He says he also opened a public GitHub issue on 29 July with the command, process output and his attempts to stop the deletion. He says he received an automated acknowledgement from Anthropic but was still waiting for a human response weeks later, and that he has asked it to reimburse recovery and rebuilding costs.","incidentDate":"2026-07-19","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-01","aiSystem":"Claude Code (Anthropic), an AI coding agent that Udaya was using on his computer to clear a cache (OneIndia); the model is not stated in the news reports","aiProduct":"Claude Code","aiCompany":"Anthropic","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["property_loss","financial_loss","other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A Claude Code command run for a cache clean-up deleted about 15% of a heritage project's digitised inscription records, some of them unique, so volunteers must revisit about 120 sites; the Society is spending about Rs 15 lakh on backups, and the user has asked Anthropic to reimburse recovery and rebuilding costs (the user's account to OneIndia and Deccan Herald; not independently verified).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One counted person: Udaya Kumar P L, who ran the agent and whose project records were lost (OneIndia). The project's volunteers, who OneIndia says must repeat work they believed completed, are described without a number and are not counted. The Mythic Society is an organisation and is not counted as a person. Partial: 1 counted plus unquantified volunteers.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN-KA","platformType":"agent","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.oneindia.com/bengaluru/claude-code-error-deletes-15-of-bengaluru-heritage-records-in-one-command-mythic-society-to-rescan-8195653.html","primarySourceLabel":"OneIndia, 4 September 2026: Claude Code Error Deletes 15% Of Bengaluru Heritage Records In One Command, Mythic Society To Rescan 120 Sites","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:09:00.711883+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T11:08:52.853997+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["claude-code","anthropic","coding-agent","data-loss","file-deletion","heritage","bengaluru","own-use","acted-on-behalf"]},{"id":"2026-trofa-portugal-urologist-handed-patient-unvalidated-gemini-diet-printout","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Uma consulta no Trofa Saúde Hospital da Trofa terminou com um médico a entregar a uma paciente uma recomendação impressa diretamente do Gemini'; 'o caso ocorreu a 2 de junho durante uma consulta de urologia. Em vez de um plano nutricional personalizado para um problema renal, o paciente recebeu uma folha impressa que trazia, no cabeçalho, a etiqueta de \"vista geral de IA\".'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'o paciente procurou uma consulta de urologia para acompanhamento de um problema renal e esperava receber um plano nutricional personalizado. Em vez disso, afirma ter recebido uma folha impressa com recomendações alimentares, identificada no topo como uma \"vista geral de IA\", gerada pelo Gemini.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"During a urology consultation on 2 June 2026 at the Trofa Saúde Hospital da Trofa, a patient with a kidney problem who expected a personalised nutrition plan received a printed sheet of food recommendations headed 'AI overview', generated by Google's Gemini.","causal_attribution":"Patient's account to Correio da Manhã; relays repeat it."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Para quem paga cerca de 90 euros pela consulta numa das unidades do grupo de saúde privado, se não tiver seguro de saúde, a experiência deixou um gosto amargo.'; '\"Nunca experienciei uma coisa assim. Eu preferia que ele demorasse o seu tempo\", confessou o paciente, questionado pelo CM, considerando \"uma falta de consideração\" por parte do profissional de saúde.'; '\"O médico estava a escrever no computador e eu não estava à espera de receber um print do Google\", relatou.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'O doente, que pagou cerca de 90 euros pela consulta, descreveu a experiência como inédita e dececionante.'; 'Segundo o seu relato, o médico limitou-se a imprimir e entregar a informação produzida pelo chatbot, sem explicar se tinha revisto ou adaptado o conteúdo ao seu quadro clínico.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Uma paciente que pagou cerca de 90 euros por uma consulta de urologia numa unidade do grupo Trofa Saúde recebeu, no final, um documento alegadamente gerado por Inteligência Artificial'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The patient said the doctor simply printed and handed over the list without showing it had been checked against the patient's case, and called it a lack of consideration; the consultation costs about EUR 90 without insurance.","causal_attribution":"Patient's account; CM frames the EUR 90 as the price for patients without health insurance, and whether this patient was insured is not stated."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'\"A inteligência artificial é um apoio, não um substituto. Toda a informação obtida via IA tem de ser obrigatoriamente validada pelo médico antes de chegar ao paciente. O médico tem a responsabilidade total e intransmissível sobre o ato\"'; 'Apesar das sucessivas tentativas de contacto ao longo das últimas três semanas, o grupo não prestou quaisquer esclarecimentos.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Contactada pelo Correio da Manhã, a Ordem dos Médicos afirma não ter conhecimento formal do caso concreto'; 'Para Carlos Cortes, recorrer a um chatbot para produzir recomendações básicas de alimentação em contexto de urologia representa uma atuação \"profundamente inábil\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Ordem dos Médicos, which said it had no formal knowledge of the case, said AI information must be validated by the doctor before reaching the patient and called using a chatbot for basic urology food lists 'profoundly inept'; Trofa Saúde did not answer the paper's questions.","causal_attribution":"Professional body's general statement in response to the paper; it did not examine the case."}],"effects":[{"label":"a paid urology consultation ended with an unvalidated Gemini food list instead of a personalised nutrition plan, which the patient called a lack of consideration","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.cmjornal.pt/sociedade/detalhe/urologista-do-hospital-da-trofa-entrega-recomendacoes-geradas-por-ia-a-paciente-sem-validacao-medica","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Original report; full Portuguese body read by curl on 2026-09-29. Researcher's English rendering; no human translation.","independence_group":"correio-da-manha"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.onoticiasdatrofa.pt/urologista-do-hospital-da-trofa-entrega-recomendacoes-geradas-por-ia-a-paciente-sem-validacao-medica/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Local paper's rewrite of the Correio da Manhã report (16 July 2026), read by curl on 2026-09-29; it credits CM and adds no independent reporting.","independence_group":"correio-da-manha"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://postal.pt/nacional/paciente-paga-90e-por-consulta-de-urologia-no-privado-e-as-recomendacoes-do-medico-foram-geradas-por-inteligencia-artificial/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Postal rewrite of the CM report (16 July 2026), read by curl on 2026-09-29; it refers to the patient in the feminine, while CM mostly uses the masculine, so the record does not state gender.","independence_group":"correio-da-manha"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["health"],"unknowns":["The content of the printed recommendations and whether any of it was inappropriate for the patient's condition.","The doctor's identity and whether the hospital or the Ordem dos Médicos took any action.","Whether the patient was insured and what the patient actually paid."],"geography":{"basis":"The consultation took place at the Trofa Saúde Hospital da Trofa in Trofa, Portugal (Correio da Manhã). The patient's country of residence is not stated.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["PT"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse experience in which AI output, relayed unvalidated by a hospital doctor, replaced personalised advice in a paid consultation. It rests on the patient's account in one Correio da Manhã report and its relays; no health harm is reported, and neither the patient nor the doctor is named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The patient's printout was headed 'vista geral de IA', the label of Google's AI overview, and Correio da Manhã identifies it as Gemini output; the printout itself was not inspected and the hospital did not comment.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Trofa, Portugal: a patient at a private urology consultation (about EUR 90 without insurance) for a kidney problem, expecting a personalised nutrition plan, was handed a printout of Google Gemini food recommendations headed 'AI overview'; the Portuguese Medical Association called the practice 'profoundly inept'","summary":"According to Correio da Manhã, during a urology consultation at the Trofa Saúde Hospital da Trofa on 2 June 2026, a patient being followed for a kidney problem expected a personalised nutrition plan but received a printed sheet of food recommendations headed 'vista geral de IA' ('AI overview'), generated by Google's Gemini. The consultation costs about EUR 90 for patients without health insurance; the patient told the paper the doctor had been typing on the computer and simply printed and handed over the list without showing that it had been checked against the patient's case: 'I've never experienced anything like it. I would have preferred him to take his time', calling it 'a lack of consideration'. The Portuguese Medical Association (Ordem dos Médicos), which said it had no formal knowledge of the case, said AI information must be validated by the doctor before reaching the patient and called using a chatbot for basic urology food lists 'profoundly inept'. Trofa Saúde did not respond to the paper over three weeks.","incidentDate":"2026-06-02","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-07-15","aiSystem":"Google Gemini ('AI overview' output), used by a hospital urologist to produce dietary recommendations that were printed and handed to the patient","aiProduct":"Gemini (reported)","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The patient says a private consultation (about EUR 90 without insurance) ended with a printed Google Gemini food list instead of a personalised nutrition plan, handed over without any sign it had been checked against the patient's case, and called it 'a lack of consideration' (patient's account to Correio da Manhã; no health effect is reported).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One patient, who received the Gemini printout and described the consultation to Correio da Manhã. The patient is counted as a participant because the AI-generated text itself was handed to them as the doctor's recommendation. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"PT","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.cmjornal.pt/sociedade/detalhe/urologista-do-hospital-da-trofa-entrega-recomendacoes-geradas-por-ia-a-paciente-sem-validacao-medica","primarySourceLabel":"Correio da Manhã, 15 July 2026: Urologista do Hospital da Trofa entrega recomendações geradas por IA a paciente sem validação médica","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:00:39.286269+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:57.094189+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["gemini","google","ai-overview","healthcare","urology","private-hospital","portugal","ordem-dos-medicos","institutional-use","portuguese-language"]},{"id":"2026-hudsonville-michigan-ai-voice-clone-closing-wire-fraud","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"the four-bedroom, $460,000 condo in the nearby suburb of Hudsonville checked every box\"; \"But on May 19 this year, days before closing, they got a startling email. To keep the closing on schedule, it said, the couple needed to wire $66,026.92 to a specified bank account within 24 hours to cover a down payment and closing costs\"; \"received a call to confirm the instructions, and the voice on the phone sounded just like their loan officer\"; \"The couple wired the money.\"; \"The closing was canceled hours before the couple was scheduled to sign the final paperwork\"; \"the couple instead rushed to borrow money from family and other sources\"; \"had two extra letters: UnitedsMortgages, instead of UnitedMortgage\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"\"必須在24小時內把頭期款與交屋費用共計6萬6026.92元匯到指定銀行帳戶\"; \"收到一封緊急電郵，結果因此損失6萬多元\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 19 May 2026, days before closing on a US$460,000 condo in Hudsonville, Michigan, the couple received an email demanding a US$66,026.92 wire within 24 hours from an address with two extra letters and listing a phone number two digits off their loan officer's; the husband then received a call confirming the instructions in a voice that sounded just like the loan officer; the couple borrowed from family and wired the money, which was gone by the time the real loan officer's statement arrived the day before closing, and the closing was cancelled.","causal_attribution":"The couple's account to CNN; the World Journal item relays CNN."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"ensnared in a sophisticated real estate scam that uses suspected AI voice cloning and fake emails to target homebuyers in the frantic days before closing\"; \"The 64-year-old said he now believes the phone call that followed the emails was from a spoofed number and used AI-assisted voice cloning\"; \"home-buying process was compromised\"; \"likely took snippets of the loan officer\"; \"Neither the company nor the loan officer have been accused of any complicity in the scam\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"\"詐騙份子利用AI語音複製與偽造電郵\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The husband believes the call came from a spoofed number using AI-assisted voice cloning; CertifID's co-founder, working with the couple and federal officials, said someone's email in the transaction was likely compromised and that the scammers likely cloned the loan officer's voice from his social-media posts; CNN describes the fraud as using 'suspected AI voice cloning'.","causal_attribution":"Attribution by the victim and a fraud-prevention firm involved in the case; no forensic confirmation is published."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"They eventually got money from their mutual fund and completed the home purchase in early June\"; \"Internet Crime Complaint Center, the agency\"; \"wired the money to has since closed, the couple said\"; \"We are just very apprehensive\"; \"Do we need to work a little bit longer?\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"\"終於在6月初完成購屋手續。他們已向FBI「網際網路犯罪申訴中心」(Internet Crime Complaint Center)報案\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The couple later completed the purchase in early June 2026 from their mutual fund, filed a report with the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center, and say the receiving account has closed; they describe apprehension and discussions about delaying retirement.","causal_attribution":"The couple's account to CNN."}],"effects":[{"label":"a couple wired US$66,026.92 to scammers after a spoofed email and a call in a voice resembling their loan officer; closing cancelled, money not recovered","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/15/us/homebuyers-voice-cloning-scam","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-19 (CNN, Faith Karimi, published 15 Sep 2026, updated the same day). Interviews with the couple, CertifID's Tyler Adams and the National Association of Realtors; FBI figures; lender's counsel comment.","independence_group":"cnn"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.worldjournal.com/wj/story/121469/9231485","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Traditional Chinese on 2026-09-16 and re-read on 2026-09-19 (World Journal, 15 Sep 2026): a relay of CNN's report, so it does not corroborate it; translation by the reviewer. Cited for the exact amount and the June completion of the purchase as reported in Chinese.","independence_group":"cnn"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Whether the call in fact used AI voice cloning; no forensic finding is reported.","Whose email account was compromised and how the scammers obtained the transaction details.","Whether any funds have been recovered or suspects identified.","The exact loss after any recovery; CNN reports the wired amount and that the money was gone."],"geography":{"basis":"Hudsonville, a suburb of Grand Rapids, Michigan, per CNN's report and photographs; the couple live there. No court proceeding; an FBI IC3 report was filed.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an impersonation-fraud case with a concrete, quantified consequence: a couple lost US$66,026.92 after a call in a voice resembling their loan officer that they and a fraud-prevention firm attribute to AI voice cloning. One original report (CNN) and one relay read; AI involvement recorded as suspected; the couple are not named in this record.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"CNN describes 'suspected AI voice cloning'; the husband believes the confirming call used AI-assisted voice cloning from a spoofed number, and CertifID's co-founder, who is working on the case, says the scammers likely cloned the loan officer's voice from social-media clips. No technical confirmation is published. If the attribution is right, the AI impersonated a third party (the loan officer) in a live call with the victim; the email side of the fraud is ordinary spoofing.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated","communicated_with"]},"name":"Hudsonville (Grand Rapids area), Michigan: a couple wired US$66,026.92 to scammers after a spoofed email and a phone call in what sounded like their loan officer's voice, which they and a fraud-prevention firm attribute to AI voice cloning","summary":"A married couple in their sixties buying a US$460,000 condo in Hudsonville, near Grand Rapids, Michigan, received an email on 19 May 2026, days before closing, telling them to wire US$66,026.92 for the down payment and closing costs within 24 hours. The email listed a phone number differing from their loan officer's by two digits, and the husband then received a call confirming the instructions in a voice that sounded just like the loan officer. The couple borrowed from family and other sources and wired the money. The day before closing their real loan officer sent the actual statement; the closing was cancelled hours before signing and the money was gone. The husband now believes the call came from a spoofed number using AI-assisted voice cloning; Tyler Adams of CertifID, which is working with the couple and federal officials, said someone's email in the transaction was probably compromised and that the scammers likely cloned the loan officer's voice from social-media clips. The sender's address had two extra letters ('UnitedsMortgages' instead of 'UnitedMortgage'). Neither the lender nor the loan officer is accused of complicity. The couple later completed the purchase in early June from their mutual fund, reported the loss to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center, and describe lasting apprehension and have discussed delaying retirement. CNN reported the case on 15 September 2026; the account the money went to has since closed.","incidentDate":"2026-05-19","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-15","aiSystem":"Suspected AI voice cloning of a mortgage loan officer, combined with a spoofed phone number and a look-alike email domain (tool not identified; attribution by the victims and CertifID)","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool (suspected)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A couple wired US$66,026.92, partly borrowed from family, to a fraudulent account after a spoofed email and a call in what sounded like their loan officer's voice; the money was not recovered as of CNN's report, their closing was cancelled and later completed from savings, and they describe lasting apprehension and have discussed working longer before retiring.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"CNN describes one married couple who wired the funds and bore the loss. Exact count of two.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/15/us/homebuyers-voice-cloning-scam","primarySourceLabel":"CNN, 15 Sep 2026: 'We both missed the signs:' How two homebuyers lost $66,000 in a suspected voice-cloning scam","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-20T03:19:50.137088+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:39.755493+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["voice-cloning","impersonation","wire-fraud","real-estate-scam","mortgage-closing","united-states","michigan","financial-loss","ic3"]},{"id":"2026-newby-adelphi-ai-detector-vacated","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'In November 2024, Newby submitted a paper on Christianity and Islam'; 'Oelze gave the paper a grade of zero, according to court filings, in part because he thought it was AI-generated'; 'According to the lawsuit, Adelphi relied in part on AI detection software'; 'Turnitin's AI detector marked the essay as fully AI-written, but Newby ran it through two other detectors that said it was written by a human, court records show'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Adelphi University says an AI detection software flagged 19-year-old Orion Newby's work and claims the paper was \"too advanced\" for the first-year student'; 'That paper earned him a zero'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In November 2024 Newby submitted a paper on Christianity and Islam for the fall 2024 World Civilizations 1 class; the professor graded it zero in part because he thought it was AI-generated, and Adelphi, per the lawsuit, relied in part on AI-detection software — court records show Turnitin's detector marked the essay as fully AI-written while two other detectors scored it human.","causal_attribution":"The detector results and the lawsuit's contents are attributed to court filings as carried by Newsday; the professor's suspicion is attributed to court filings and ABC7."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'University officials ordered Newby to attend a plagiarism workshop — which, while considered a \"nondisciplinary\" punishment, could have resulted in suspension or expulsion if he was found to have committed a second offense'; 'The university's denial of Newby's appeal left the family \"no choice\" but to sue'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Adelphi told him he had to take an anti-plagiarism course, and until he did, he couldn't enroll in other classes. That's when his family sued.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Newby was ordered to attend a plagiarism workshop — a 'nondisciplinary' punishment that could have led to suspension or expulsion on a second offense — was told he could not enroll in other classes until he complied, and his appeal was denied; the family sued in October 2025.","causal_attribution":"Both chains independently carry the workshop order and the enrollment block (Newsday from the ruling stage, ABC7 from the filing stage)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'state Supreme Court Judge Randy Sue Marber in Nassau County wrote on Jan. 28. The school must expunge his record, the judge ruled'; 'were \"without valid basis and devoid of reason\"'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Inside Higher Ed's relay describes a 'federal judge' — erroneous; Judge Marber's state Supreme Court decision controls.","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 28 January 2026, New York State Supreme Court Judge Randy Sue Marber in Nassau County ruled that Adelphi's finding and its denial of his appeal were 'without valid basis and devoid of reason' and ordered the school to expunge his record.","causal_attribution":"The ruling is documented by Newsday's report quoting the decision; the IHE forum error is recorded explicitly. The decision text itself was not fetched (Newsday's account is the inspected record)."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'treated since he was about 2 years old for learning and neurological disabilities that include language and auditory processing disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder'; 'He had worked on it with a tutor from Bridges to Adelphi, the university's $5,000-a-semester program'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Newby has learning differences... issues specifically with language processing. At Adelphi, he's in a special program with extra support'; 'I told him I worked 15 to 20 hours with tutors'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Newby has been treated since about age two for learning and neurological disabilities — language and auditory processing disorders and ADHD — and wrote the paper with a tutor from Bridges to Adelphi, the university's own $5,000-a-semester disability-support program, working 15-20 hours with tutors.","causal_attribution":"The disability and support details come from his mother's and his own accounts, carried by both chains."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The family has spent six figures on legal costs, she said'; Lesko passages ('bellwether example'; 'I can't tell you how many parents have reached out to us with similar issues').","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The family spent six figures on legal costs; attorney Mark Lesko called the ruling a 'bellwether example' and said many parents had contacted him with similar issues.","causal_attribution":"The mother's and the attorney's accounts; the 'many parents' figure is unquantified and no other persons are counted."}],"effects":[{"label":"false AI-plagiarism accusation with academic and financial consequences until a court ordered expungement","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"recovery: court cleared his record; he continues at Adelphi as a second-year history major","claim_id":"c3","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.newsday.com/long-island/education/adelphi-university-ai-plagiarism-lawsuit-oh07enyz","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2026-02-09T10:00Z; 48 paragraphs).","independence_group":"newsday"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://abc7ny.com/post/adelphi-student-long-island-sues-university-allegations-he-used-ai-write-essay/17980409/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2025-10-10T20:54Z).","independence_group":"abc7"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2026/02/11/adelphi-student-wins-ai-plagiarism-lawsuit","kind":"trade_press_relaying_newsday","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (2026-02-11). Relays Newsday; its 'federal judge' phrase is erroneous — Judge Marber sits in the state Supreme Court, and the claim records the discrepancy.","independence_group":"newsday"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education","justice","accessibility"],"unknowns":["The decision text was not fetched; the ruling is recorded through Newsday's account quoting the judge.","The similarity scores Turnitin returned and the university's full decision letter are not public in the inspected sources.","Whether Adelphi changed its AI-detection or appeals policies afterward is not reported.","The first-person Times account (28 Aug 2026) is paywalled and was not inspected; his later reflections are therefore not claimed.","The workshop's completion status after the ruling (moot after expungement) is not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: Adelphi University, Garden City, New York. Affected person: Newby, a student there living in Lido Beach, NY. Court: New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional automated-decision case (made_decision_about / made_claim_about): a detector-driven false accusation with court-vacated sanctions. Newby and his parents spoke publicly; his disability is recorded because it is central to the case's facts (the university's own support program produced the writing process the detector misread), not as a label.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawsuit records that Adelphi relied in part on AI-detection software; court records show Turnitin's detector marked the essay as fully AI-written while two other detectors scored it human (Newsday). The university's process, not the tool alone, produced the sanction — recorded in the harm mechanism.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Adelphi accused Orion Newby of AI plagiarism after a detector flagged his paper; a Nassau County judge ordered the finding expunged","summary":"Orion Newby, an Adelphi University first-year student with language and auditory processing disabilities, received a zero in November 2024 on a World Civilizations paper after the professor suspected it was AI-generated and the university relied in part on AI-detection software; he was ordered to attend a plagiarism workshop and his appeal was denied, leaving him one finding from suspension or expulsion. Newby — who had written the paper with 15-20 hours of tutor support through the university's own disability program — said the detectors flagged his citations, and two other detectors scored the paper as human. After the family sued, New York State Supreme Court Judge Randy Sue Marber in Nassau County ruled on 28 January 2026 that Adelphi's finding and its denial of his appeal were 'without valid basis and devoid of reason' and ordered his record expunged. The family spent six figures on legal costs.","incidentDate":"2024-11-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-01-28","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-10-10","aiSystem":"Turnitin AI-detection software (and the university's reliance on it)","aiProduct":"Turnitin AI-text detector","aiCompany":"Turnitin","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm","financial_loss","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A false AI-plagiarism finding brought a zero, a plagiarism-workshop order one step from suspension, sleepless nights, and a year-plus fight costing six figures to clear his record — despite two other detectors scoring the paper human and the writing help coming from the university's own disability program.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: Newby, the subject of the detector-driven accusation (court ruling and Newsday/ABC7 reporting). Other students mentioned by his attorney ('many parents have reached out') are unquantified and not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.newsday.com/long-island/education/adelphi-university-ai-plagiarism-lawsuit-oh07enyz","primarySourceLabel":"Newsday (9 Feb 2026) — the ruling, the judge's words, the family and attorney accounts, the disability and Bridges program detail","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T09:31:23.493757+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:46.697576+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-decision-about","made-claim-about","ai-detector","turnitin","education","disability","court-win","new-york"]}]}