{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-16T07:36:55.210Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"costs","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"core","evidence":"","year":"","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":2,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":4,"minors":0,"coreRelations":4,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":2,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-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-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":"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"]}]}