{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-16T06:54:55.234Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"costs","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"unknown","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":3,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"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":"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-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":"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":[]}]}