{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-18T06:59:51.041Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"costs-order","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-australia-fair-work-commission-orders-former-aldi-worker-to-pay-costs-after-ai-drafted-claim-argued-wrong-date","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'he was notified of his dismissal on 26 March 2026, being 3 days short of 6 months employment'; 'notified of his dismissal at approximately 4:00pm on 26 March 2026'; 'At 10:02pm the same day'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The applicant was notified of his dismissal on 26 March 2026, three days short of the six-month minimum employment period, and lodged an unfair dismissal application that evening.","causal_attribution":"Facts recorded by the Commission; the date of notification was never disputed."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'application was obviously prepared using AI. It contained AI drafting notes including'; 'every email and document filed in the proceedings was drafted using AI'; 'conceded that he did use Artificial Intelligence to generate his written submissions'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Commission found that his application was obviously prepared using AI and contained AI drafting notes, that every email and document he filed was drafted using AI, and he conceded using AI to generate his written submissions.","causal_attribution":"The Commission's findings and the applicant's concession recorded in the decision."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'AI generated materials have focused on a different and irrelevant date, being the date the dismissal took effect'; 'AI-driven written submissions filed ahead of the hearing addressed the wrong question'; 'the High Court cases cited were real cases rather than hallucinations'; 'In the morning of Friday 31 July 2026 I took the time to write to'; 'sent to the parties in the afternoon of Friday 31 July 2026'; 'two further AI generated submissions that again addressed the wrong end date'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the decision, his AI-generated materials argued about the date the dismissal took effect, an irrelevant date, and addressed the wrong question, including after the Commission explained the correct test to him twice on 31 July 2026; the High Court cases they cited were real.","causal_attribution":"The Commission's own description of the AI-generated materials; whether a different tool or human adviser would have produced the same argument is not established."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'costs from 31 July 2026 in the amount of $1230'; 'is now $1230 worse off than he was before he started'; 'relied heavily on artificial intelligence to start and continue his unfair dismissal claim acted unreasonably by continuing his claim'; 'decision to continue his claim in the face of clear and specific information from the Fair Work Commission was ill-advised'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'told the former ALDI store assistant to pay $1,230 toward the supermarket'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 19 August 2026 the Commission ordered him to pay A$1,230 of Aldi's costs for the period from 31 July 2026, finding that continuing the claim after the warnings was unreasonable.","causal_attribution":"The order is established by the decision itself."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'adopted AI as his quasi-legal advisor and then blindly submitted AI generated outputs as his own material'; 'Using AI to assist in drafting correspondence and even submissions is not, of itself, unreasonable'; 'responsibility to properly assess for himself whether he was eligible'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Commission said it was quite possible he had adopted AI as his quasi-legal adviser, but held that using AI to draft submissions is not of itself unreasonable and that assessing his eligibility was his responsibility.","causal_attribution":"The Commission's assessment of the AI's role is stated as a possibility; it attributes the costs to his own unreasonable continuation."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2026/12125) was lodged against this decision'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"An appeal was lodged against the costs decision.","causal_attribution":"A note on the published decision; the appeal outcome is unknown."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'first written submissions addressed the same wrong question'; 'did not know any better about the test to be applied under s.383'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Commission noted that Aldi's first written submissions addressed the same wrong question, and accepted that before 31 July 2026 he did not know the correct test.","causal_attribution":"Context recorded by the Commission that limits the weight placed on the AI output before the warnings."}],"effects":[{"label":"self-represented former worker ordered to pay A$1,230 of his former employer's legal costs","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc3144.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 from fwc.gov.au (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"fwc-2026-fwc-3144-decision"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/worker-must-pay-aldis-costs-after-running-dismissal-claim-on-ai/587691","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 (HTTP 200); a trade-press report of the same decision, so it shares the decision's independence group.","independence_group":"fwc-2026-fwc-3144-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the applicant used; the decision names none.","Whether the AI tool or the applicant chose the argument about the effective date of dismissal.","The outcome of the appeal lodged against the costs decision (C2026/12125), and whether the costs have been paid."],"geography":{"basis":"The applicant was employed at an Aldi supermarket by ALDI Stores and brought his claim in Australia's Fair Work Commission, which decided it in Sydney. Where he lives is not stated and is not used.","court_countries":["AU"],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the Fair Work Commission's decision itself records that a dismissed worker's AI-drafted application and submissions argued an irrelevant date, that he continued after two warnings, and that he was ordered to pay A$1,230 in costs. The decision was read in full. The AI's causal role is the Commission's stated possibility; the Commission placed responsibility on the applicant.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-18"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Fair Work Commission's decision finds that the applicant's unfair dismissal application was obviously prepared using AI and quotes the AI drafting notes it contained, records his concession that he used AI to generate his written submissions, and finds that every email and document he filed was drafted using AI (communicated_with). It finds that those AI-generated materials argued an irrelevant date and addressed the wrong question, including after two warnings, and that his continuation of the claim caused the costs it ordered. The decision says it is quite possible he adopted AI as his quasi-legal adviser and places the responsibility on him. No product is named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Fair Work Commission orders former Aldi worker to pay A$1,230 costs after his AI-drafted unfair dismissal claim kept arguing the wrong date","summary":"On 19 August 2026 a Deputy President of Australia's Fair Work Commission ordered a self-represented former Aldi store worker to pay A$1,230 towards Aldi's legal costs. The decision records that his unfair dismissal application, lodged on the evening he was told of his dismissal on 26 March 2026, was obviously prepared using AI and still contained AI drafting notes, and that every email and document he filed was drafted using AI. He was notified of his dismissal three days short of the six-month minimum employment period. According to the decision, his AI-generated materials kept arguing about a different, irrelevant date (when the dismissal took effect), including after the Commission explained the correct test to him twice by email on 31 July 2026. He discontinued at the hearing on 5 August 2026. The Deputy President found that continuing after those warnings was unreasonable and said it was quite possible he had adopted AI as his quasi-legal adviser, while stating that using AI to draft submissions is not of itself unreasonable and that the responsibility was his. The decision notes that an appeal was lodged against it.","incidentDate":"2026-03-26","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-19","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-08-19","aiSystem":"AI tool used by the applicant to draft his unfair dismissal application, emails and submissions, according to the Fair Work Commission; the application retained AI drafting notes. No product is named in the decision","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Fair Work Commission's decision, a self-represented former Aldi worker was ordered to pay A$1,230 in costs after continuing an ineligible unfair dismissal claim whose AI-generated submissions kept addressing the wrong question; the Commission placed the responsibility on him.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the applicant, who the decision says used AI to draft his application and every filing, and who was ordered to pay the costs. Aldi's own unrecovered legal fees are not counted as harm to a person.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"AU","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc3144.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Fair Work Commission, decision [2026] FWC 3144, costs in unfair dismissal matter U2026/4537 (19 August 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-18T03:15:37.606962+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-18T03:15:37.606962+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["australia","fair-work-commission","unfair-dismissal","self-represented-litigant","ai-generated-filings","costs-order"]}]}