{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-15T06:15:00.442Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"court","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":31,"coverage":{"cases":31,"countries":6,"languages":9,"unknownLocation":4,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":1,"lawsuits":11,"regulatory":9,"minors":0,"coreRelations":6,"contextualRelations":31,"mixedRelations":6,"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-germany-court-bars-google-ai-mode-answer-falsely-calling-doctor-convicted-sex-offender","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Ende August 2026 wies ihn ein ärztlicher Kollege darauf hin, was passiert, wenn man seinen Namen zusammen mit dem Suchbegriff \"Freistellung\" bei Google eingibt'; 'Der KI-Modus gab eine zusammenhängende Darstellung aus, die wie ein Tatsachenbericht klang.'; 'Ein Gericht hätte ihn wegen sexueller Nötigung zu einer Bewährungsstrafe verurteilt'; 'wäre deshalb freigestellt und gekündigt worden'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At the end of August 2026 a colleague told the physician that searching his name with the word for suspension in Google's AI Mode produced a connected account that read like a factual report: that he had been suspended and dismissed and had received a suspended sentence for sexual coercion.","causal_attribution":"The AI Mode output as described by beck-aktuell from the court decision; the output itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Gegen ihn gab es nie eine Strafanzeige wegen sexueller Nötigung, kein Strafverfahren und keine Verurteilung.'; 'Die KI hatte vielmehr offenbar Informationen über einen anderen früheren leitenden Mitarbeiter derselben Klinik mit seinem Namen verknüpft.'; 'nannten den Namen des beschuldigten Arztes nicht'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"None of the claims concerned him: there was never a criminal complaint, proceeding or conviction against him; the AI apparently linked information about another former senior employee of the same hospital to his name, and the newspaper articles Google linked as sources did not name him.","causal_attribution":"beck-aktuell's account of the case; the court found the statements attributed to him offences that concerned another person (c4)."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Der Mediziner forderte noch Ende August die Löschung dieser Ergebnisse.'; 'Doch Google antwortete, man habe die Beanstandung geprüft und werde keine Maßnahmen einleiten.'; 'die KI-generierten Inhalte blieben abrufbar'; 'Auch eine Abmahnung durch die Kölner Kanzlei Höcker vom selben Tag blieb ohne Ergebnis'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"He asked Google to delete the results at the end of August; Google replied that it had reviewed the complaint and would take no action, and a warning letter from his lawyers the same day had no effect.","causal_attribution":"As reported by beck-aktuell; Google's own statement was not inspected."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Das LG Aachen hat Google Ireland Limited nun per einstweiliger Verfügung untersagt, die falschen Behauptungen weiter über den KI-Modus zu verbreiten (Beschluss vom 24.09.2026 - 8 O 268/26).'; 'indem sie ihm strafrechtliche Vorwürfe und arbeitsrechtliche Konsequenzen zuordneten, die tatsächlich eine andere Person beträfen'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Das Landgericht Aachen untersagte dem Technologiekonzern Google mit Beschluss vom 24. September 2026 (Az. 8 O 268/26), im KI-Modus Falschbehauptungen über einen Arzt zu verbreiten.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"By a decision of 24 September 2026 (8 O 268/26) the Aachen Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction barring Google Ireland Limited from further spreading the false claims through AI Mode, holding that the AI-generated texts violated his personality rights by attributing to him criminal accusations and employment consequences that concerned another person, and that Google is responsible for the answers of its AI search.","causal_attribution":"The court's decision as reported; the decision text itself was not inspected. Both reports relay the same decision."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Die Falschinformationen seien öffentlich sichtbar und für jeden zugänglich.'; 'obwohl sie geeignet seien, den Arzt in seiner beruflichen Ehre und seinem sozialen Ansehen erheblich zu schädigen'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found the false statements publicly visible and capable of seriously damaging his professional honour and social standing, and noted that Google had done nothing to remove them despite his request and the warning letter.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning as reported by beck-aktuell."}],"effects":[{"label":"AI search answer falsely presenting him as convicted of sexual coercion and dismissed","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"false claims left online after Google declined his removal request","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.beck-aktuell.de/heute-im-recht/rechtsprechung/lg-aachen-8o26826-haftung-falsche-ki-aussage-google-stoererin-chefarzt-sexualstraftaeter-2026-10-08","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"Read in German on 2026-10-15 (live page, HTTP 200; beck-aktuell, 8 October 2026, with an editorial note of 12 October 2026 that the description of his former post was slightly changed at his lawyer's request). Legal news report of the court's decision; translated by the research agent (an AI), no human translation.","independence_group":"lg-aachen-8-o-268-26"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.ad-hoc-news.de/wissenschaft/google-ki-im-visier-landgericht-aachen-untersagt-falsche-arztbehauptung/70304380","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"Read in German on 2026-10-15 (live page, HTTP 200; ad-hoc-news.de, 12 October 2026). A round-up article whose Aachen paragraph restates the decision's date, file number and legal basis; it adds no independent reporting. Translated by the research agent (an AI).","independence_group":"lg-aachen-8-o-268-26"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice","privacy"],"unknowns":["The exact wording of the AI Mode answer and how many people saw it.","Whether Google has complied, objected or appealed; the decision is an interim injunction issued without a hearing.","Whether the false answer affected his employment or professional standing in practice; he left the chief-physician post in summer 2026 for reasons not connected in any source to the AI answer.","When AI Mode first produced the answer: the end of August 2026 is when a colleague pointed it out, and incident_date records that month."],"geography":{"basis":"beck-aktuell says he worked as a chief physician at a German hospital (an einem deutschen Klinikum) and that the Aachen Regional Court issued the injunction, so the court country is DE and the affected person's country is DE by his work at a German hospital. No source says where the searches that displayed the answer were made, so the event country stays unknown.","court_countries":["DE"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["DE"]},"publication":{"basis":"A German court issued an injunction against Google after its AI Mode attributed another person's sexual-coercion conviction and dismissal to a physician, searched by name, who had no such record, and Google refused his removal request. Contextual relation made_claim_about; the case adds a court injunction holding the search provider responsible for its AI answer. The physician is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Google's AI Mode itself generated the statements: according to beck-aktuell's report of the decision, a search for his name with the word for suspension produced a connected account attributing a conviction for sexual coercion and a dismissal to him, apparently by linking facts about another former employee of the same hospital to his name, while the linked source articles did not name him. The Aachen Regional Court held that these AI-generated texts violated his personality rights and that Google is responsible for them. The answer was not inspected directly; it is known through the reported decision.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"German court bars Google from repeating an AI Mode answer that falsely called a doctor a convicted sex offender","summary":"In late August 2026 a colleague told a German physician, until that summer a chief physician at a hospital, that searching his name with the word for suspension in Google's AI Mode produced what read like a factual report: that he had been suspended and dismissed and had received a suspended sentence for sexual coercion. According to legal news site beck-aktuell, none of it concerned him; the AI had apparently attached facts about another former senior employee of the same hospital to his name, and the newspaper articles it linked as sources did not name him. Google said it had reviewed his complaint and would take no action, and a lawyer's warning letter also failed. On 24 September 2026 the Aachen Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction (8 O 268/26) barring Google Ireland Limited from spreading the claims through AI Mode, finding that they violated his personality rights and that Google is responsible for its AI search answers.","incidentDate":"2026-08-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-08","aiSystem":"Google Search AI Mode (KI-Modus), which generated an answer about the physician when his name was searched","aiProduct":"Google AI Mode","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Google's AI Mode answered searches for a physician's name with a false account that he had been convicted of sexual coercion and dismissed; Google declined to remove it until a court ordered it to stop.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"outward","causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the physician about whom AI Mode made the false claims and who obtained the injunction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"DE","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.beck-aktuell.de/heute-im-recht/rechtsprechung/lg-aachen-8o26826-haftung-falsche-ki-aussage-google-stoererin-chefarzt-sexualstraftaeter-2026-10-08","primarySourceLabel":"beck-aktuell, 8 October 2026: Google muss KI-Halluzination löschen (German)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:20:24.866709+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:20:24.866709+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["google","ai-mode","defamation","false-accusation","court-injunction","germany"]},{"id":"2025-oregon-federal-court-dismisses-family-plaintiffs-claims-after-briefs-with-ai-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The issue before the Court is the appropriate sanctions for Plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence'; 'Plaintiffs filed three briefs containing citations to fifteen non-existent cases and fabricated quotations falsely attributed to eight legitimate authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs filed three summary-judgment briefs citing fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations attributed to eight real authorities, and the court framed its sanctions as being for the plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'[t]he inclusion of inaccurate citations was inadvertent and the result of reliance on an automated legal citation tool'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs told the court the inaccurate citations were inadvertent and resulted from reliance on an automated legal citation tool.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' filing as quoted by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Court finds that Plaintiffs share responsibility with'; 'for the submission of fifteen non-existent cases and eight fabricated quotations'; 'is a serial self-represented litigator who was likely the person responsible for using artificial intelligence to draft the summary judgment briefs in this case'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that the plaintiffs shared responsibility with their lead lawyer and that one plaintiff, a serial self-represented litigator, was likely the person responsible for using AI to draft the briefs.","causal_attribution":"A court finding of likelihood on unrebutted circumstantial evidence; the drafter's AI use is not otherwise established."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'STRICKEN without leave to refile'; 'to pay the Clerk of the Court $15,500 within 30'; 'Defendants are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney' ; 'Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED with'; 'Local Rules provides an additional basis for terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs' claims.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court struck the briefs without leave to refile, ordered the lead lawyer to pay $15,500 to the Clerk, awarded the defendants reasonable fees and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice; it found the plaintiffs' continual violations of the Local Rules an additional basis for that dismissal.","causal_attribution":"Established by the order."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'finds the requested amount of $94,704.38 reasonable'; 'is ORDERED to pay Defendants 15% of that award, $14,205.66'; 'pay Defendants the remaining 85%'; '$80,498.72 within thirty (30) days'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In March 2026 the court found fees of $94,704.38 reasonable and ordered local counsel to pay 15% ($14,205.66) and the lead lawyer 85% ($80,498.72).","causal_attribution":"Established by the fees order."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Defendants' unopposed Motion for Partial Summary'; 'summary judgment on their eighth counterclaim for breach of contract and ordered specific performance of the inheritance contract'; 'Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 228) is DENIED.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In June 2026 the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its grant of the defendants' unopposed motion for partial summary judgment, which had awarded specific performance of an inheritance contract on a breach-of-contract counterclaim.","causal_attribution":"Established by the reconsideration order; the orders do not say the counterclaim outcome resulted from the AI sanction."}],"effects":[{"label":"family plaintiffs' claims dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for briefs with AI-fabricated citations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"lead lawyer fined $15,500 and two lawyers ordered to pay $94,704.38 in fees","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.215.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.225.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, pdftotext); the background and fee-allocation sections were inspected.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.233.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, pdftotext); five-page order read in full.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used; the orders name none.","Who drafted the briefs: the court's finding is one of likelihood, and the plaintiffs gave no explanation.","Whether the fine and fees were paid, and the outcome of the order sent to the Oregon State Bar and of a later show-cause order to the lead lawyer.","Whether the counterclaim ruling was affected by the striking of the plaintiffs' briefs."],"geography":{"basis":"The briefs were filed in and the sanctions imposed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Where the briefs were drafted and where the parties live are not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's own orders establish that it dismissed the family plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and sanctioned their lawyers for briefs citing nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations, which the court attributes to the plaintiffs' misuse of generative AI and finds one plaintiff likely drafted with AI. The three orders were read.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's 12 December 2025 order describes the sanctions as being for the plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence, finds that three briefs cited fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations, records the plaintiffs' statement that the citations resulted from reliance on an automated legal citation tool, and finds that one plaintiff was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs (communicated_with). The AI output reached the court in those briefs, and the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and sanctioned their lawyers because of it (informed_decision_about). No product is named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Oregon federal court dismisses family plaintiffs' claims and fines their lawyer after briefs cited 15 nonexistent cases it attributes to generative AI misuse","summary":"On 12 December 2025 the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed with prejudice the claims of plaintiffs in a family dispute over their late mother's estate and family property, as a sanction for what the court called their misuse of generative artificial intelligence, and found their continual violations of the court's Local Rules an additional basis for the dismissal. Three of the plaintiffs' summary-judgment briefs cited fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations attributed to eight real authorities. The plaintiffs had said the inaccurate citations came from reliance on an automated legal citation tool. The court found that the plaintiffs shared responsibility with their lead lawyer and that one plaintiff, a frequent self-represented litigant, was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs. It struck the briefs, ordered the lead lawyer to pay $15,500 to the court and awarded the defendants their fees. In March 2026 it set those fees at $94,704.38, ordering the lead lawyer to pay 85% and local counsel 15%. In June 2026 it denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider a later ruling for the defendants on a counterclaim.","incidentDate":"2025-01-31","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-12","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-12-12","aiSystem":"Generative AI used to draft summary-judgment briefs, according to the court; the plaintiffs described it as an automated legal citation tool. No product is named in the orders","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's orders, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice because their briefs cited nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations that the court attributes to misuse of generative AI, which it found one plaintiff likely used to draft them; the lead lawyer was fined $15,500 and the two lawyers were ordered to pay $94,704.38 in fees.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Three people counted from the orders: the individual plaintiff whose claims were dismissed (found likely to have drafted the briefs with AI, so that AI use is a finding of likelihood and she is not counted as an established user), the lead lawyer (fined and ordered to pay 85% of fees) and local counsel (ordered to pay 15% of fees). The estate whose claim was also dismissed has beneficiaries the orders do not count; the LLC plaintiff is not a person.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.215.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Opinion and Order, ECF 215, case 1:21-cv-00157 (12 December 2025)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:05:45.14301+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:05:45.14301+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","oregon","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","claims-dismissed","client-responsibility"]},{"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":"2026-massachusetts-teacher-dismissal-arbitrator-used-ai-tools-to-assess-ai-detector-evidence","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'fired on August 14, 2025'; 'gave her an “unsatisfactory” overall rating'; 'according to the complaint'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to her complaint, the teacher was fired on 14 August 2025 after the principal gave her an unsatisfactory overall rating.","causal_attribution":"The complaint, as reported by the outlet."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'may have been produced using artificial intelligence rather than by'; 'She testified that she used GPTZero, an AI detection tool, to analyze the documents.'; 'denied using AI to produce the evaluations, other than for grammar checks, according to the decision'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In arbitration the teacher argued that some evaluations may have been produced with AI, relying on GPTZero estimates, and the principal denied using AI beyond grammar checks.","causal_attribution":"The arbitration decision, as reported by the outlet."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'used two AI tools, GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 5, to research GPTZero and determine whether it was reliable enough to evaluate whether AI had produced the writing'; 'independently reviewed some of the sources provided by the AI tools and found they accurately described the cited material'; 'concluded that GPTZero’s results were not reliable enough to be given weight in the case'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'saying the arbitrator who affirmed the school's decision used artificial intelligence to vet her claims that the principal relied on AI to prepare her final, negative performance evaluation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In an appendix to his decision the arbitrator said he used GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 5 to research whether GPTZero was reliable, reviewed some of the sources they supplied, and concluded that GPTZero results deserved no weight.","causal_attribution":"The arbitrator's own appendix as reported by The Concord Bridge; Law360 reports the same use as the complaint's allegation."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'upheld her dismissal on August 27, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The arbitrator rejected the AI evidence and upheld the dismissal on 27 August 2026.","causal_attribution":"The arbitration decision, as reported by the outlet."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'filed a complaint on September 28 asking Suffolk Superior Court to overturn an arbitrator’s decision upholding her dismissal'; 'research was an improper investigation outside the hearing record'; 'the parties were not told he would conduct the research and were not given an opportunity to challenge his findings'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'is suing to redo arbitration over her firing'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 28 September 2026 the teacher asked Suffolk Superior Court to vacate the decision, alleging the AI-assisted research was an improper investigation outside the hearing record that the parties were not told about or allowed to challenge.","causal_attribution":"An allegation in the complaint; no court has ruled."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'a school spokesperson said the district does not comment on active legal matters'; 'did not respond to Bridge questions by press time'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The district said it does not comment on active legal matters, and the teacher and her lawyer did not respond to the outlet.","causal_attribution":"The outlet's own account of its inquiries."}],"effects":[{"label":"a teacher's dismissal was upheld in an arbitration that she alleges was tainted by the arbitrator's AI-assisted research","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://concordbridge.org/index.php/2026/10/13/ai-vs-ai-thoreau-teachers-firing-raises-complex-questions/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200). The outlet reports the arbitration decision and the court complaint; neither document was read directly.","independence_group":"concord-bridge-thoreau-arbitration"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.law360.com/articles/2531261/fired-teacher-says-ai-tainted-review-and-arbitration","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200); only the free opening paragraph is available, the rest is behind a subscription. It reports the complaint.","independence_group":"law360-teacher-arbitration-suit"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","education","justice"],"unknowns":["The text of the arbitration decision and its appendix, including what the AI tools returned.","Whether the principal used AI to draft the evaluations (denied apart from grammar checks).","How the district answers the complaint and whether the court will vacate the decision."],"geography":{"basis":"The teacher worked at a public elementary school in Concord, Massachusetts, where the dismissal and arbitration concerned her employment, and the challenge was filed in Suffolk Superior Court (The Concord Bridge; Law360 calls her a Massachusetts kindergarten teacher).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because The Concord Bridge reports from the arbitration decision that the arbitrator used GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 5 to research the reliability of a fired teacher's AI-detector evidence before giving it no weight and upholding her dismissal, and The Concord Bridge and Law360 report that she has asked a court to vacate the decision, alleging that his AI use tainted it. The claims are attributed to the decision and the complaint as reported.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"According to the arbitration decision as reported by The Concord Bridge, the arbitrator used GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 5 to research GPTZero, checked some of the sources they supplied, and after that research concluded that the teacher's GPTZero evidence deserved no weight before upholding her dismissal. The AI output (research on the detector's reliability) informed a human decision about the teacher, and her complaint alleges that relying on it outside the record tainted that decision. The use is the arbitrator's own statement; the complaint does not, as reported, say the tools produced false information.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Massachusetts: fired teacher asks court to vacate an arbitration, saying the arbitrator improperly used AI tools to judge her AI-detector evidence","summary":"A kindergarten teacher at a public elementary school in Concord, Massachusetts, was dismissed in August 2025 after an unsatisfactory evaluation. In arbitration she argued that some of the principal's evaluations may have been produced with AI, relying on GPTZero estimates; the principal denied using AI beyond grammar checks. According to the arbitration decision as reported by The Concord Bridge, the arbitrator stated in an appendix that he used two AI tools, GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 5, to research whether GPTZero was reliable, checked some of the sources they supplied, concluded that GPTZero's results deserved no weight, and upheld the dismissal on 27 August 2026. On 28 September 2026 the teacher asked Suffolk Superior Court to vacate the decision, alleging that the AI-assisted research was an improper investigation outside the hearing record that the parties were not told about or allowed to challenge. These are allegations in a complaint; the district declined to comment and no court has ruled.","incidentDate":"2026-08-27","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-29","aiSystem":"GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 5, which the arbitrator said in an appendix to his decision he used to research the reliability of the GPTZero AI-text detector (as reported by The Concord Bridge); GPTZero itself was used by the teacher on the evaluations","aiProduct":"GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 5 (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The teacher alleges that the arbitration upholding her dismissal was tainted because the arbitrator used AI tools, outside the hearing record, to decide that her AI-detector evidence deserved no weight. She has asked a court to vacate it.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the dismissed teacher whose arbitration the AI-assisted research informed. The principal is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MA","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://concordbridge.org/index.php/2026/10/13/ai-vs-ai-thoreau-teachers-firing-raises-complex-questions/","primarySourceLabel":"The Concord Bridge, 13 October 2026: AI vs. AI: Thoreau teacher’s firing raises complex questions","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:04:34.364479+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:04:34.364479+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["massachusetts","teacher-dismissal","arbitration","ai-detector","gptzero","adjudicator-ai-use"]},{"id":"2026-ninth-circuit-immigration-lawyers-suspended-over-ai-hallucinated-citations-board-reciprocal-suspension","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sethi filed an opening brief in this case with multiple fabricated citations and quotations'; 'Sethi cited two cases that do not exist and never existed'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The opening brief filed for the asylum petitioners and signed by Sethi cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to real opinions that do not contain them.","causal_attribution":"The court's own finding in its order."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'to which Rounds said that AI “was not used.”'; 'Rounds finally conceded that it was “possible” that AI might have been used by the individual who drafted the briefs'; 'Sethi Law Group employs law school graduates, who are not yet licensed attorneys, to write briefs'; 'that no licensed attorney read the cases cited by the unlicensed brief writer'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At oral argument Rounds said AI was not used and later conceded it was possible that the person who drafted the briefs had used AI; the drafter was an unlicensed law graduate whose citations no licensed attorney read.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the oral argument and of the attorneys' response."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'that the errors were the product of unauthorized AI use by their Brief Writers and a failure to cite check'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Responding to the order to show cause, the attorneys conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by their brief writers and a failure to check citations.","causal_attribution":"The attorneys' concession as recorded by the court; no AI tool, prompt or output was identified."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Neither of them suspected the use of generative AI because the Firm prohibited its use and required the Brief Writers to check all their citations'; 'it is beyond belief that he knew for a fact that it was not used'; 'is owed to this repeated failure of candor'; 'We do not sanction Sethi and Rounds for the simple fact that they or'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The attorneys said that at the time of the motion to correct they did not suspect AI because the firm prohibited its use; the court found that Rounds could not have known AI was not used, said it was not sanctioning AI use as such, and attributed the severity of discipline to their repeated failure of candour.","causal_attribution":"The attorneys' explanation and the court's findings, both from the order."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sethi and Rounds are each personally sanctioned in the amount of $2,500'; 'Sethi and Rounds are hereby suspended from practice before this Court for a period of six months starting ten days after this Order is filed'; 'provide a copy of this Order to their clients'; 'serve a copy of this Order on the State Bar of California'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Ninth Circuit fined each attorney $2,500, suspended both from practice before the court for six months, ordered them to give the order to their clients in every pending case, and directed service of the order on the State Bar of California.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's order."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Board hereby suspends the respondent from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and DHS for 6 months, effective June 13, 2026.'; 'On July 1, 2026, the Board granted the Joint Petition for Immediate Suspension.'; 'previously issued unpublished on September 15, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Board of Immigration Appeals suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and DHS for six months, effective 13 June 2026, after granting an immediate suspension on 1 July 2026, and designated the decision as precedent after first issuing it unpublished on 15 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"Established by the Board's decision."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'the respondent contests the sufficiency of the evidence that he knew that certain errors in his filings were caused by the use of artificial intelligence'; 'the respondent’s claims of hardship to his clients are conclusory'; 'the application of our rules of attorney discipline to misconduct related to the use of AI is not an “outlier penalty,” as the respondent claims'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Before the Board, Sethi disputed that he knew AI had been used and argued that suspension would harm his clients and was an outlier penalty for AI-related misconduct; the Board rejected these arguments.","causal_attribution":"The respondent's arguments and the Board's ruling as stated in the decision."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The petition for review, which we granted'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court granted the asylum petitioners' petition for review.","causal_attribution":"The court's statement; it does not address any effect of the sanctions on the clients."}],"effects":[{"label":"two attorneys were fined and suspended from practice before a federal appeals court, and one was suspended from immigration practice, over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and false statements about them","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/03/24-4790.pdf","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 the court's own site (HTTP 200, PDF text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"ninth-circuit-order-24-4790"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463666/dl?inline","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 the court's own site (HTTP 200, PDF text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"bia-matter-of-sethi"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the brief writers used; the order records only the attorneys' concession that AI use was probable.","Whether the State Bar of California opened proceedings after the referral.","Whether the suspensions affected the attorneys' clients; the Board found the hardship claims conclusory and no source describes a harmed client.","The date the opening brief was filed; the inspected sources do not state it."],"geography":{"basis":"The briefs were filed in and sanctioned by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the reciprocal suspension was imposed by the US Board of Immigration Appeals; the order describes the firm as based in Orange County, California. The attorneys' residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a court decision about two attorneys informed by AI-generated fabricated authorities in their briefs: the Ninth Circuit's order fines and suspends two attorneys for filing briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and for repeatedly denying the AI source, and the Board of Immigration Appeals imposes a reciprocal suspension on one of them. Both records were read in full from the courts' own sites.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is two courts' response to AI use in filings: the Ninth Circuit order describes briefs with nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations, records the attorneys' concession that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's brief writers, and imposes fines and a six-month suspension for filing them and for repeatedly denying the AI source; the Board of Immigration Appeals imposed a reciprocal suspension on that basis. The court read the fabricated authorities in the briefs, identified them and based its discipline of the two attorneys on filing them and on their statements about their source, so the AI output informed a decision about them (informed_decision_about); no tool is named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Ninth Circuit fines and suspends two immigration lawyers over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and denials of AI use; immigration board follows","summary":"On 3 June 2026 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit fined immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds $2,500 each and suspended both from practice before the court for six months. Briefs filed in an asylum petition for review cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to opinions that do not contain them. In a motion to correct, the attorneys called the errors typographical, and at oral argument Rounds twice said AI was not used. In their response to the court's order to show cause, they conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's unlicensed brief writers and a failure to check citations. The court said the suspension was owed to their repeated failure of candour. The Board of Immigration Appeals then suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security for six months, effective 13 June 2026, and designated that decision as a precedent on 1 October 2026.","incidentDate":"2026-06-03","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-06-03","aiSystem":"Generative AI that, according to the attorneys' concession recorded by the Ninth Circuit, the firm's unlicensed brief writers probably used against firm policy; no tool is named in the order or the Board's decision","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Ninth Circuit's order, both attorneys were fined $2,500 and suspended from practice before the court for six months over briefs whose AI-hallucinated citations they had denied were AI errors; according to the Board of Immigration Appeals, one of them was then suspended from practice before the immigration courts, the Board and DHS for six months.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two attorneys, each named in the Ninth Circuit order as fined and suspended; the Board's reciprocal suspension concerns one of them. The asylum applicants are not counted: the court granted their petition for review and no source reports harm to them.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/03/24-4790.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, order in No. 24-4790 (3 June 2026): attorney discipline over AI-hallucinated citations","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:02:36.457192+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:02:36.457192+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","legal-profession","sanction","suspension","hallucinated-citations","immigration"]},{"id":"2026-goias-electoral-court-judgment-removing-councillor-suspended-over-suspected-unsupervised-ai-drafting","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'acórdão feito pelo Tribunal Regional Eleitoral de Goiás (TRE-GO), que cassou o mandato da vereadora Aava Santiago (PSB)'; 'no texto que determinou a cassação por infidelidade partidária'; 'A decisão havia sido mantida nesta terça-feira (6) e encerrava a condição suspensiva do processo'; 'Nesta sexta-feira (9), Michel Magul (PSDB) havia assumido a vaga de Aava Santiago na Câmara Municipal.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The TRE-GO judgment removed councillor Aava Santiago from office for party infidelity; it was upheld on 6 October 2026, ending its suspensive condition, and a substitute took her seat on 9 October.","causal_attribution":"G1's account of the electoral proceedings."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'No documento, a vereadora alega que no texto final da decisão há comandos, instruções e registros de conferência que revelariam o possível uso de IA com falhas na revisão humana.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A parlamentar acionou o CNJ alegando que o texto final do julgamento continha comandos de conferência, instruções e registros de revisão que indicariam possível utilização de inteligência artificial sem a supervisão humana exigida pela Resolução CNJ nº 615/2025.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The councillor alleged to the CNJ that the final text of the judgment contained commands, instructions and review records indicating the use of artificial intelligence without the human supervision required by CNJ Resolution 615/2025.","causal_attribution":"The councillor's allegation, as both outlets report it; the petition was not inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'evidencia, em tese, a existência de anotações que aparentam corresponder a instruções internas de revisão, destinadas justamente à conferência da correção de premissas fáticas e jurídicas utilizadas na construção da fundamentação do julgado'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A liminar foi concedida nesta sexta-feira (9) pelo corregedor nacional de Justiça, ministro Benedito Gonçalves.'; 'Na decisão, Benedito Gonçalves considerou plausíveis, em análise preliminar, as alegações de descumprimento das regras de governança, supervisão humana e controle da utilização de inteligência artificial no Judiciário.'; 'O corregedor determinou a suspensão cautelar dos efeitos do acórdão e dos atos administrativos dele decorrentes.'; 'O TRE-GO terá prazo de 15 dias para prestar informações sobre o caso.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 9 October 2026 the national inspector of justice found, on a preliminary analysis, the allegations of non-compliance with the CNJ's AI supervision rules plausible, writing that the passages reproduced in the petition show in theory annotations that appear to be internal review instructions; he suspended the judgment's effects and gave the TRE-GO 15 days to report.","causal_attribution":"The inspector's preliminary finding as relayed by both outlets from the same decision; it is not a finding that AI was used."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Embora Benedito Gonçalves tenha ressaltado que a medida não representa revisão do mérito nem declaração de nulidade do julgamento eleitoral'; 'A eventual utilização irregular de inteligência artificial ainda será objeto de apuração.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'A decisão liminar do CNJ possui caráter instrumental e provisório, motivada por questões formais de procedimento administrativo e governança no âmbito do tribunal.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The inspector stated that the suspension neither reviews the merits nor declares the electoral judgment void, and that the possible irregular use of AI is still to be investigated; the substitute described the injunction as provisional and procedural.","causal_attribution":"Limits stated by the inspector and the substitute; they bound how far the removal can be attributed to AI drafting."}],"effects":[{"label":"an elected councillor was removed from her seat by a judgment she says shows signs of unsupervised AI use, until the national inspector suspended it","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://g1.globo.com/go/goias/noticia/2026/10/10/cnj-suspende-a-cassacao-do-mandato-da-vereadora-aava-santiago.ghtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in full in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. G1 quotes the inspector's decision and statements from the councillor's office and the substitute; the CNJ decision and the petition were not themselves inspected.","independence_group":"g1-goias-reporting"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://jurinews.com.br/destaques-ultimas/cnj-suspende-cassacao-da-vereadora-aava-santiago-apos-suspeita-de-falhas-no-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in full in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. Jurinews reports the CNJ injunction; the decision itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"jurinews-reporting"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which passages of the judgment contain the disputed annotations, and which tool, if any, produced them.","Whether AI-drafted text affected the July 2026 merits vote or only the later judgment text.","The TRE-GO's response to the CNJ and the outcome of the CNJ investigation."],"geography":{"basis":"The removal concerns a seat on the Goiânia city council, Goiás, Brazil, decided by the Regional Electoral Court of Goiás and suspended by Brazil's National Council of Justice (G1, Jurinews). The councillor holds office in Goiânia.","court_countries":["BR"],"event_countries":["BR"],"affected_person_countries":["BR"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the national inspector of justice, after examining passages from an electoral court judgment that removed a councillor from office, found her allegation of unsupervised generative-AI drafting plausible on a preliminary analysis and suspended the judgment the day a substitute took her seat. AI use remains suspected and is attributed to her allegation and the inspector's preliminary finding.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The output at issue is text in the TRE-GO judgment about the councillor: she alleges, and G1 and Jurinews report, that the final text contained commands, instructions and review records indicating AI use without human review. The national inspector of justice, who examined the passages reproduced in her petition, wrote that they show in theory annotations that appear to be internal review instructions for checking the premises of the judgment's reasoning, and found the allegation of non-compliance with the CNJ's AI supervision rules plausible on a preliminary analysis. That judgment removed her from office until he suspended it. No tool is named, the passages are not reproduced, and AI use has not been established; the merits vote of July 2026 was made by the judges.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Goiás, Brazil: national judicial inspector suspends an electoral court judgment removing a councillor who alleged signs of unsupervised AI drafting","summary":"Goiânia city councillor Aava Santiago (PSB) told Brazil's National Council of Justice (CNJ) that the final text of a judgment of the Regional Electoral Court of Goiás (TRE-GO), which removed her from office for party infidelity, contained commands, instructions and review records indicating the use of artificial intelligence without the human supervision that CNJ Resolution 615/2025 requires. On 9 October 2026, the day a substitute took her seat, the national inspector of justice, Minister Benedito Gonçalves, found the allegations plausible on a preliminary reading, suspended the judgment and the administrative acts that followed from it, and gave the court 15 days to explain its review procedures, G1 and Jurinews report. The suspension does not review the merits of the removal, and whether AI was used irregularly has yet to be investigated.","incidentDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-10","aiSystem":"Generative artificial intelligence allegedly used in drafting the TRE-GO judgment; no tool is named, and its use is alleged by the councillor and found plausible only on a preliminary reading by the national inspector of justice","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool (suspected)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to G1 and Jurinews, a judgment that the councillor says shows signs of AI use without the required human review removed her from her council seat, and a substitute took the seat on 9 October 2026 before the national inspector of justice suspended the judgment the same day. The AI connection is her allegation, found plausible only on a preliminary reading.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the councillor removed by the judgment whose drafting is disputed. Voters and the council are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"BR-GO","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://g1.globo.com/go/goias/noticia/2026/10/10/cnj-suspende-a-cassacao-do-mandato-da-vereadora-aava-santiago.ghtml","primarySourceLabel":"G1 Goiás, 10 October 2026: CNJ suspends the removal of councillor Aava Santiago","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:09.553524+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:09.553524+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["brazil","electoral-court","suspected-judicial-ai-use","human-supervision","cnj","injunction"]},{"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-arizona-federal-court-dismisses-apparently-ai-generated-workplace-complaint-bars-ai-drafting","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The complaint appears to have been generated'; 'by artificial intelligence (“AI”) as it resembles other AI-generated complaints the court has'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court stated that the complaint appears to have been generated by artificial intelligence because it resembles other AI-generated complaints the court has encountered.","causal_attribution":"Statement in the court's order of 6 October 2026; the order records an appearance, not an admission or a finding of who drafted the complaint."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'complaint qualifies as a forbidden “shotgun pleading.”'; 'is prohibited from using AI to draft her'; 'IT IS ORDERED the complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. No later than October'; '19, 2026, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint of no more than 25 pages that is not'; 'drafted using AI tools. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal with'; 'prejudice in the event no amended complaint is filed by that date.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court dismissed the complaint as a shotgun pleading, granted leave to file an amended complaint of no more than 25 pages by 19 October 2026, prohibited the plaintiff from using AI to draft it and directed entry of a judgment of dismissal with prejudice if none is filed.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the court's order; the AI-drafting prohibition is the court's response to the complaint's apparent AI origin."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'filed a 67-page complaint that'; 'includes 199 separate paragraphs.'; 'brings this action principally under Title'; 'claim as one for “hostile work environment.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint, filed on 11 September 2026, ran to 67 pages and 199 paragraphs and was brought principally under Title VII's anti-retaliation provision, while also describing a hostile work environment claim.","causal_attribution":"Description of the complaint in the court's order."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'with filings in this matter must attach to the subject filing a separate declaration disclosing'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order also sets the judge's standing requirement that any party using generative AI in filings attach a declaration disclosing that use and certifying personal review of the filing.","causal_attribution":"Case-management requirement stated in the order; context, applies to all parties."}],"effects":[{"label":"workplace complaint dismissed and the plaintiff barred from using AI to draft the amended complaint","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1517524/gov.uscourts.azd.1517524.6.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 from the RECAP copy of the order (text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the order. HTTP 200.","independence_group":"d-ariz-cv-26-08218-order-doc-6"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Whether the plaintiff or anyone else used an AI tool to draft the complaint, and which tool; the order states only that the complaint appears AI-generated.","Whether the plaintiff is self-represented; the order does not say.","The plaintiff's employer and workplace; the order names only the defendant and does not describe the employment.","Whether an amended complaint will be filed by 19 October 2026 and what follows."],"geography":{"basis":"The event is the filing and dismissal of the complaint in the US District Court for the District of Arizona (order caption and text), so the filing and the court's decision took place in the US. The order gives no residence or workplace location for the plaintiff, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a consequential-response case on the court's own order: a federal judge in Arizona dismissed a workplace complaint that the court said appeared to be AI-generated and barred the plaintiff from using AI to draft the amended complaint. The dismissal and the prohibition are documented by the order; the AI origin is the court's stated appearance, recorded as suspected. The plaintiff is a private party and is not named in the public text.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The reported harm is the court's response to the complaint's apparent AI origin. The order states that the complaint 'appears to have been generated by artificial intelligence' because it resembles other AI-generated complaints the court has encountered, dismisses it for the defects the court describes (voluminous, repetitive allegations, shifting claims, discussions of law and missing exhibits) and prohibits the plaintiff from using AI to draft the amended complaint. The apparently AI-generated text informed the court's decision about the plaintiff (informed_decision_about): the court read the complaint, attributed its form to AI, dismissed it and imposed an AI-specific drafting restriction. The court's attribution rests on its comparison with other complaints; no admission, tool or drafter is identified, so the status is suspected.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Arizona federal court dismisses a Title VII complaint it says appears AI-generated and bars the plaintiff from using AI to draft the amended complaint","summary":"On 6 October 2026 a judge of the US District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed a 67-page, 199-paragraph workplace complaint filed on 11 September 2026, saying it appeared to have been generated by artificial intelligence because it resembled other AI-generated complaints the court had encountered. The court dismissed it as a shotgun pleading that did not give the defendant or the court sufficient notice of the claims, which it said shifted between Title VII retaliation, hostile work environment and retaliatory hostile work environment. It granted leave to file an amended complaint of no more than 25 pages by 19 October 2026, prohibited the plaintiff from using AI to draft it and directed entry of a judgment of dismissal with prejudice if no amended complaint is filed. The order does not establish who drafted the complaint or name any AI tool.","incidentDate":"2026-10-06","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-09","aiSystem":"Unidentified generative AI tool that the court said the complaint appeared to have been generated by; no tool is named and the plaintiff's use is not established in the order","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiff's employment complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and the court barred the plaintiff from using AI to draft the amended complaint, which must be filed by 19 October 2026 in no more than 25 pages or the case will be dismissed with prejudice (D. Ariz. order, 6 October 2026). The court said the complaint appeared to be AI-generated; the order does not establish who drafted it.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the plaintiff whose complaint was dismissed and who was barred from using AI to draft the amended complaint. Counted outside direct AI users because the order says only that the complaint appears to have been generated by AI and does not establish who drafted it. The defendant is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1517524/gov.uscourts.azd.1517524.6.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court, D. Ariz., No. CV-26-08218-PCT-KML, order (Doc. 6) signed 6 Oct 2026, filed 7 Oct 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:12:35.558091+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:12:35.558091+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["apparent_ai_generated_filing","courts","dismissal","federal_court","employment","united_states","arizona"]},{"id":"2026-nebraska-supreme-court-strikes-self-represented-appellant-brief-over-ai-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'his brief contains numerous citations'; 'to fictitious cases and misstatements of law, which are the'; 'result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence'; 'In light of these deficiencies, we strike'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the self-represented appellant's brief contained numerous citations to fictitious cases and misstatements of law resulting from his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence, and struck the brief.","causal_attribution":"Finding stated in the court's published opinion of 2 October 2026."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'litigants are held to the same standard as practicing attorneys'; 'relies upon nonexistent legal authority is'; 'an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions'; 'we will stop short of dismissing'; 'dismissal of the appeal in lieu of plain error review may follow'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that self-represented litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys and that submitting a brief relying on nonexistent legal authority is an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions, but stopped short of dismissing the appeal and reviewed for plain error, warning that dismissal may follow in future cases.","causal_attribution":"Holding stated in the court's published opinion."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'sanctioned him to serve a term of 90 days’ incarceration'; 'Finding no plain error, we affirm'; 'time to a period of 5 weeks and once again ordered that he pay'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Reviewing for plain error only, the court found none and affirmed the district court's contempt finding and its sanction of 90 days' incarceration with purge conditions, a temporary reduction of parenting time and an attorney-fee award.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the court's published opinion; the contempt arose from decree violations unrelated to AI."}],"effects":[{"label":"a self-represented appellant's brief was struck for AI-fabricated citations and his appeal was reviewed only for plain error","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewOpinion?docId=N00013498PUB","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library PDF (text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the opinion. HTTP 200.","independence_group":"nebraska-supreme-court-opinion-2026-10-02"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which generative AI tool the appellant used and what it produced; the opinion records only his admission and the presence of fictitious citations.","Whether the appeal would have fared differently under full review; the court reviewed for plain error and found none.","Whether the appellant has served the incarceration sanction or purged it."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal is from the District Court for Sarpy County, Nebraska, and the opinion is of the Nebraska Supreme Court (opinion caption and background). The appellant litigated the divorce in Nebraska; the opinion gives no other residence.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with) on the court's own published opinion. The appellant admitted using generative AI to prepare his brief. The Nebraska Supreme Court struck the brief because its fabricated citations resulted from that use, reviewed only for plain error and affirmed the contempt order against him (informed_decision_about). The facts are documented by the opinion; the appellant is a private party in a family case and is not named in the public text.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Nebraska Supreme Court's published opinion states that the appellant's brief contained numerous citations to fictitious cases and misstatements of law 'which are the result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence (AI)'. The appellant used the tool himself to prepare the brief, and its output gave him the fictitious authorities he filed (communicated_with). The court then acted on that output: it read the brief, found its authorities fictitious, struck it on that ground and limited its review to plain error (informed_decision_about). The opinion does not identify the tool or quote its output.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Nebraska Supreme Court strikes a self-represented appellant's brief over fabricated citations from admitted AI use; plain-error review only (2 Oct 2026)","summary":"On 2 October 2026 the Nebraska Supreme Court struck the appellate brief of a self-represented party appealing a contempt order in his divorce case because the brief contained numerous citations to fictitious cases and misstatements of law, which the court said were the result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence. The court held that self-represented litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys and that submitting a brief relying on nonexistent authority is an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions. Citing the novelty of the issue for self-represented parties, it stopped short of dismissing the appeal and reviewed only for plain error, finding none and affirming the district court's contempt finding, its sanction of 90 days' incarceration with purge conditions, a temporary reduction of his parenting time and an attorney-fee award. The court warned that in future cases dismissal of the appeal may follow. The opinion does not name the AI tool.","incidentDate":"2026-10-02","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-02","aiSystem":"Generative artificial intelligence, not identified in the opinion, which the appellant admitted using to prepare an appellate brief that cited fictitious cases","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The appellant's brief was struck as a sanction for fabricated citations the court attributed to his admitted use of generative AI, so his appeal was reviewed only for plain error rather than on its assigned errors; the court affirmed the contempt order and 90-day incarceration sanction with purge conditions (Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, 2 October 2026). The opinion does not say whether the appeal would have succeeded under full review.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used generative AI to prepare the brief and whose brief was struck. The opposing party and the children are not counted as harmed by the AI-related sanction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewOpinion?docId=N00013498PUB","primarySourceLabel":"Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, 322 Neb. 451, No. S-25-546, filed 2 October 2026 (court PDF, docId N00013498PUB)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:29:04.754849+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:43:37.291553+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","self_represented_litigant","sanctions","united_states","nebraska"]},{"id":"2024-tasmania-parole-board-ai-hallucinated-case-law-media-condition-quashed","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"In December 2024, the Parole Board of Tasmania added a condition that she not speak \"directly or indirectly with any media outlet to claim (her) alleged innocence and/or wrongful conviction\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was replaced by a new parole condition in May 2025","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The condition was tweaked in 2025 to prevent her from communicating directly or indirectly - including through third parties and written statements - with media about her alleged innocence","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The Supreme Court declared that conditions imposed by the Parole Board of Tasmania in December 2024 and May 2025 were invalid and unlawful.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In December 2024 the Parole Board of Tasmania added a parole condition barring the parolee from communicating with media to claim her innocence or wrongful conviction, and a broader condition replaced it in May 2025.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"used artificial intelligence to prepare a rationale justifying the parole condition, citing case law that was \"fictitious\" and likely \"AI hallucinations\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"relied upon by the board in creating the conditions, included erroneous AI information, the court was told.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"\"As we now know, those cases didn't exist,\" he said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Her counsel told the Supreme Court that the board's secretary used artificial intelligence to prepare a rationale document justifying the condition and that the case law it cited did not exist.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's statement in court is reported by ABC and AAP. These accounts do not independently verify the generation history or identify the tool. The document itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"the Board’s decision-making was affected by a document containing legal authorities that were likely AI-generated hallucinations and did not in fact exist","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Justice Estcourt also found that when the parole board made the decision to impose this condition, it had relied on a document that cited case law that was \"fictitious\" and likely \"AI hallucinations\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Human Rights Law Centre says the State conceded the board's decision-making was affected by a document containing nonexistent authorities likely generated by AI. ABC's 19 September report says the court found the board had relied on the document when imposing the condition.","causal_attribution":"The State's concession as reported by the applicant's representative, and the ABC's report of the court's finding. The ABC's 15 September report says the judge heard this; its 19 September report says the judge found it. The AI origin is stated as likely."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Today in the Supreme Court in Hobart, Justice Stephen Estcourt ruled the condition was invalid because it denied her procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable, and created uncertainty.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Justice Stephen Estcourt found the condition was made without procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable and was filled with uncertainty.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"ABC and AAP report that on 15 September 2026 Justice Stephen Estcourt of the Supreme Court of Tasmania ruled the condition invalid because it denied procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable and created uncertainty.","causal_attribution":"The reported grounds of invalidity are procedural fairness, unreasonableness and uncertainty; the AI document is not reported as a separate ground."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"The parole board decided to withdraw the condition in August and did not contest it being set aside on Tuesday.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Mr Coleridge said the parole board met and withdrew the condition that same month","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The board withdrew the condition in August 2026 and did not contest it being set aside.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The court heard that in August","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"brought to the court's attention that the case law referred to in the document did not exist.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Her lawyers raised in August 2026 that the case law in the document did not exist, and the board withdrew the condition that month.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's sequence of events; the board refused to explain the withdrawal."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"For almost two years, the conditions imposed by the Parole Board of Tasmania prevented Ms Neill-Fraser from speaking publicly about her claimed innocence","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"she had been unable to speak publicly after Tasmania's parole board placed a condition on her release in 2024.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Any breach of parole could result in the remainder of the sentence having to be served","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The Human Rights Law Centre says the conditions prevented the parolee from speaking publicly about her claimed innocence for almost two years. The Guardian reports that a parole breach could have meant serving the remaining sentence.","causal_attribution":"The restriction is the effect of the condition; the AI document is one input to the decision that imposed it."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"The Parole Board's professional standards will be independently investigated following its use of unverified artificial intelligence in a rationale document which formed part of the materials before the board to impose conditions,\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Tasmania's Attorney-General announced an independent investigation of the Parole Board's professional standards following its use of unverified artificial intelligence in the rationale document.","causal_attribution":"The Attorney-General's statement acknowledges the AI use; it does not quantify its effect on the decision."},{"id":"c9","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"\"The Department will undertake a review to determine the extent to which Artificial Intelligence (AI) may have been used to inform past Tasmanian Parole Board decisions,\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"“The department will undertake a review to determine the extent to which artificial intelligence may have been used to inform past Tasmanian Parole Board decisions,” a justice department spokesperson said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Tasmania's Justice Department said it would review the extent to which AI may have been used to inform past Parole Board decisions.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim."}],"effects":[{"label":"a restriction on public speech about claimed innocence from December 2024 until withdrawal in August 2026","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"},{"label":"adverse parole decision affected by a rationale document citing likely AI-generated, non-existent case law","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-15/susan-neill-fraser-media-ban-parole-board-ai-hallucinations/106302950","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from abc.net.au (HTTP 200). Court reporting of the 15 September 2026 hearing; the judgment and orders were not inspected. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"abc-au"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9350990/murderers-gag-order-lifted-after-troubling-ai-error/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from canberratimes.com.au (HTTP 200); Australian Associated Press copy of the same hearing, reported independently of the ABC. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"aap"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/susan-neill-fraser-gag-order-unlawful/","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from hrlc.org.au (HTTP 200). Release by the organisation that represented the parolee; its account of the State's concessions is a party-side account. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"hrlc"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-19/parole-board-ai-use-review-after-neill-fraser-case/107172064","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from abc.net.au (HTTP 200). Same outlet as s1, so the same independence group; carries the Attorney-General's and Justice Department's statements. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"abc-au"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/19/tasmania-justice-department-review-ai-artificial-intelligence-fake-citation-murderer-parole-decision-ntwnfb","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from theguardian.com (HTTP 200); credited to a staff reporter with Australian Associated Press, so grouped with s2. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"aap"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/26/sue-neill-fraser-yacht-murder-ai-court-case-media-ban-tasmania-ntwnfb","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from theguardian.com (HTTP 200); Guardian Australia feature by its own reporter. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"guardian-au"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used and the extent of its contribution to the rationale. Counsel identified the secretary as its preparer, but the document and generation history were not inspected.","Whether the rationale document informed the December 2024 decision, the May 2025 decision or both.","The text of the judgment or orders, which could not be read (AustLII HTTP 403).","The findings of the independent investigation and of the Justice Department's review of past parole decisions."],"geography":{"basis":"The Parole Board of Tasmania imposed the condition and the Supreme Court of Tasmania in Hobart set it aside (ABC, AAP). The parolee's country of residence is not stated as such in the sources read.","court_countries":["AU"],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"This is a concrete restriction of a person's speech through a human parole-board decision. Court reporting and the representative's account describe likely AI-generated false authorities used as an input to that decision. The relation is informed_decision_about and does not require the AI text to mention the parolee. The AI origin remains qualified, and the document's precise role in each of the two successive conditions is unknown. The court's reported grounds concern procedural fairness, unreasonableness and uncertainty.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Human Rights Law Centre reports the State's concession that the board's decision-making was affected by a rationale document containing nonexistent authorities likely generated by AI. ABC and AAP court reports describe the document's use in imposing the media condition, and the Attorney-General's statement reported by ABC acknowledges unverified AI in material used by the board. These sources connect the AI-supplied legal material to a human decision restricting the parolee's speech. The relation is informed_decision_about. The sources do not establish that AI made claims about the parolee herself, wrote the whole rationale or made the final parole decision. The judgment and the rationale document have not been inspected.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Tasmania parole media ban quashed after state conceded reliance on likely AI-hallucinated case law","summary":"In December 2024 the Parole Board of Tasmania added a condition to the parole of Susan Neill-Fraser, released in 2022 after serving 13 years for murder and who maintains her innocence, barring her from communicating with media to claim innocence or wrongful conviction; a broader condition replaced it in May 2025. On 15 September 2026 the Supreme Court of Tasmania declared the conditions invalid. Her counsel told the court that the board's secretary had used artificial intelligence to prepare a rationale document justifying the condition and that it cited case law that did not exist. The Human Rights Law Centre, which represented her, says the State conceded that the board's decision-making was affected by a document containing legal authorities that were likely AI-generated hallucinations, and the ABC reports the court found the board relied on that document. The board had withdrawn the condition in August 2026. Tasmania's Attorney-General announced an independent investigation of the board's professional standards over its use of unverified AI, and the Justice Department announced a review of AI use in past parole decisions.","incidentDate":"2024-12-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-15","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-15","aiSystem":"An unidentified artificial-intelligence tool that, according to counsel and the Attorney-General, was used to prepare a Parole Board rationale document citing case law that did not exist","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","loss_of_autonomy"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The conditions restricted a parolee's public speech from December 2024 until their withdrawal in August 2026. They were declared invalid in September. The Human Rights Law Centre says the State conceded the board's decision-making had been affected by nonexistent legal authorities likely generated by AI. The judgment was not directly inspected, and the sources do not establish whether that document informed the original condition, the replacement or both.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One parolee is counted for the reported restriction of her speech. The reviewed sources describe no other identified person harmed by AI use in a parole decision; an announced review of past decisions does not establish additional victims.","victimAgeRange":"elderly","jurisdiction":"AU","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-15/susan-neill-fraser-media-ban-parole-board-ai-hallucinations/106302950","primarySourceLabel":"ABC News, 15 September 2026: AI hallucinations in parole board submission scuttle media ban on Susan Neill-Fraser","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:51.9027+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:51.9027+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["parole","hallucinated-case-law","freedom-of-speech","judicial-review","government-ai-use"]},{"id":"2017-mobley-v-workday-ai-applicant-screening-job-rejections-discrimination-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 1: 'brings this action for employment discrimination against Workday, Inc.'; 'algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other similarly situated job applicants on the basis of race, age, and disability'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A job applicant brought an employment discrimination action against Workday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that its algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other applicants on the basis of race, age and disability.","causal_attribution":"The order establishes that the action exists and what it alleges. It does not establish that the allegations are true."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 2-3: 'Mobley has allegedly applied to over 100 positions with companies that use Workday'; 'screening tools for talent acquisition and hiring since 2017'; 'Mobley was allegedly denied employment for every one of the'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that since 2017 he applied to more than 100 positions with companies that use Workday's screening tools and was denied employment on every one.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court on a motion to dismiss. It is not a finding."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 3: 'his application was rejected less than an hour later'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that one application, submitted at 12:55 a.m., was rejected less than an hour later.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court. The plaintiffs argue that the timing indicates automated screening, and no finding has been made."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'enabling these applications to make hiring decisions'; 'employer should accept or reject an application'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that Workday's tools embed AI and machine learning and determine whether an employer should accept or reject an application.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court. Workday disputes that its tools make hiring decisions."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The motion to dismiss the disparate impact claims under Title VII, the ADEA, and the'; 'ADA is therefore denied'; 'intentionally discriminated against him based on race and age'; 'Document 80 Filed 07/12/24'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 12 July 2024 the court granted Workday's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part: the disparate-impact claims proceed and the claims of intentional discrimination were dismissed.","causal_attribution":"The court's own ruling on the pleadings. It decides whether the claims may proceed and makes no finding of discrimination."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 1: 'motion for preliminary certification of the collective is GRANTED'; 'Mobley is joined by four other plaintiffs over the age of forty'; 'Document 128'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 16 May 2025 the court granted preliminary certification of a collective on the age-discrimination claim, and four other plaintiffs over forty had joined the named plaintiff.","causal_attribution":"The court's own procedural ruling, which the order says can be revisited after discovery. It makes no finding of discrimination."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 1: 'who allege that they too have applied for hundreds of jobs via Workday and have been rejected almost every time without an interview'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The four further plaintiffs allege that they applied for hundreds of jobs via Workday and were rejected almost every time without an interview.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' allegations as recited by the court. They attribute the rejections to age discrimination in the recommendation system, which is not established."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the plaintiffs filed their class-certification request on September 14 in federal court in San Francisco'; 'Workday has denied wrongdoing, saying its AI tools evaluate job qualifications rather than protected characteristics'; 'its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed, and rejected'; 'A hearing on whether the case can proceed as a class action is scheduled for March 9, 2027'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Black Information Network, citing Reuters, reported on 24 September 2026 that the plaintiffs filed a class-certification request on 14 September, that Workday denies wrongdoing and says its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected, and that a hearing is scheduled for 9 March 2027.","causal_attribution":"A relay of Reuters reporting. The motion and the Reuters article were not read."}],"effects":[{"label":"denied employment on every one of more than 100 applications to companies using Workday's screening tools (plaintiff's allegation)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"four further plaintiffs over forty rejected almost every time without an interview (their allegation, as recited by the court)","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.80.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English: the 20-page order of 12 July 2024 as text extracted from the PDF.","independence_group":"mobley-v-workday-court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.128.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English: the 20-page order of 16 May 2025 as text extracted from the PDF.","independence_group":"mobley-v-workday-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.binnews.com/alternate/amp/2026-09-24-black-job-seekers-allege-workdays-ai-hiring-tools-discriminate-seek-class-action/","kind":"news_relay","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English. The article attributes its account to Reuters, whose article was not read.","independence_group":"reuters-workday-class-certification-2026-09"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Whether Workday's tools, the employers' own settings or human reviewers produced each rejection.","Which employers were involved beyond those named in the order, and the dates of the individual applications.","The contents of the September 2026 class-certification motion and of the Reuters article, neither of which was read.","The outcome of the case on the merits."],"geography":{"basis":"The case is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, and the 2025 order describes the proposed group as a 'nationwide collective' under US federal employment statutes, which places the applications in the United States. The plaintiffs' places of residence were not read in the passages inspected.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete, court-documented allegation that an AI applicant-screening system repeatedly rejected a named job applicant. The existence of the suit and two rulings are established by the court's orders. The rejections and the role of the tools are the plaintiffs' allegations, which Workday denies and no court has decided.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The plaintiffs allege that Workday's AI-based screening and recommendation tools decided or recommended the rejection of their applications. The court's orders recite those allegations and found the disparate-impact claims plausibly pleaded. The 2025 order quotes Workday's discovery statement that its Candidate Skills Match tool 'utilizes artificial intelligence' and that customers choose whether to turn it on. Workday says its tools evaluate qualifications and that its customers control rejections. Whether an automated tool made any particular rejection is not established.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Job applicant alleges Workday's AI applicant-screening tools rejected more than 100 of his applications on the basis of race, age and disability; a US federal court let disparate-impact claims proceed and preliminarily certified an age-discrimination collective","summary":"Derek Mobley sued Workday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the company's algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other job applicants on the basis of race, age and disability. According to the court's summary of the complaint, Mobley alleges that since 2017 he applied to more than 100 positions with companies that use Workday's screening tools and was denied employment on every one, in one instance less than an hour after applying at 12:55 a.m. On 12 July 2024 the court dismissed the claims of intentional discrimination and allowed the disparate-impact claims to proceed. On 16 May 2025 it granted preliminary certification of a collective on the age-discrimination claim, by which time four further plaintiffs over forty had joined. The Black Information Network, citing Reuters, reported on 24 September 2026 that the plaintiffs had asked the court to certify a class action and that a hearing is set for 9 March 2027. Workday denies wrongdoing and says its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected. No court has ruled on whether the tools discriminated.","incidentDate":"2017-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","aiSystem":"Workday's applicant screening tools on its job-application platform, which the court's orders describe from the complaint as 'algorithm-based applicant screening tools' (2024) and an AI-based 'applicant recommendation system' (2025). The plaintiffs allege the tools score, sort, rank or screen applicants. Workday says its AI tools evaluate job qualifications and that its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected (as relayed from Reuters). The 2025 order names two tools discussed in the certification briefing: Candidate Skills Match, which Workday said in discovery 'utilizes artificial intelligence' to compare a job posting with an application within its Workday Recruiting service and which customers can turn on or off, and Workday Assessment Connector, which is alleged to use machine learning","aiProduct":"Workday applicant screening tools","aiCompany":"Workday","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The named plaintiff alleges that he was denied employment on every one of more than 100 applications made since 2017 to companies using Workday's screening tools and that the tools discriminated by race, age and disability. Four further plaintiffs over forty allege repeated rejections without an interview. Workday denies wrongdoing, and no court has ruled on the merits.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":5,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Five plaintiffs who allege rejections: the named plaintiff and the four opt-in plaintiffs whose declarations the court's 16 May 2025 order describes ('four other plaintiffs over the age of forty'; each 'alleges that they received at least one \"automated\" rejection email'). People who may opt in to the collective are not counted. The count records people who report harm and does not establish that the tools caused it.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.128.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court, N.D. California, Mobley v. Workday, order granting preliminary collective certification, 16 May 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:19:40.629587+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:19:40.629587+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-decision-about","hiring","applicant-screening","workday","employment-discrimination","age-discrimination","lawsuit","institutional-use"]},{"id":"2023-reno-peppermill-casino-facial-recognition-misidentification-arrest-killinger-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Complaint, introduction paras 1-3: 'reported that their A.I. facial recognition software positively identified the man as M.E., a man they'; 'The Peppermill’s A.I. software was wrong. It mistakenly identified Plaintiff Jason'; 'gaming at the casino, of being M.E. They handcuffed him, took him to their security office, and'; 'On September 17, 2023, the Peppermill Casino in Reno telephoned the Reno Police'; 'had barred from the casino months earlier for sleeping on the premises.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Order, Relevant Background (recounting the complaint): 'security. (Id. at 7-8.) Peppermill’s facial recognition software (“FRS”) identified Plaintiff as'; 'Peppermill’s security handcuffed Plaintiff and placed him in a citizen’s arrest.'; 'In the early morning, Plaintiff was stopped by Peppermill'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'misidentified by the venue’s AI facial recognition technology as a local reprobate, according to court filings.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Mr. Killinger was arrested because the casino’s facial recognition security camera system alerted to Mr. Killinger being a possible match for another individual who had been banned from the premises.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"According to Jason Killinger's federal complaint, in the early hours of 17 September 2023 the Peppermill Casino in Reno reported to police that its AI facial-recognition software had identified him as a man barred from the casino months earlier; the complaint says the identification was wrong and that casino security handcuffed him and held him in its security office.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's allegation, relayed by the court in its background recital and by news coverage of the filings. The casino's system is not named in any inspected source."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Complaint para 5 and para 12: 'recognition software had provided a 100 percent match confirming that KILLINGER was M.E.'; 'fingerprint analysis conclusively established that he was KILLINGER, not M.E. or anyone else.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Order, Relevant Background: 'Plaintiff’s driver’s license and Peppermill’s FRS results confirming a 100% match with the'; 'Defendant did not review any additional documentation before handcuffing'; 'At WCDF, Plaintiff’s identity was positively confirmed.'; 'for biometric intake to confirm his identity.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'According to court filings, police detained Killinger for identification after receiving the facial recognition alert. Fingerprints later confirmed he was not the person flagged by the system, and he was released.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that the responding Reno police officer was told the software had produced a 100 percent match, did not examine the other identification Killinger had on him and in his car, and arrested him and took him to the Washoe County jail to establish his identity, where a fingerprint check confirmed who he was.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's allegation. The court's March 2026 order recites these facts from the complaint and makes no finding on them; the arrest decision was the officer's."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Complaint paras 65-73: 'KILLINGER was in handcuffs approximately four hours'; 'in custody at the jail for an additional nine and one-half hours for a total'; 'contusions (bruising) on both wrists.'; 'This does not include the time he was held by the Peppermill before Jager’s arrival.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The truck driver was detained for 11 hours, according to a wrongful arrest lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Nevada.'; 'For four of those hours, he was handcuffed, resulting in bruises and shoulder pain, per the suit.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The complaint states that Killinger was in police and jail custody for about eleven hours, not counting the time casino security held him, was handcuffed for about four hours and was treated at an urgent-care clinic the next day for bruising to both wrists.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's allegation."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Order, Relevant Background (recounting the complaint): 'At the bench trial, a Reno prosecutor dismissed'; 'the charges against Plaintiff but without prejudice to re-charge Plaintiff within the year.'; 'The next day, Plaintiff'; 'was charged with trespassing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Complaint para 19: 'Even though the charge was eventually dismissed, he'; 'now has a criminal record.'; 'He had never been accused of a crime, arrested, or taken to jail.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Killinger was charged with trespassing the day after his release; at the bench trial a Reno prosecutor dismissed the charge without prejudice, and the complaint says the arrest left him, a man with no previous arrests, with a criminal record.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's allegation, recited by the court without a finding."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The plaintiff has already sued the Peppermill Casino in a case that was settled for an undisclosed amount.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Casino.org reports that Killinger had sued the Peppermill Casino and that the case was settled for an undisclosed amount.","causal_attribution":"Casino.org's report; the settlement terms and any filing against the casino were not inspected."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Order, Conclusion and Part IV: 'liability claim and denied in part as to Plaintiff’s proposed wrongful arrest claim. Plaintiff'; 'incident and a new claim of municipal liability for policies regarding FRS and handcuffing.'; 'Plaintiff concedes there are no cases in the Ninth Circuit clearly'; 'Since Plaintiff previously conceded that no relevant precedent exists'; 'and fails to respond or rebut his own conclusion with any case law'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'In a new filing, a district court has granted his request to add the City of Reno as a new defendant in the case, as well as a new municipal liability claim against the city.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"In an order of 27 March 2026 the court allowed Killinger to add the City of Reno as a defendant with a municipal liability claim concerning policies on facial recognition software and handcuffing, and refused to let him add a wrongful arrest claim against the officer, holding it futile under qualified immunity because he had earlier conceded that no Ninth Circuit case clearly established that arrests based solely on facial recognition were unlawful and cited no case law in reply.","causal_attribution":"Procedural rulings documented by the order; no finding on the merits."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Caption page: '[Proposed] Amicus Curiae Brief of the'; 'Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for'; 'Filed 09/21/26'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"'On September 21, 2026, the ACLU, ACLU of Nevada and the Innocence Project filed an amicus brief in the District of Nevada in support of Jason Killinger'; 'The brief asks the court to rule that police lacked probable cause to arrest Mr. Killinger based on a facial recognition technology result'; 'The brief also asks the court to rule that the City of Reno is liable for Mr. Killinger’s wrongful arrest.'; 'failing to provide training to Reno Police Department officers amounts to deliberate indifference'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 21 September 2026 the ACLU, the ACLU of Nevada and the Innocence Project filed a proposed amicus brief (ECF No. 96-1) supporting Killinger's motion for partial summary judgment, asking the court to rule that police lacked probable cause to arrest him on a facial recognition result and that the City of Reno is liable for failing to train its officers.","causal_attribution":"The filing date and the proposed status of the brief come from its caption; the description of its requests is the ACLU's own. No ruling on the motion or on leave to file the brief was found."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Motion, page 2 and page 18: 'The RPD detective investigated and concluded the Peppermill’s FRT was'; 'were two separate people'; 'had arrested an innocent man.'; 'committed identity theft.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"Killinger's motion for partial summary judgment of 12 September 2026 states that after the trespass charge was dismissed the city prosecutor referred the case to a Reno police detective to examine whether he had committed identity theft, and that the detective concluded the casino's facial recognition match was wrong, that he and the barred man were two separate people and that the officer had arrested an innocent man.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's motion summarising the detective's deposition (Exhibit 3), which was not itself read; no court has ruled on it."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Motion, pages 10-11: 'Peppermill from about October 2024 to July 2026.'; 'an alert of 100% on someone who was clearly not the person in the database.'; 'that happen sometimes 12 times on a single shift.'; 'he was told to rely on the alerts not on their identification.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"'generating as many as 12 false matches with “100% confidence” during a single shift.'; 'worked as a Peppermill security officer from October 2024 until July 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"}],"assertion":"The motion cites a declaration by a former Peppermill security officer, employed there from about October 2024 to July 2026, that the system would alert at 100 percent on people who were clearly not the person in its database, sometimes 12 times in a single shift, and that guards were told to rely on the alerts rather than on a person's identification; Casino.org reported the same declaration on 13 October 2026.","causal_attribution":"A former employee's declaration as summarised in the plaintiff's motion and relayed by Casino.org; the security officer started work about a year after Killinger's arrest and describes later practice, not this arrest."},{"id":"c10","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Motion, page 9: 'track FRT false positives. In those years the casino believed a FRT match of 100% was accurate'; 'Towards the end of 2025 the Peppermill discovered that FRT false positives occur'; '10% of the time.'; page 24: 'Peppermill security director'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"The motion also cites the Peppermill's security director as testifying that from 2023 to 2025 the casino had no way to track false positives and believed a 100 percent match was accurate, and that toward the end of 2025 it found that false positives occur 10 percent of the time.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's summary of a deposition (Exhibit 1) that was not itself read."},{"id":"c11","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Motion, page 8, quoting the officer in an interrogatory answer: 'Killinger, I had no knowledge that FRT could be inaccurate.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"'In a separate declaration, he said he had never previously known the Peppermill’s facial recognition system to make an incorrect identification.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"}],"assertion":"The arresting officer has said that before the arrest he had no knowledge that facial recognition could be inaccurate; Casino.org reports that he denies wrongdoing and that in a separate declaration he said he had never known the Peppermill's system to make an incorrect identification.","causal_attribution":"The officer's own statements as quoted by the plaintiff and relayed by Casino.org; his denial of wrongdoing is recorded as counterevidence."}],"effects":[{"label":"handcuffed for about four hours and held in police and jail custody for about eleven hours after a casino's facial recognition system wrongly matched him to a barred man","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"prosecuted for trespassing until a prosecutor dismissed the charge without prejudice, leaving an arrest on his record","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Complaint, Killinger v. Jager, No. 3:25-cv-00388 (D. Nev.), filed 30 July 2025 (ECF No. 1, 31 pages), read in full from the free RECAP copy on 2026-10-04. It sets out the plaintiff's allegations, including quotations he attributes to the officer's body-worn camera; it is not a finding.","independence_group":"killinger-plaintiff-pleadings"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041.58.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order of 27 March 2026 (ECF No. 58, 10 pages), read in full from the free RECAP copy on 2026-10-04. Its background section states that it relies on the facts alleged in the original complaint, so its factual recital is not an independent finding; its rulings are documented by the order itself.","independence_group":"killinger-court-order-2026-03-27"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.casino.org/news/peppermill-renos-facial-recognition-tech-leads-to-wrongful-arrest/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Casino.org, 11 November 2025, read live on 2026-10-04. The article attributes its account to the court filings; it is a derivative of the plaintiff's pleadings for the incident facts.","independence_group":"killinger-plaintiff-pleadings"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.kolotv.com/2026/04/08/man-sues-city-reno-over-use-facial-recognition/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"KOLO (Reno), 8 April 2026, read live on 2026-10-04 (short item attributed to court documents).","independence_group":"killinger-court-order-2026-03-27"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://mynews4.com/news/local/facial-recognition-lawsuit-raises-questions-about-ai-use-in-policing-nevada-law-enforcement-police-ai-artificial-intelligence-technology-suspects-lawsuit-killinger-v-jager-city-of-reno-peppermill-resort-us-district-court-fourth-amendment","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"News 4 (Reno, mynews4.com), 14 May 2026, read live on 2026-10-04; attributes the incident account to court filings.","independence_group":"killinger-plaintiff-pleadings"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/09/096-1-Proposed-Amicus-Brief.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Proposed amicus curiae brief of the ACLU, ACLU of Nevada and Innocence Project, ECF No. 96-1 (Exhibit 1), filed 21 September 2026, 39 pages, from the ACLU's copy; read for its caption and filing details. Its arguments are the amici's, not findings.","independence_group":"aclu-amicus"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.aclu.org/cases/killinger-v-jager","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"ACLU case page (last updated 23 September 2026), read live on 2026-10-04. The ACLU is an amicus supporting the plaintiff; its summary of the arrest relays the litigation record.","independence_group":"aclu-amicus"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041.95.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment based on municipal liability, Killinger v. Jager, No. 3:25-cv-00388 (D. Nev.), ECF No. 95, filed 12 September 2026 (31 pages), read in full from the free RECAP copy on 2026-10-14. It is the plaintiff's argument and summarises deposition testimony and declarations filed as exhibits; the exhibits themselves were not available and were not read. It is not a finding.","independence_group":"killinger-plaintiff-pleadings"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://www.casino.org/news/peppermill-casino-facial-recognition-made-12-false-matches-in-one-shift-ex-guard-claims/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Casino.org report of 13 October 2026, read in full on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200). It reports a former security officer's sworn declaration and the officer's separate declaration from the court filings; it does not say it read the declarations themselves. No translation was needed.","independence_group":"killinger-plaintiff-pleadings"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","privacy","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Which facial recognition product the casino used and what match threshold it applied.","Whether the court has ruled on Killinger's motion for partial summary judgment on municipal liability (ECF No. 95) that the amicus brief supports, and what the City of Reno said in response.","Whether the court has granted Killinger's April 2026 motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 60) or his motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 63).","The terms and date of the reported settlement with the Peppermill Casino.","Whether the officer's deposition admissions, which the March 2026 order mentions without describing, and the amicus brief's statement that Peppermill's records show Reno police arrested at least 16 people on Peppermill facial recognition matches before September 2023 are borne out; neither was tested here.","Whether the detective's conclusion, the security director's 10 percent false-positive figure and the former security officer's account hold up; the record has them only as the plaintiff's motion summarises the depositions and declarations, and the exhibits were not read.","What the October 2026 docket entries that follow the motion (ECF Nos. 112 to 114) say; none could be read."],"geography":{"basis":"The arrest took place at the Peppermill Casino in Reno, Nevada; the complaint states the plaintiff resides in Washoe County, Nevada, and the suit is in the US District Court for the District of Nevada.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case: a casino's facial recognition system made a claim about a patron's identity that, according to his federal complaint, was wrong and led to his arrest, about eleven hours in custody and a dismissed trespass prosecution. The incident facts are the plaintiff's allegations, relayed by news coverage of the filings and recited without findings in a court order; the procedural rulings are documented. The plaintiff is named because he sues in his own name; the officer appears only by surname in the case caption, and the barred man, whom the complaint identifies only by initials, is not named. The 2026-10-14 review added the plaintiff's September 2026 summary-judgment motion and an October 2026 Casino.org report; their accounts of a detective's conclusion and a former security officer's declaration are allegations in the plaintiff's filing, and the officer's contrary statement is recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges that the Peppermill Casino's 'A.I. facial recognition software' identified Killinger as a barred man and that casino security and the responding officer relied on its reported 100 percent match; it quotes the officer on body-worn camera describing the casino's 'artificial intelligence software'. The court's March 2026 order recites the facial recognition identification from the complaint without a finding. The vendor and system are not named in any inspected source. The handcuffing, arrest and prosecution decisions were made by casino staff, the officer and prosecutors. Killinger's September 2026 summary-judgment motion adds, from deposition testimony it summarises, that a Reno police detective later concluded the match was wrong, and cites a former casino security officer's declaration, covering his employment from about October 2024 to July 2026, that the system often alerted at 100 percent on the wrong people.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Reno casino's facial recognition wrongly matched a patron to a barred man and police jailed him for about eleven hours, his federal lawsuit alleges","summary":"Jason Killinger, a UPS truck driver, alleges in a federal civil-rights complaint filed in July 2025 that on 17 September 2023 the Peppermill Casino in Reno reported to police that its AI facial recognition software had identified him as a man barred from the casino months earlier. According to the complaint, casino security handcuffed him, and the responding Reno police officer, told the system had found a 100 percent match, did not examine his other identification and took him to jail as an unidentified person, where fingerprints confirmed who he was. The complaint says he was handcuffed for about four hours, starting in the casino security office, spent about eleven hours in police and jail custody, and was treated the next day for bruised wrists. According to the complaint, he was then charged with trespassing, and a prosecutor dismissed the charge without prejudice at the bench trial. Casino.org reports that he settled a suit against the casino. In March 2026 the court let him add the City of Reno and a municipal liability claim over facial recognition policies, but refused a new wrongful arrest claim against the officer on qualified immunity grounds. In September 2026 the ACLU, the ACLU of Nevada and the Innocence Project filed a proposed amicus brief supporting him. His September 2026 motion for partial summary judgment says a Reno police detective later concluded that the match was wrong and that he and the barred man were different people, and it cites a declaration by a former casino security officer, who worked there from about October 2024, that the system often alerted at 100 percent on the wrong people; in a declaration reported by Casino.org, the officer said he had never known the system to misidentify anyone. The case is ongoing.","incidentDate":"2023-09-17","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-11-11","aiSystem":"Facial recognition software used by the Peppermill Casino's security system in Reno, which the complaint calls 'A.I. facial recognition software'; vendor not named in the inspected sources","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","legal_harm","physical_injury","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to his complaint, Killinger was handcuffed for about four hours, arrested and held in police and jail custody for about eleven hours after the casino's facial recognition system wrongly matched him to a barred man; he was bruised by the handcuffs, prosecuted for trespassing until the charge was dismissed without prejudice, and left with an arrest record.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the plaintiff, who was arrested and held according to his complaint. Reported allegations about other people arrested on casino facial recognition matches in Reno are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-NV","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Killinger v. Jager, No. 3:25-cv-00388 (D. Nev.), complaint, 30 July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-04T03:19:04.699044+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:41.476658+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","wrongful-arrest","casino","reno","nevada","justice","made-claim-about","lawsuit"]},{"id":"2025-chandler-arizona-ai-victim-video-sentencing-vacated","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'FILED 09-30-2026'; 'AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART'; 'we affirm the manslaughter conviction but vacate the sentence for manslaughter, and remand for resentencing'; 'term of 10.5 years’ imprisonment on the count of manslaughter'; 'during a road rage confrontation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'An Arizona appeals court has upheld the manslaughter conviction of a man who fatally shot another driver during a road rage confrontation, but it has ordered a new sentencing hearing after finding a judge improperly relied on an AI-generated video portraying the victim.'; 'The court affirmed his conviction but vacated his 10.5-year prison sentence and sent the case back to Superior Court for resentencing.'; 'The case will return to Maricopa County Superior Court for a new sentencing hearing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'will have to be resentenced after the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated his sentence for a 2021 road rage killing in Chandler due to an AI video of the victim affecting the judge'; 'manslaughter conviction is upheld, but the 10 1/2-year sentence is vacated, and he will be resentenced.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 30 September 2026 the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the manslaughter conviction of a defendant who shot and killed a man during a road-rage confrontation, vacated his 10.5-year manslaughter sentence and remanded for resentencing.","causal_attribution":"The disposition stated in the opinion itself, also reported by two Arizona newsrooms, which date the killing to 2021, place it in Chandler and describe the victim as another driver."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶53: 'consideration of the AI video so prejudiced'; 'as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair'; 'Accordingly, we vacate the sentence for manslaughter and remand for resentencing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'In its decision announced Wednesday, the state Court of Appeals said the sentencing judge was prejudiced by the AI video, which made his decision fundamentally unfair.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'consideration of the AI video so prejudiced'; 'as to render the sentencing procedure'; 'improperly allowed at a sentencing hearing an artificial intelligence-generated video in which the victim is depicted talking about forgiveness and addressing the defendant directly.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The appeals court held that the sentencing judge's consideration of the AI video so prejudiced the defendant as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair.","causal_attribution":"Holding of the appeals court, read in the opinion; also reported by AZFamily and by the ABA Journal citing Reuters."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It included some real footage of the victim, but also had an AI-generated version of him delivering statements about his beliefs, forgiveness and his family.'; 'picture and voice profile'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'using a previously recorded video, a picture and a script written by'; 'sister. That video was played during the sentencing.'; 'was sentenced to 10 1/2 years in prison last year'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"¶36: 'recreated through AI that use[d] [his] picture and [his] voice profile'; ¶50: 'created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'His family used voice recordings, videos and pictures of'; 'to recreate him in a video using AI'; 'said she wrote the words that the AI version read in court based on how forgiving she knew her brother to be.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The video, made by the victim's family and played at the sentencing hearing in 2025, used the victim's picture and voice profile and combined some real footage with an AI-generated version of the victim delivering statements about his beliefs, forgiveness and his family, from a script written by his sister.","causal_attribution":"Description of the video by ABC15 and AZFamily; the BBC reports the sister saying she wrote the words; the opinion confirms the picture and voice profile, the embedded real footage and the sister's authorship, and does not state the date of the hearing."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶41: 'I loved that AI. Thank you for that'; 'I feel that that was genuine; that his obvious forgiveness of'; 'For that reason I find the presumptive term [of 10.5 years in prison] is appropriate. That’s more than the State asked for.'; ¶38: 'she asked the sentencing judge to impose a slightly mitigated sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'The sentencing judge later said he \"loved\" the AI video and described it as \"genuine.\"'; 'The judge specifically referenced what he viewed as the victim'; 'the presumptive 10.5 years in prison for manslaughter'; 'a longer sentence than the nine years requested by prosecutors'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'obvious forgiveness'; 'expressed in'; 'before handing down the punishment'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'I loved that AI, thank you for that. As angry as you are, as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness'; 'I feel that that was genuine.'; 'seemed to appreciate the use of AI at the hearing'; '10-and-a-half years in prison on manslaughter charges.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The sentencing judge said he loved the AI video, described it as genuine and referred to the forgiveness it expressed, then imposed the presumptive 10.5-year term, longer than the nine years prosecutors had requested.","causal_attribution":"The sentencing transcript as quoted in the appeals opinion; also reported by ABC15 and AZFamily."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶53: 'video footage of the victim was permissible, allowing the presentation of the AI video constituted fundamental error'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'The appeals court specifically said the real video footage of the victim was permissible. Its ruling was focused on the AI-generated portions that portrayed the victim saying things he never actually said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appeals court said the embedded real video footage of the victim was permissible and that allowing the presentation of the AI video was fundamental error.","causal_attribution":"Stated in the opinion; ABC15 summarises the ruling as focused on AI-generated portions that portrayed the victim saying things he never said."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'He says the new sentence could range from seven to ten and a half years, and the case could still reach the state supreme court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The defense attorney said the new sentence could range from seven to ten and a half years and that the case could still reach the Arizona Supreme Court.","causal_attribution":"Statement by the defense attorney to ABC15."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶1: 'remand for resentencing because the AI video was not reliable'; ¶45: 'only evidence bearing a “minimal indicia of reliability” may be considered at sentencing'; ¶50: 'does not reflect actual events'; 'presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister'; ¶51: 'It erases the interpretive distance between the family’s belief about what the victim would have said and the victim’s own voice and opinions'; 'No disclaimer could cure that error.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The opinion gives unreliability as the ground: only evidence bearing minimal indicia of reliability may be considered at sentencing, and the AI video, apart from the embedded real footage, does not reflect actual events and presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim's sister, erasing the distance between the family's belief about what the victim would have said and the victim's own voice; the court wrote that no disclaimer could cure that error.","causal_attribution":"Reasoning of the appeals court, read in the opinion."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶34: 'did not object to the AI video at sentencing, we review only for fundamental error'; ¶52: 'And it clearly impacted the sentencing judge'; 'While the record does not reflect precisely how the AI video factored into the sentencing calculus, there is no question it played a role.'; ¶48: 'No Arizona case has addressed the admissibility of an'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'no Arizona case has addressed the admissibility of an AI-generated depiction of a victim offered as victim impact evidence'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The defendant had not objected to the AI video at sentencing, so the court reviewed for fundamental error; the opinion says the video clearly impacted the sentencing judge, that the record does not reflect precisely how it factored into the sentencing calculus and that there is no question it played a role, and that no Arizona case had addressed an AI-generated depiction of a victim offered as victim impact evidence.","causal_attribution":"Stated in the opinion. The opinion does not find that the sentence would have been shorter without the video."},{"id":"c9","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶36: 'recreated through AI that use[d] [his] picture and [his] voice profile'; 'is a true representation of who [he] was'; 'not how the courtroom portrayed [him]'; 'I believe in forgiveness and in God who forgives.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The opinion records that the AI rendering of the victim explained that it was a version of him recreated through AI using his picture and voice profile, said the video was a true representation of who he was and not how the courtroom portrayed him, and told the defendant that he believed in forgiveness and in God who forgives.","causal_attribution":"The appeals court's account of the video played at sentencing."},{"id":"c10","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶37: 'the maximum sentence authorized by the jury verdict'; ¶40: 'impose a mitigated term of 7 years’ imprisonment'; ¶13: 'concurrent, presumptive term of 2.25 years’ imprisonment on the count of endangerment'; ¶1: 'argument that the court erred in precluding text messages obtained from the victim’s phone'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The opinion records that the attorney for the victim's family asked for the maximum sentence authorized by the verdict and defense counsel for a mitigated seven-year term, and that the judge also imposed a concurrent 2.25-year term for endangerment; the court affirmed the conviction after rejecting a challenge to the exclusion of text messages from the victim's phone.","causal_attribution":"The appeals court's account of the sentencing record and its own disposition."},{"id":"c11","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'We were disappointed of course'; 'She says her family is now prepared to go through a second sentencing hearing.'; 'during the spring 2025 sentencing in Maricopa County Superior Court'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The victim's sister told FOX 10 Phoenix on 1 October 2026 that the family was disappointed by the ruling, and FOX 10 reports that the family is prepared to go through a second sentencing hearing; FOX 10 places the original sentencing in spring 2025.","causal_attribution":"Statement by the victim's sister to FOX 10 Phoenix and FOX 10's own description."},{"id":"c12","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'with the help of artificial intelligence, he returned earlier this month at his killer' (sentence continues: 's sentencing to deliver a victim's statement himself; BBC, 7 May 2025)","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"'Immediately after the sentencing, defense attorney'; 'appealed the decision.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"'In May 2025, FOX 10 reported on the sentencing of'; 'during the spring 2025 sentencing in Maricopa County Superior Court'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'This story comes from our reporting from May of 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The sentencing hearing took place in May 2025 (the BBC, writing on 7 May 2025, says the AI statement was delivered earlier that month; FOX 10 and ABC15 date their reporting on the sentencing to May 2025), and the defense attorney appealed immediately after the sentencing.","causal_attribution":"Dating by three newsrooms; the appeal is ABC15's report of the defense attorney's action. The day of the hearing is not stated in any inspected body."}],"effects":[{"label":"sentencing procedure found fundamentally unfair because the judge considered an AI-generated video of the victim; 10.5-year sentence vacated and resentencing ordered","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.abc15.com/news/arizona-appeals-court-throws-out-sentence-after-judge-relied-on-ai-generated-victim-video","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-02 (ABC15 Arizona, published 30 September 2026 and updated 1 October 2026 according to the page metadata). Own reporting with interviews of the victim's sister and the defense attorney.","independence_group":"abc15"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.azfamily.com/2026/10/01/court-appeals-vacates-chandler-road-rage-sentence-due-ai-victim-video/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-02 (AZFamily, published 30 September 2026 at 5:36 PM MST). Own report of the ruling.","independence_group":"azfamily"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/arizona-appeals-court-says-judge-wrongly-permitted-ai-generated-victim-video","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-02 and re-read on 2026-10-05 (ABA Journal, 1 October 2026), which relays a Reuters story and quotes the opinion; Reuters itself returned HTTP 401.","independence_group":"reuters"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/30/state_v._horcasitas.pdf","kind":"court_opinion","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English on 2026-10-05: the published opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CR 25-0191, filed 30 September 2026 (16 pages), from the copy stored by CourtListener. The Arizona courts' own address for the file returned HTTP 403. The case caption, and so this address, carries the defendant's surname; the record text does not.","independence_group":"arizona-court-of-appeals-opinion"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-manslaughter-sentencing-vacated-due-use-ai-victim-impact-statement","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-05 (FOX 10 Phoenix, published 30 September 2026, updated 1 October 2026). Quotes the opinion and carries its own 1 October interview with the victim's sister.","independence_group":"fox10phoenix"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq808px90wxo","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-09 (BBC News, published 7 May 2025 per page metadata). Own reporting with an interview of the victim's sister and a video of the AI statement; dates the hearing to earlier in May 2025.","independence_group":"bbc"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/chandler/defense-attorney-appeals-after-ai-video-used-in-court-sentencing","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-09 (ABC15 Arizona, published 9 May 2025 per page metadata). Same newsroom as s1; interviews with the defense attorney and the family's attorney.","independence_group":"abc15"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The day of the May 2025 sentencing hearing. The month rests on the BBC's 7 May 2025 report that the AI statement was delivered 'earlier this month' and on FOX 10 Phoenix's 'In May 2025'; an ABC15 feature dated 5 May 2025 says 'last month', which would place the hearing in April 2025, and no inspected body gives the day.","The AI tools used to make the video; the opinion does not identify them.","How far the video affected the length of the sentence: the opinion says the record does not reflect precisely how it factored in.","The outcome of resentencing, its date, and whether either party seeks review by the Arizona Supreme Court; no resentencing date had been reported by 9 October 2026."],"geography":{"basis":"The sentencing took place in the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona, in May 2025, and the appeal was decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One (opinion; ABC15; AZFamily; BBC). The defendant's residence is not stated, so affected_person_countries stays empty.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse consequence of an AI-generated depiction used in a criminal proceeding: an appeals court found that the video made a May 2025 sentencing fundamentally unfair and vacated the sentence. The ruling is read in the opinion itself and reported by independent Arizona and national newsrooms; names of the deceased victim, his family, the judge and the defendant are left out of the public text and claims. Reviewed on 2026-10-09 to record the AI system's relation to the harmed defendant (the rendering impersonated the victim toward him and informed the judge's sentencing decision about him) and the month of the hearing.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Output: the appeals opinion describes an artificial-intelligence video rendering of the victim, recreated from his picture and voice profile and played at sentencing with embedded real footage, in which the AI version of the victim addressed the defendant and said he believed in forgiveness (claims c3, c9); ABC15, AZFamily, FOX 10 Phoenix, the BBC and the ABA Journal (relaying Reuters) describe the same AI-generated video, made by the victim's family from a script the sister wrote. The tools are not identified. Relation to the affected person: the rendering impersonated the deceased victim toward the court and addressed the defendant directly, so the defendant is a person toward whom generated material impersonated someone else (depicted_or_impersonated). Human use: the sentencing judge said he loved the AI video, felt it was genuine and pointed to the victim's obvious forgiveness before fixing the term (c4), and the opinion finds that the video clearly impacted the judge and played a role in the sentencing calculus (c8), so the AI output informed the judge's sentencing decision about the defendant (informed_decision_about). Consequence: the judge imposed the presumptive 10.5-year term, more than the State asked for (c4), and the appeals court held that his consideration of the AI video made the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair and vacated the sentence (c2, c5). The opinion does not find that the sentence would have been shorter without the video (c8).","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Arizona appeals court vacates a manslaughter sentence, holding that an AI-generated video of the deceased victim made a 2025 sentencing fundamentally unfair","summary":"At a sentencing hearing in May 2025 in Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona, the family of a man killed in a 2021 road-rage shooting in Chandler played a video that combined real footage with an AI-generated likeness and voice of the victim delivering a script written by his sister, including statements of forgiveness addressed to the defendant. The judge said he loved the video, described it as genuine and referred to the forgiveness it expressed, then imposed the presumptive 10.5-year term for manslaughter, longer than the nine years the prosecutor had requested. The defense attorney appealed immediately. On 30 September 2026 the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but vacated the sentence, holding that the AI video was not reliable and that the judge's consideration of it so prejudiced the defendant that the sentencing procedure was fundamentally unfair. The opinion says the record does not show precisely how the video factored into the sentence, and that there is no question it played a role. The case returns to the trial court for resentencing; as of 1 October 2026 no new sentencing date had been set.","incidentDate":"2025-05-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-30","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tools used by the victim's family to generate a likeness and voice of the deceased victim from a recorded video, a picture and a written script","aiProduct":"Unidentified video tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Arizona Court of Appeals held, in a published opinion of 30 September 2026, that the sentencing judge's consideration of an AI-generated video of the victim at the May 2025 hearing prejudiced the defendant and made the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair, vacating his 10.5-year sentence and ordering resentencing.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the defendant whose sentencing the appeals court found fundamentally unfair. He did not use the AI tool, so he is counted among people harmed through others' use. The victim's family is not counted because no harm to them from the AI video is reported. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AZ","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.abc15.com/news/arizona-appeals-court-throws-out-sentence-after-judge-relied-on-ai-generated-victim-video","primarySourceLabel":"ABC15 Arizona, 30 September 2026: \"Arizona appeals court throws out sentence after judge relied on AI-generated victim video\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-02T03:20:58.232078+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:23:23.878144+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-video","arizona","courts","deepfake","informed-decision","justice","others-use","sentencing","victim-impact-statement"]},{"id":"2026-us-meta-26-employees-sue-alleging-ai-assisted-may-layoff-selection-penalized-protected-leave","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"OAKLAND DIVISION","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Filed 07/13/26","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on July 13, 2026, bringing claims against Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A group of 26 Meta employees has sued the company, claiming it used artificial intelligence systems to select people for layoffs, disproportionately targeting those on medical, parental or family leave.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 13 July 2026 twenty-six anonymous plaintiffs (Does 1 through 26) filed a complaint against Meta Platforms, Inc. in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland division, alleging employment discrimination in the May 2026 reduction in force.","causal_attribution":"The filing of the complaint is documented by the court record. The complaint establishes only the plaintiffs’ allegations."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"artificial-intelligence-assisted systems to score, rank, and select employees for inclusion","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"algorithmic productivity scoring drawn from keystroke, screen-content, mouse,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The parties dispute whether Meta utilized AI in deciding to terminate plaintiffs’","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"They claim that Meta used a number of internal AI-assisted systems to score and rank employees on a termination list.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used a set of internal AI-assisted systems to score, rank and select employees for the termination list: the Metamate internal large-language-model assistant, employee-trained \"second brain\" agents, keystroke and other activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance ranking and calibration.","causal_attribution":"These are the plaintiffs’ allegations, pleaded on information and belief and supported by plaintiff declarations that were not inspected (they are quoted in the complaint and the order). Meta disputes them (claim c4). The news reports and the court order restate the complaint and are one reporting chain with it."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"protected-leave-takers or accommodation-seekers for individualized human review. Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On information and belief, Meta did not neutralize any of the foregoing inputs for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"result was that employees who took protected leaves were disproportionately selected for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Plaintiffs are twenty-six current and former Meta employees, each of whom Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"selected for separation in the RIF, and each of whom","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"About half the plaintiffs had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that the inputs to these systems cannot be accumulated by an employee on protected medical, family or parental leave, that Meta did not neutralise them for protected leave, and that employees who took protected leave were therefore disproportionately selected for layoff. It states that each plaintiff was selected for separation in the reduction in force and had, within the 24 months before it, taken, requested or been approved for protected leave, or requested or received a disability accommodation.","causal_attribution":"Allegation of the plaintiffs. The court found on 17 July 2026 only serious questions going to the merits and no likelihood of success on that record (claim c5). Whether any AI system affected any plaintiff’s selection is unresolved."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"selection decisions in the RIF were “made by human","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"promotion history over a defined period. There was no AI-","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"was selected based on leave status, disability, or any other protected characteristic,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"“selection decision [was] made by ‘AI.’” Id. ¶ 11.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Selection decisions were made by human business leaders","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"defined period. There was no AI-assisted “scoring” or “ranking” related to employee","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"guidance does not permit AI adoption and usage metrics to be used as negative factors in","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"performance reviews in 2025 or as selection criteria in the RIF.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Meta denies the allegations. A Meta spokesperson said workforce management and organisational decisions were made by people, not AI. In declarations filed by a Meta human-resources director, Meta states that selection decisions were made by human business leaders using documented neutral criteria, that no AI-assisted scoring or ranking of employee performance was used, that no plaintiff was selected on the basis of leave status or disability, and that no selection decision was made by AI.","causal_attribution":"Meta’s statements and declarations about its own process. They are a party account and had been tested only through briefing and court hearings (claims c5 and c7), not in discovery."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"described below, the TRO is DENIED.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The parties dispute whether Meta utilized AI in deciding to terminate plaintiffs’","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, but rather a “serious question[]”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Loss of health care, employment, protected leave, and unvested restricted stock units (“RSUs”) are","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Loss of immigration status is different. Four of the plaintiffs have employment-based,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"they were not in the rooms where it happened.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 17 July 2026 the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. The order records that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in deciding to terminate the plaintiffs, finds serious questions going to the merits but no shown likelihood of success on that record, finds that loss of health care, employment, protected leave and unvested equity can be remedied in arbitration, and treats the possible loss of immigration status for four plaintiffs with Meta-sponsored visas as a potentially irreparable harm that needed more information.","causal_attribution":"A court order establishes what the court ruled and recorded. It does not establish that AI was or was not used in the selection."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On May 20, 2026, Meta began notifying the selected employees by email, beginning with","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"finalized on or about July 22, 2026 (and on or about August 20, 2026 for New York","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"laid off on May 20, 2026.” Complaint (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1] ¶ 45 (the “mass reduction in force”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Though they have been notified of their layoffs, all 26 remain employed by Meta, with separations set to begin July 22.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"Meta in May notified nearly 8,000 employees, or about 10% of its global workforce, that they were losing their jobs","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"Laid-off workers remain on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on May 20","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Meta began notifying employees selected in the reduction in force on 20 May 2026 (about 8,000 employees, roughly 10 percent of its workforce). The complaint says the plaintiffs were notified of their selection from that date, and that separations were scheduled for about 22 July 2026 (later for some plaintiffs). Meta said in court filings that laid-off workers stayed on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on 20 May.","causal_attribution":"The notification date and the scheduled separation dates come from the complaint and Meta court filings as relayed by Reuters. The sources inspected do not report whether each separation took place on its scheduled date, although Courthouse News called the plaintiffs former employees on 24 August 2026."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction conducted via videoconference. The Court","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"summarizes tentative. Argument of counsel heard. Motion taken under submission; written order","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"I have a record I have to deal with and the record at the moment does not persuade me of the merits","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"categorical denial of any impact of AI in the termination process","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"whether what plaintiffs think happened, happened","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"The court held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion on 24 August 2026, heard argument and took the motion under submission with a written order to follow. Courthouse News reports that the judge said the record at that time did not persuade the judge of the merits, that the plaintiffs’ evidence raised some potential questions about Meta’s categorical denial of any impact of AI in the termination process, and that the case turns on whether what plaintiffs think happened, happened.","causal_attribution":"The minute entry documents that the hearing occurred and the motion was taken under submission. The judge’s remarks are reported by one news outlet and the transcript was not inspected. No written ruling on the preliminary injunction was found as of 29 September 2026."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"and only Plaintiff Doe 20, hereby voluntarily dismisses","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"remain parties and continue to prosecute this action","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"Doe 20 was voluntarily dismissed from this action on August 3, 2026 pursuant to Federal","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"is made on behalf of Doe 20, and no relief is sought on Doe 20’s behalf.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"One plaintiff (Doe 20) voluntarily dismissed all of that plaintiff’s claims without prejudice on 3 August 2026 (Dkt. 33), and the notice states that Does 1 through 19 and 21 through 26 remain parties. No reason is given in the notice.","causal_attribution":"A filing by the plaintiffs’ counsel records the dismissal. It does not say whether that plaintiff was selected in the reduction in force or why the dismissal was made."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"They recognize that their claims must be arbitrated, and they have initiated arbitration proceedings","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"with the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Here, they seek a temporary restraining order:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"while they pursue their claims in private arbitration","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"from this Court only the status-quo-preserving provisional relief that Meta’s own","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"G. Reserve to the arbitral forum all relief on the merits, including but not limited to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The 17 July 2026 order records that the plaintiffs recognize their claims must be arbitrated and that they have initiated arbitration proceedings with the American Arbitration Association. The complaint says the plaintiffs seek from the court only status-quo-preserving provisional relief pending an independent audit of the selection process and arbitration of the merits, and it reserves merits relief such as reinstatement, back pay and damages to the arbitral forum.","causal_attribution":"The order records the plaintiffs’ own statement about their arbitration filings. The arbitration itself is confidential and its progress is unknown."}],"effects":[{"label":"Employees on or after protected leave allegedly disproportionately selected for layoff by an AI-assisted process that did not account for leave (disputed by Meta)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Plaintiffs notified of selection for termination on 20 May 2026, with separations scheduled from 22 July 2026 and possible loss of health coverage, unvested equity and (for four plaintiffs) work-visa status","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.25.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.42.1_1.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-court-declarations"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.46.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.49.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/26-meta-workers-sue-ai-aided-layoffs-medical-family-leave/","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-complaint"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/17/us-judge-wont-block-meta-from-laying-off-workers-w/","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"reuters-tro-coverage"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/meta-workers-claiming-ai-fired-them-unlikely-to-see-relief/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"courthouse-news-hearing"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.31.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-court-declarations"},{"id":"s10","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.33.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","health"],"unknowns":["Whether any AI system scored, ranked or selected any plaintiff is unresolved. The complaint pleads it on information and belief. Meta denies it in declarations. No discovery had occurred in the sources inspected, and the judge said on 17 July 2026 that plaintiffs were not in the rooms where the selections happened.","The sources inspected do not show how many people beyond the plaintiffs were selected because of leave, or how many of the roughly 8,000 laid-off employees were scored by any AI-assisted system. Only the plaintiffs are counted as reported harmed.","The order on the preliminary injunction motion (argued 24 August 2026, taken under submission) had not been found by 29 September 2026. The hearing remarks were read only through one news report and the transcript was not inspected.","Whether each plaintiff’s separation took place on its scheduled date (22 July 2026 for most, later for some) is not stated in the sources inspected. Reuters and CBS/AP describe the plaintiffs as still employed in July, and Courthouse News called them former employees on 24 August 2026.","One plaintiff (Doe 20) was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026 and no reason is stated. The affected count therefore uses 25.","The complaint and declarations contain individual medical, pregnancy and immigration details. They are anonymised in the public copies and are deliberately not described here.","Reuters and WSJ pages for the initial filing could not be read (HTTP 401). Reuters coverage of the 17 July ruling was read through a Spokesman-Review copy. The Law.com article was behind a subscription wall and was not cited.","The complaint alleges that data captured by a separate Meta employee-monitoring program (the Model Capability Initiative) supplied inputs to the selection process, and Meta denies that AI was used in the selection. That program’s own privacy and security consequences are a different event, recorded as 2026-meta-mci-us-employee-keystroke-and-screen-capture-for-ai-training-then-internal-data-exposure, and are not part of this record."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint states that the plaintiffs worked in California, Illinois, Washington, New York, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania and Florida and the suit is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Meta also notified employees in other countries in the same reduction in force, but no plaintiff outside the US is described.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The complaint, the court order denying the temporary restraining order, two Meta declarations, the plaintiffs’ notice of dismissal of one plaintiff and the hearing minute entry were read from the court record (CourtListener copies), with CBS/AP, Reuters and Courthouse News reports. Every AI-related statement is attributed. The plaintiffs are anonymous in the record and are not described individually. Meta denies that AI made or informed any selection decision and the court has not resolved the dispute.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used internal AI-assisted systems (Metamate, second-brain agents, activity-monitoring scoring, AI-token-usage dashboards, algorithmic ranking and calibration) to score, rank and select employees for the 20 May 2026 termination list. Meta’s declarations say selection decisions were made by human business leaders and that there was no AI-assisted scoring or ranking related to employee performance, and the court described the declarations as saying Meta did not use AI in any way with respect to the RIF. The court recorded that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in deciding to terminate the plaintiffs and found on 17 July 2026 that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the current record. On 24 August 2026 the judge said the plaintiffs’ evidence raised some potential questions about Meta’s categorical denial. No discovery had tested Meta’s account in the sources inspected.","status":"disputed"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: 26 Meta employees sue alleging an AI-assisted May 2026 layoff selection penalized workers on protected leave, Meta says people made the decisions","summary":"On 20 May 2026 Meta began notifying about 8,000 employees (roughly 10 percent of its workforce) that they had been selected for layoff. On 13 July 2026 twenty-six anonymous employees who had taken or requested medical, pregnancy, parental or family leave, or a disability accommodation, sued Meta in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used internal AI-assisted systems (including the Metamate assistant, keystroke and activity monitoring, AI-token-usage dashboards and algorithmic performance ranking) to score, rank and select employees, and that these inputs could not accumulate during protected leave, so plaintiffs on leave were disproportionately selected. Meta says workforce decisions were made by people, not AI, and that no selection decision was made by AI. On 17 July 2026 the court denied a temporary restraining order, recording that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in the terminations and finding serious questions on the merits but no shown likelihood of success. One plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026. The preliminary injunction motion was argued on 24 August 2026 and taken under submission. The plaintiffs are pursuing their merits claims in arbitration and the allegations are unproven.","incidentDate":"2026-05-20","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-07-14","aiSystem":"Meta internal AI-assisted systems alleged in the complaint: the Metamate internal LLM assistant, employee-trained \"second brain\" agents, keystroke and activity-monitoring productivity scoring, AI-token-usage dashboards and AI-assisted performance calibration (Meta denies AI was used in selecting employees for the layoff)","aiProduct":"Meta internal AI systems (reported)","aiCompany":"Meta Platforms, Inc.","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"disputed","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complaint alleges that 26 employees were selected for termination in Meta’s May 2026 reduction in force through an AI-assisted process that penalised protected leave, with separations scheduled from 22 July 2026 and asserted losses of employer-subsidised health coverage, unvested equity and, for four plaintiffs, work-visa status. Meta denies that AI was used in the selections. The court found the alleged harms other than immigration status remediable in arbitration and has not decided the merits.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":25,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The complaint states that each of 26 plaintiffs was selected for separation in the May 2026 reduction in force. One plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026 without a stated reason, so 25 active plaintiffs are counted as a documented minimum. The roughly 8,000 other employees notified in the reduction in force are not counted because no source ties their selection to the alleged AI process.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Complaint, Does 1 through 26 v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (N.D. Cal., filed 13 Jul 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:16:06.345461+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:57.733761+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]},{"id":"2025-nova-scotia-google-ai-overview-musician-sex-offender-summary-concert-cancelled","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"They had read online, Mr. MacIsaac was told, that he had convictions related to internet luring and sexual assault.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"That information is not true","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the summary falsely asserted he had been convicted of a series of offences including sexual assault","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"returned a result that said he had been “convicted of sexual assault.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"MacIsaac says a Google AI-generated search summary described him as having convictions for sexual offences including internet luring and sexual assault, and that this was untrue.","causal_attribution":"MacIsaac's account relayed by two outlets. The Globe adds that the only public record of a run-in with the law it found is a cannabis discharge. The summary was not inspected. The Globe reporter saw a Google result stating 'convicted of sexual assault' on a query that included the other man's town; that result was seen after the first amendments and may differ from what the First Nation read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"its leadership had changed their mind","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"this situation was the result of mistaken identity caused by an AI error","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"had cancelled one of his concerts planned for Dec. 19","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"the cancellation was based on incorrect information","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"We deeply regret the harm this error caused to your reputation, your livelihood, and your sense of personal safety","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Sipekne'katik First Nation cancelled MacIsaac's concert planned for 19 December 2025 after learning of the summary, then apologised in writing and said the cancellation was based on incorrect information.","causal_attribution":"The apology letter (seen by the Globe) and an online post (cited by Global News) are the First Nation's own statements. The First Nation did not respond to the Globe's requests for comment."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"blending MacIsaac’s biography with that of another man","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the inaccurate claims were taken from online articles regarding a man in Atlantic Canada with the same last name","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The false information was the result of the AI summary blending MacIsaac's biography with that of another man in Atlantic Canada with the same last name.","causal_attribution":"The Globe states the blending in its own voice. Global News attributes the origin to MacIsaac."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The fiddler says the ordeal left him worried for his safety","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"He’s also concerned about work he may have lost without realizing it","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I feared for my own safety going on stage because of what I was labelled as.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"MacIsaac says the episode left him worried for his safety and concerned that other venues may have declined to book him without telling him.","causal_attribution":"MacIsaac's own account. Lost work beyond the one concert is his speculation."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Google has amended search results for the musician","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"we use those examples to improve our systems, and may take action under our policies","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Google amended the search results for MacIsaac. A Google spokesperson said AI Overviews change frequently and that Google uses examples of misinterpreted content to improve its systems.","causal_attribution":"Globe reporting and a Google statement. The exact edits were not inspected."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In a statement of claim filed in February with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"None of the claims in the document has been tested in court.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"claiming the online giant defamed him by falsely identifying him as a sex offender in an AI-generated summary","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Google is also liable for injuries and losses arising from the AI overview's defective design","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"MacIsaac is seeking $1.5 million in damages from Google LLC.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In February 2026 MacIsaac filed a statement of claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice alleging defamation and defective design and seeking damages of 1.5 million from Google LLC (US dollars in the Globe and Mail copy of the Canadian Press story, no currency stated in the CBC copy). Its claims have not been tested in court.","causal_attribution":"News paraphrase of the statement of claim (Canadian Press, relayed by CBC, the Globe and Billboard Canada). The claim itself was not inspected. The Globe copy of the wire story gives US dollars and the CBC copy gives no currency."}],"effects":[{"label":"Concert cancelled and reputational harm after a false AI-generated summary","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Reported fear for personal safety and possible unnoticed lost work","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.theglobeandmail.com/culture/article-ashley-macisaac-show-cancelled-google-ai-misinformation-music-fiddler/","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"globe-and-mail-dec-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://globalnews.ca/news/11589560/ashley-macissac-ai-content-accusation/amp","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"canadian-press-2025-12"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cape-breton-fiddler-ashley-macisaac-lawsuit-against-google-9.7187490","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"canadian-press-2026-05-lawsuit"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.theglobeandmail.com/culture/music/article-ashley-macisaac-lawsuit-google-ai-error-sex-offender/","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"canadian-press-2026-05-lawsuit"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://ca.billboard.com/business/legal/ashley-macisaac-google-lawsuit","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"canadian-press-2026-05-lawsuit"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use","others_use"],"contexts":["work","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The AI Overview text the First Nation read was not preserved in the inspected sources (the Globe reporter saw a later result with a similar statement), and its content changed over time.","Exact date of the cancellation (the concert was planned for 19 December 2025).","Whether any other booking was lost (MacIsaac speculates, including about a concert in Mexico earlier in 2025).","Currency of the claimed damages (US dollars in one copy of the wire story, unstated in another).","The statement of claim was not read. Google's defence and the lawsuit outcome are unknown."],"geography":{"basis":"The concert was planned with the Sipekne'katik First Nation, described as north of Halifax (Nova Scotia is named by Billboard Canada). The statement of claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The country of residence of the affected person is not stated, so it is left unknown.","court_countries":["CA"],"event_countries":["CA"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Named public figure who is the subject. Two December 2025 outlets and May 2026 lawsuit coverage report a concrete cancelled concert and reputational harm traced to a Google AI-generated summary. The First Nation's written apology and Google's response are reported. Lawsuit claims remain allegations.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Globe and Mail states the false description was the result of Google's AI-generated search summary blending MacIsaac's biography with that of another man. Google's spokesperson statement refers to AI Overviews generally and does not address this summary. The summary itself was not inspected and its content changed over time.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Google AI Overview reportedly described fiddler Ashley MacIsaac as a convicted sex offender, and a concert was cancelled","summary":"In December 2025 Cape Breton fiddler Ashley MacIsaac said a First Nation north of Halifax cancelled his concert planned for 19 December after reading a Google AI-generated search summary that said he had convictions for sexual offences. He says the statements were false and came from online articles about another man in Atlantic Canada with the same last name. The First Nation apologised in writing and Google amended the search results. MacIsaac says he feared for his safety and worries about other lost work. In a statement of claim filed in February 2026 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice he seeks damages of 1.5 million from Google (US dollars in the Globe and Mail copy of the Canadian Press story, no currency stated in the CBC copy). None of its claims has been tested in court, and the claim says Google did not admit responsibility.","incidentDate":"2025-12-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-12-23","aiSystem":"Google Search AI Overviews","aiProduct":"Google AI Overviews","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm","professional_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"MacIsaac reports a cancelled concert, damage to his reputation and livelihood, fear for his safety and possible unnoticed lost bookings after the AI summary said he had convictions for sexual offences (his account, plus the First Nation's apology letter).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the musician, is reported harmed. The other man with the same last name is reported as the source of the mixed-up information and no harm to him is reported. The First Nation is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theglobeandmail.com/culture/article-ashley-macisaac-show-cancelled-google-ai-misinformation-music-fiddler/","primarySourceLabel":"The Globe and Mail, 23 December 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:29:04.774728+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:12.421073+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-us-eightfold-ai-match-score-applicant-screening-class-action","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"about unsuspecting job applicants and to score them from 0 to 5 for potential employers based on","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This results in a Match Score, which ranges from 0 through 5 in increments of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Employers then use these reports to sift through","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"But candidates who apply for jobs at companies that use those tools are not given notice and a chance to dispute errors","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that Eightfold collects applicant information and scores applicants from 0 to 5 by predicted likelihood of success for employers, that employers use these reports to sift applications, and that Eightfold provides no notice, access or dispute rights.","causal_attribution":"These are the plaintiffs' allegations as stated in a filing. The filing establishes only its own contents."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In or around July 2025,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"applied online via Microsoft’s website for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Manager-Responsible AI position two days after she applied, without being invited to interview.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On or around December 16, 2025,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"received an automated rejection for the Senior Technical Program","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint says one plaintiff applied to Microsoft in or around July 2025 and again around 16 December 2025, and received an automated rejection two days after the first application without an interview.","causal_attribution":"The complaint attributes the screening to Eightfold's Evaluation Tools used by the employer. No employer record or score was inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On or around December 17,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"applied online via Paypal’s website","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"was not asked to interview and was not given a job offer for any of the","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint says the other plaintiff applied to PayPal on or around 17 December 2025 for two roles and was not asked to interview or given an offer for any position applied to.","causal_attribution":"The complaint alleges Eightfold's tools were applied to this application. Reuters reports the plaintiffs believe the tools played a role. The link to any specific rejection is not established."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"is being sued in California for allegedly compiling reports used to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"On January 20, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"sued in California state court on behalf of all U.S. job seekers who applied for jobs","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Neither was hired, and both believe that Eightfold's tools played a role.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The proposed class action was filed by two women with STEM backgrounds who believe Eightfold’s AI tools hurt their careers by unfairly screening them out","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Reuters reports the plaintiffs, who are not named by this record, filed a proposed class action in California state court on 20 January 2026 on behalf of all US job seekers evaluated with the tools, and that neither plaintiff was hired and both believe Eightfold's tools played a role.","causal_attribution":"Reuters and the plaintiffs' counsel release both trace to the complaint and counsel. They are one reporting chain."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"We do not scrape social media and the like.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"said the platform operates on data shared by candidates or provided by customers.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"An Eightfold spokesperson said the platform does not scrape social media and operates on data shared by candidates or provided by customers.","causal_attribution":"Company statement to Reuters. It disputes the complaint's data-collection allegation and does not address the scoring allegation."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Document 1 Filed 03/02/26","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/24/2026.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"NOTICE OF REMOVAL Eightfold AI, Inc.'s Notice of Removal from Contra Costa Superior Court.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"MOTION to Dismiss filed by Eightfold AI Inc..","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"ORDER VACATING HEARING Re: 29 MOTION to Dismiss.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Eightfold removed the case to the US District Court for the Northern District of California on 2 March 2026 and filed a motion to dismiss. The docket shows the hearing on that motion vacated on 24 July 2026 and no ruling in the entries inspected.","causal_attribution":"Procedural facts documented by the court docket. The docket does not establish the merits."}],"effects":[{"label":"Applicants allegedly scored and screened by an undisclosed AI ranking without statutory notice or dispute rights, and not interviewed or hired","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465146/gov.uscourts.cand.465146.1.0_2.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ai-company-eightfold-sued-helping-181520410.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.outtengolden.com/newsroom/landmark-class-action-accuses-eightfold-ai-of-illegally-producing-hidden-credit-reports-on-job-applicants","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72351430/kistler-v-eightfold-ai-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"court-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether Eightfold's tools produced a score for either plaintiff or influenced either employer's decision is not established. The complaint and reports rest on the plaintiffs' allegations and belief.","The start date of the alleged practice is not stated. The incident range covers only the plaintiffs' dated applications (July to December 2025). The complaint says one plaintiff has applied to Microsoft and other employers since 2023. Earlier applications are not described and are outside this record.","Whether the defendant's tools collected social media or other third-party data about the plaintiffs is disputed by Eightfold and unresolved.","The other plaintiff's location is not stated in the sources inspected.","The outcome of the pending motion to dismiss is unknown. Docket entry 46 (24 Sep 2026, a statement of recent decision) had no readable content.","Microsoft and PayPal are not defendants. Microsoft declined comment and no PayPal response was inspected."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint states that one plaintiff lives in, applied from and was denied employment while living in Contra Costa County, California. The removed case is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The other plaintiff's location is not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The complaint was read from the copy attached to the defendant's notice of removal, with Reuters, the plaintiffs' counsel release and the court docket. The plaintiffs are described by role and not named. All allegations are attributed and remain at reported status. The AIAAIC archive entry had no description and is not cited.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges Eightfold's Match Score model scored and ranked the plaintiffs' applications for the employers. Eightfold's statement disputes the alleged data collection. No document showing a score for either plaintiff was inspected.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: two applicants sue Eightfold AI over 0-to-5 applicant scores used in hiring","summary":"Two job applicants filed a proposed class action on 20 January 2026 in California state court (removed to federal court on 2 March 2026) against Eightfold AI Inc. The complaint alleges that Eightfold's hiring tools collect applicant data and produce a 0-to-5 'Match Score' that employers use to rank candidates, without the notice, access and dispute rights the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a California statute require. One plaintiff says she applied to Microsoft in or around July 2025 and again in December 2025 and received an automated rejection two days after the first application. The other says she applied to PayPal in December 2025. Both say they were not interviewed or hired and believe Eightfold's tools played a role. Eightfold says it does not scrape social media and operates on data candidates or customers provide. The allegations are unproven and Eightfold filed a motion to dismiss (no ruling appears in the docket entries inspected).","incidentDate":"2025-07-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-17","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-01-21","aiSystem":"Eightfold AI talent-evaluation tools including the 'Match Score' applicant ranking model","aiProduct":"Eightfold Match Score","aiCompany":"Eightfold AI Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complaint alleges that two applicants were scored by Eightfold's tools, not interviewed and not hired, and that they received none of the disclosures or dispute rights the statutes require. The plaintiffs believe the tools played a role in their rejections. Eightfold's involvement in any particular rejection is not established.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Two plaintiffs each allege they were scored and not hired. The proposed class of all US applicants evaluated with the tools is not counted because no class has been certified and no other applicant's experience is reported.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465146/gov.uscourts.cand.465146.1.0_2.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Notice of removal with the state-court complaint, plaintiffs v. Eightfold AI Inc. (N.D. Cal., filed 2 Mar 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:41.995961+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.000724+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-us-neh-humanities-grant-mass-termination-chatgpt-dei-screening","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"The Mass Termination is DECLARED unlawful,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"was unlawful because it was undertaken in violation of the First Amendment","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the resulting terminations were ultra vires","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the termination, in early April 2025, of more than 1,400 grants,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing, implementing, or giving any effect to the Mass Termination.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 7 May 2026 the court declared the April 2025 mass termination of NEH grants (more than 1,400 grants, over $100 million) unlawful, unconstitutional and ultra vires, and permanently enjoined its enforcement.","causal_attribution":"The declaration rests on the First Amendment, equal protection and lack of statutory authority. It does not rest on a finding that ChatGPT was inaccurate."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Does the following relate at all to DEI? Respond factually in less than 120 characters. Begin with ‘Yes.’ or ‘No.’ followed by a brief explanation.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"did not provide ChatGPT with a definition of “DEI”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"it enlisted the help of ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"two employees of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) used ChatGPT to determine whether previously approved National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants should be canceled","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"A DOGE staff member used ChatGPT with a standardized prompt asking whether each grant description related at all to DEI, without defining DEI for the model.","causal_attribution":"The opinion recites deposition testimony and the spreadsheet. The prompt text is a quotation of the court record."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"thereby combining DOGE’s AI-generated classifications with NEH staff recommendations.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"did not know ChatGPT had been used","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The ChatGPT outputs were combined with NEH staff ratings into the lists used to select grants for termination, and the NEH acting chair testified to not knowing ChatGPT had been used.","causal_attribution":"The court ties the ChatGPT-generated rationales to the lists presented to the NEH chair. The acting chair's account is deposition testimony as recited by the court."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"were terminated on that basis and that basis alone.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Of the 1,163 grant proposals DOGE analyzed via ChatGPT for DEI-related content, 1,057 were flagged, and just 42 were kept","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The opinion states that 1,057 grants were identified as DEI-related through the DOGE review process and terminated on that basis alone.","causal_attribution":"The opinion attributes the identification to a process that combined keyword searches and ChatGPT rationales. The opinion says ChatGPT rationales were generated in a second-stage review of grants NEH staff had labelled \"N/A\" and were merged with NEH ratings. It does not apportion the 1,057 between NEH ratings and ChatGPT. Fortune attributes all 1,057 flags to ChatGPT from a spreadsheet exhibit."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Yes. This description highlights how the plastics industry influenced municipal government officials to favor plastics","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Nevertheless, ChatGPT classified the project as “DEI,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The utter lack of reasoning behind so many of its “rationales”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court describes ChatGPT classifying projects as DEI on the basis of short descriptions, including a project on the plastics industry and municipal building codes, with rationales the court found lacking.","causal_attribution":"The court characterises the outputs. Whether each terminated grant was flagged by ChatGPT is not stated for the individual plaintiffs."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The individual plaintiffs are scholars and writers who received NEH grants for specific research and writing projects and whose awards were terminated before the completion of their funded work.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"allege concrete professional, financial, and scholarly harms","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"That funding was terminated effective April 2, 2025, resulting in the loss of the fellowship itself.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"individual grantees whose awards were terminated suffered a concrete economic injury sufficient to confer Article III standing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Seven individual grantees whose NEH awards were terminated before completion allege professional, financial and scholarly harm, including lost funding, and in one case loss of a fellowship that depended on NEH funding.","causal_attribution":"The harms are the plaintiffs' allegations as summarised by the court, and the standing holding is recited from the court's earlier preliminary injunction opinion. The link between ChatGPT and the termination of these seven specific awards is not stated in the inspected passages."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"DOGE officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select, or direct the termination of NEH grants","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court declared that DOGE officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select or direct the termination of NEH grants.","causal_attribution":"A legal declaration in the judgment."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Yes. Improving HVAC systems enhances preservation conditions for collections, aligning with the goal of providing greater access to diverse audiences. #DEI,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"We were able to recoup about 70% of the original award through the grant termination clause,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A North Carolina history museum's $349,000 HVAC grant was flagged by ChatGPT as DEI and terminated after the project had begun, and the museum director says it recouped about 70% of the award through the termination clause.","causal_attribution":"Organisation-level example from one outlet and one interview. It is not counted as harm to a person."}],"effects":[{"label":"Individual grantees lost or had interrupted NEH funding when their awards were terminated in a mass termination that relied on a ChatGPT DEI screen","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/NEH.sj_.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"sdny-opinion-2026-05"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/research/2026/03/11/how-doge-gutted-neh-22-days","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://fortune.com/2026/03/19/doge-cancelled-350000-hvac-grant-dei-lawsuit-elon-musk/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.artforum.com/news/doge-allegedly-used-chatgpt-to-cancel-humanities-grants-1234745040/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","education","public_services"],"unknowns":["Whether ChatGPT reviewed or flagged the specific grants of the seven individual plaintiffs is not stated in the passages inspected.","The dates on which ChatGPT was used are not stated beyond the second stage of review beginning on 12 March 2025 and terminations sent 1 to 3 April 2025. The incident dates are the bounded series between those points.","The number of individual people (as opposed to organizations) whose awards were terminated is not stated.","The opinion separates grants marked \"DEI\" from grants terminated without a DEI mark (its Biden-Era Subclass). It does not say which group any of the seven individual plaintiffs' grants belonged to.","Whether funding has been restored is unknown. The judgment states it does not require immediate payment.","Appeal status of the May 2026 judgment is unknown.","The New York Times article listed in the AIID entry returned HTTP 403 and was not read. The opinion is 143 pages and was read through its factual sections, the standing recital and the judgment, not every legal section."],"geography":{"basis":"The opinion describes terminations by the US federal agency NEH and by DOGE staff of grants to scholars, writers and institutions, and describes the individual plaintiffs as holding positions at US universities. The court is a US federal district court (S.D.N.Y.).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"A federal court opinion (7 May 2026), Inside Higher Ed and Fortune were read. Claims about the court record are documented by the opinion. Individual grantee harms are the plaintiffs' allegations as summarised by the court. Individual plaintiffs and DOGE staff are not named in public fields.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The federal court opinion finds that a DOGE staff member submitted grant descriptions to ChatGPT with a DEI yes/no prompt and that the outputs were folded into the lists used to select grants for termination. The opinion does not state whether each of the seven individual plaintiffs' grants was reviewed or flagged by ChatGPT.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: National Endowment for the Humanities grants terminated after DOGE staff used ChatGPT to flag projects as DEI-related","summary":"In March and early April 2025 (the opinion gives no date for the ChatGPT step), a DOGE staff member working with the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) submitted short grant descriptions to ChatGPT with a prompt asking whether each project related at all to DEI, and the answers were combined with NEH staff ratings into lists of grants to terminate. More than 1,400 NEH grants (over $100 million) were terminated in notices sent 1 to 3 April 2025. A federal district court found the mass termination unlawful in May 2026 and described the ChatGPT step in its findings. Seven individual grantees who sued report lost or interrupted funding for their research and writing projects. The opinion does not state whether ChatGPT reviewed those seven grants.","incidentDate":"2025-03-12","incidentEndDate":"2025-04-03","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-08","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used through a standardized DEI yes/no prompt","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court opinion describes seven individual grantee plaintiffs whose NEH awards were terminated before completion, and reports their allegations of lost funding, interrupted research and leave from employment taken in reliance on the awards. Individual counts beyond these seven are not established in the inspected sources.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"unclear","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":7,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"The court opinion names seven individual grantee plaintiffs whose awards were terminated. It states the terminations reached more than 1,400 grants awarded to scholars, writers, research institutions and other humanities organizations, and does not give a count of individual people. The opinion does not state whether these seven grants were flagged by ChatGPT. Organizations, members of plaintiff associations and the wider class are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/NEH.sj_.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"S.D.N.Y. opinion and order granting summary judgment, 7 May 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:29.039734+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.404135+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-krafton-unknown-worlds-executives-terminated-after-chatgpt-takeover-strategy","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton breached the EPA by terminating the Key Employees without valid Cause and by improperly seizing operational control of Unknown Worlds.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Date Decided: March 16, 2026","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Krafton agreed the studio would remain independent and that its leadership would retain operational control and could only be fired for cause, according to the ruling","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 16 March 2026 the Delaware Court of Chancery entered judgment that Krafton breached the acquisition agreement by terminating the three Key Employees without valid Cause and by improperly seizing operational control of the studio.","causal_attribution":"Phase One judgment on the contract claims. The court reserves damages for a second phase and does not decide whether the earnout was wrongfully impaired."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"a “dismissal with cause” would not eliminate the earnout obligation","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"turned to ChatGPT for help.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Now, chatgpt starts to answer that it is difficult to cancel the earn-out.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"When the AI chatbot responded that the earnout would be “difficult to cancel,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that after the Head of Corporate Development at Krafton warned the CEO that a dismissal with cause would not eliminate the earnout obligation, the CEO turned to ChatGPT, and that the CEO told the Head of Corporate Development in a Slack message that ChatGPT answered the earnout would be difficult to cancel.","causal_attribution":"Findings of fact drawn from Slack messages and trial testimony. The chat itself was deleted."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"The AI chatbot prepared a “Response Strategy to a ‘No-Deal’ Scenario,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Lock down Steam/console publishing rights and access rights over code/build pipeline","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Preemptive Framing - Repeat that protecting quality and fan trust is the highest priority","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Systematic materials for legal defense - Prepare contract interpretation memorandums, log all communications","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Team retention - Operation of retention packages for key personnel and rapid backfill pipelines","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Over the next month, Krafton followed most of ChatGPT’s recommendations.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Over the next month, Krafton followed most of ChatGPT’s recommendations,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court found that ChatGPT prepared a \"Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario\" recommending, among other steps, preemptive public framing, locking down publishing rights and access to the build pipeline, legal defense materials and team retention, and that Krafton followed most of these recommendations over the next month.","causal_attribution":"The opinion lists the strategy items and the steps Krafton took. The listed strategy does not include dismissing the executives. The dismissal decision is Krafton's."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton locked down Steam publishing rights to ensure Unknown Worlds could not publish Subnautica 2.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This severed Unknown Worlds’ practical ability to launch Subnautica 2.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On June 12, Krafton posted a message on the Unknown Worlds and Subnautica websites.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the Unknown Worlds team were shocked, since they had “nothing to do with” the message","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On July 1, 2025, Krafton sent termination letters to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The letters identified a single ground for dismissal","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that Krafton locked Unknown Worlds out of its Steam publishing rights, which the court found severed the studio's practical ability to launch its game, posted a message on the studio websites without the studio's involvement, and on 1 July 2025 sent termination letters citing a single ground.","causal_attribution":"Court findings of fact. The opinion links the lockdown to ChatGPT's recommendation and does not state that ChatGPT recommended the July terminations."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton’s newly manufactured justifications for the terminations are pretextual.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"had secretly entered semi-retirement and that all three leaders had executed massive downloads of company data","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found Krafton's later justifications for the terminations (semi-retirement of two founders and data downloads) were pretextual.","causal_attribution":"Judicial finding after an expedited trial. Krafton's arguments are its litigation positions."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"is hereby reinstated as CEO of Unknown Worlds","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"authority over the early access launch of Subnautica 2","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the base earnout Testing Period is equitably extended by 258 days","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court reinstated the CEO of Unknown Worlds, enjoined Krafton from impeding the studio CEO's authority over the game's early access launch, and extended the base earnout Testing Period by 258 days.","causal_attribution":"Specific performance remedy. The court declined to return the two founders to their earlier roles."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"had deleted specific, relevant ChatGPT logs.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This particular chat was deleted.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The CEO admitted at trial to deleting relevant ChatGPT logs, including the particular chat in which the earnout question was put to the chatbot.","causal_attribution":"A limit on the record. It bears on what the chatbot said, not on the court's findings about the terminations."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"formed an internal task force, dubbed “Project X.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The task force’s mandate was to either negotiate a “deal” on the earnout or execute a “Take Over” of Unknown Worlds.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"formed an internal taskforce, dubbed Project X.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The task force’s mandate was to either negotiate a ‘deal’ on the earnout or execute a ‘takeover’ of Unknown Worlds,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The court found that, at ChatGPT's suggestion, the Krafton CEO formed an internal task force, Project X, whose mandate was either to negotiate a deal on the earnout or to execute a takeover of Unknown Worlds.","causal_attribution":"Finding of fact in the opinion, relayed by the Guardian and IGN. The task force's mandate is Krafton's; the opinion attributes only the suggestion to form it to ChatGPT."},{"id":"c9","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"began to explore options, including firing the Key Employees.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that the Krafton CEO had begun exploring options, including firing the Key Employees, before the 2 June 2025 warning and the ChatGPT consultation that followed it.","causal_attribution":"Contrary evidence on causation: the idea of dismissal preceded the chatbot consultation."},{"id":"c10","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"It also suggested a “key summary of responses” Krafton could deliver to the Key Employees:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Krafton’s seizure of Steam and other systems forced","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"to the negotiating table, and they began to discuss a solution.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"It might actually be easier to just do a takeover.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"responded: “Set a date.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that ChatGPT's strategy also suggested a key summary of responses Krafton could deliver to the Key Employees, that Krafton's seizure of Steam and other systems forced the studio's CEO to the negotiating table, and that when negotiations stalled Krafton's Head of Strategy wrote on 27 June 2025 that it might be easier to just do a takeover, to which the Krafton CEO replied to set a date.","causal_attribution":"Findings of fact from Slack messages and trial testimony. They connect the ChatGPT-recommended lockdown to the negotiations and the takeover decision; the takeover decision itself is the Krafton executives'."},{"id":"c11","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"have reached a mutual settlement and agreed to dismiss all pending legal proceedings,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Krafton said in a regulatory filing Wednesday that the company and the lead developers behind the globally popular Subnautica video game franchise decided to drop their court fight over controversial earn out bonuses.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"officially settled the dispute and decided to withdraw all pending lawsuits as of Tuesday, the filing read.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Krafton said in a statement to IGN that Krafton, Unknown Worlds and the three executives had reached a mutual settlement and agreed to dismiss all pending legal proceedings, and Yonhap, via The Korea Times, reported a Krafton regulatory filing on Wednesday 1 July 2026 saying the dispute was settled and all pending lawsuits withdrawn as of Tuesday 30 June 2026.","causal_attribution":"Both outlets relay Krafton's own announcement (a statement to IGN and a regulatory filing), one origin. The settlement terms beyond dismissal are not published by Krafton."},{"id":"c12","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"had stepped down, leaving the company to look for a new boss.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"The entire staff of Subnautica 2 developer Unknown Worlds will get their bonuses after parent company Krafton reached a settlement with studio leadership.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"IGN, citing Bloomberg, reported that the studio's CEO stepped down as part of the settlement and that the studio's entire staff would receive their bonuses.","causal_attribution":"Second-hand report (IGN relaying Bloomberg); Krafton's statement does not confirm these terms."},{"id":"c13","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton said in a statement that it disagreed with the ruling and was evaluating its options and remained focused on delivering the best possible game for fans.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Krafton said in a statement after the ruling that it disagreed with the ruling and was evaluating its options.","causal_attribution":"Krafton's litigation position as reported by the Guardian."}],"effects":[{"label":"Three studio executives terminated without valid Cause and removed from operational control during a takeover campaign that followed a CEO's ChatGPT strategy","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=392880","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"delaware-chancery-opinion-2026-03"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/18/subnautica-2-publisher-krafton-ceo-reinstated-ai-chatgpt-failed-bid-avoid-paying-bonus","kind":"journalistic","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"delaware-chancery-opinion-2026-03"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.ign.com/articles/subnautica-2-developers-entire-staff-get-their-bonuses-after-krafton-agrees-to-settlement-but-ceo-steps-down","kind":"journalistic","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"krafton-settlement-announcement-2026-07"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/business/companies/20260701/krafton-unknown-worlds-settle-legal-dispute-over-bonuses","kind":"journalistic","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"krafton-settlement-announcement-2026-07"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["The date of the CEO's first ChatGPT use is not given beyond the sequence in the opinion (a legal warning on 2 June 2025 followed by the ChatGPT consultation). The incident date is the month.","The content of the deleted ChatGPT chat is unknown.","Whether ChatGPT recommended or was asked about terminating the executives is not stated in the opinion; the opinion records that the Krafton CEO had explored firing them before consulting it.","Phase Two (damages and earnout impairment) was never decided: the parties settled in July 2026, and the settlement terms beyond dismissal of all proceedings are known only from IGN's account of a Bloomberg report.","Whether Krafton appealed the March 2026 opinion before the settlement is not stated in the inspected sources.","Where the executives lived and worked is not stated in the inspected passages; the Korea Times describes the studio as a U.S. game studio and the opinion as a California corporation, which does not locate the lockout or the terminations.","The end of the harmful series is not a single date: termination letters were sent on 1 July 2025 effective 31 July, and the court counted the studio CEO's ouster as lasting until 16 March 2026."],"geography":{"basis":"The opinion is from the Delaware Court of Chancery (court country US). It describes Krafton as a South Korean company and the studio as a California corporation, and the Korea Times calls the studio a U.S. game studio; none of the inspected sources states where the executives were when locked out and terminated, so event and affected-person countries are left unknown rather than inferred from incorporation or headquarters.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"The full Delaware Court of Chancery opinion was read for the ChatGPT passages, the termination chronology, the holding and the remedy; the Guardian's report of the ruling and the IGN and Korea Times/Yonhap reports of the July 2026 settlement were read in full. Claims drawn from the opinion are court findings and are documented; Krafton's statements and the settlement terms are reported and attributed. The AI output (the chatbot's strategy and task-force suggestion), Krafton's use of it (the Steam lockdown as ChatGPT recommended) and the consequence for the three executives (loss of operational control and termination found to be without valid Cause) are cited separately. The affected executives are described by role.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-10"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Output: the court opinion finds that Krafton's CEO consulted ChatGPT after being warned that a dismissal with cause would not eliminate the earnout, that the chatbot answered the earnout would be difficult to cancel, that at ChatGPT's suggestion the CEO formed the Project X task force whose mandate was a deal or a takeover of the studio, and that ChatGPT prepared a \"Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario\" recommending, among other steps, locking down Steam and console publishing rights and build-pipeline access and a key summary of responses to deliver to the Key Employees. Use: the court finds that over the next month Krafton followed most of ChatGPT's recommendations and that, as ChatGPT recommended, it locked down the studio's Steam publishing rights. Consequence: the court finds the lockdown severed the studio's practical ability to launch its game and forced its CEO to the negotiating table, that the takeover and the 1 July 2025 terminations followed when negotiations stalled, and holds that Krafton breached the agreement by improperly seizing operational control from the Key Employees and terminating them without valid Cause. Limits: the strategy the opinion quotes does not list dismissing the executives, the CEO had explored firing them before consulting ChatGPT, and the first chat log was deleted, so the chatbot's first replies are known only through Slack messages.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Delaware court finds Krafton fired three Unknown Worlds executives without valid cause in a takeover that followed its CEO's ChatGPT strategy","summary":"A Delaware Court of Chancery opinion of 16 March 2026 finds that in June 2025 the CEO of Krafton, after being warned that a dismissal with cause would not eliminate a contingent earnout obligation, consulted ChatGPT. The chatbot answered that the earnout would be difficult to cancel, suggested an internal task force (Project X) whose mandate was to negotiate a deal or execute a takeover of the studio, and prepared a \"Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario\" that recommended locking down the studio's Steam and console publishing rights and build-pipeline access. The court found that Krafton followed most of these recommendations over the next month: it locked the studio out of its Steam publishing rights, which severed the studio's practical ability to launch its game and forced the studio's CEO to the negotiating table, posted a message on the studio's websites, and on 1 July 2025 sent termination letters to the studio's two founders and its CEO. The court held that Krafton breached the acquisition agreement by terminating the three executives without valid Cause and by improperly seizing operational control, reinstated the studio's CEO and extended the earnout period by 258 days. The opinion records that the Krafton CEO had begun exploring options including firing the executives before consulting ChatGPT, and does not find that ChatGPT recommended the terminations. Krafton said it disagreed with the ruling. On 1 July 2026 Krafton announced a mutual settlement with the studio and the three executives dismissing all pending proceedings; IGN, citing Bloomberg, reported that the studio's CEO stepped down as part of it.","incidentDate":"2025-06-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-16","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court found three studio executives were terminated without valid Cause and had operational control taken from them in a campaign that followed most of a ChatGPT-prepared strategy; one was reinstated by court order in March 2026 and the dispute was settled in July 2026.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"unclear","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The opinion finds three Key Employees (two founders and the CEO) were terminated without valid Cause. Former shareholders represented by the plaintiff, studio staff and players are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"assistant","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=392880","primarySourceLabel":"Delaware Court of Chancery opinion, Fortis Advisors v. Krafton, C.A. No. 2025-0805-LWW, 16 March 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:25.863533+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T03:20:34.158615+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025","informed-decision"]},{"id":"2025-ar-esquel-criminal-judgment-annulled-judge-generative-ai-draft","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"decidió el miércoles anular de oficio una sentencia dictada el 4 de junio pasado","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"anular de oficio una sentencia porque el juez la delegó en un ChatGPT","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"La sentencia anulada había condenado al imputado a dos años y seis meses de prisión efectiva por robo simple","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 4 June 2025 a criminal judge in Esquel convicted a defendant of simple robbery and sentenced the defendant to two years and six months of effective imprisonment, and the Penal Chamber of Esquel later annulled that judgment.","causal_attribution":"Sources give the annulment as the chamber's response to the judge's AI use."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Aquí tienes el punto IV reeditado, sin citas y listo para copiar y pegar","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"el magistrado utilizó la IA generativa, ni más ni menos, que en un aspecto central de la resolución en crisis como es la resolución de las nulidades de dos pruebas esenciales en el proceso","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"el juez de primera instancia incluyó accidentalmente una frase que revela el uso de un asistente de Inteligencia Artificial (IA) generativa","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The judgment contained the phrase “Aquí tienes el punto IV reeditado, sin citas y listo para copiar y pegar”, which the chamber took to show generative-AI use, including on the rulings on the nullity of two essential pieces of evidence.","causal_attribution":"The chamber's finding, as quoted in the press, connects the phrase to AI use. The full ruling text was not read."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"anular tanto la sentencia como el juicio que la precedió","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"declaración de nulidad de la sentencia y del juicio que la precede, con todo lo que ello significa para los justiciables","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"ordenando que el proceso se realice nuevamente con la intervención de otro magistrado","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"el tribunal ordenó reenviar el caso a otro juez penal, prohibiendo al Ministerio Público Fiscal exhibir en el nuevo juicio los videos omitidos en el anterior","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A raíz de esto deberá realizarse nuevamente el juicio, con otro juez","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The chamber annulled the judgment and the preceding trial and ordered a new trial before another judge, and barred the prosecution from showing at the new trial the videos omitted at the first.","causal_attribution":"The annulment is attributed by the chamber to the judge's undisclosed and unsupervised AI use, which the chamber said prevented control of the judge's reasoning."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"remitir las actuaciones al Superior Tribunal de Justicia de Chubut (STJ), que deberá investigar el alcance ético y disciplinario de la conducta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"pudo haber incumplido los recaudos de confidencialidad exigidos por el Acuerdo Plenario N° 5435 del STJ, al incluir nombres de las partes, testigos y peritos en el texto procesado por el asistente","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The chamber referred the matter to the Chubut Superior Court of Justice to investigate the judge's conduct and said the judge may have breached that court's confidentiality rules by including the names of parties, witnesses and experts in the text processed by the assistant.","causal_attribution":"The confidentiality point is the chamber's stated possibility and was not established as fact."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"presumiblemente ChatGPT","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"el juez la delegó en un ChatGPT","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Press coverage identifies the assistant as ChatGPT (La Nación as presumed, Perfil without qualification).","causal_attribution":"The ruling as quoted refers to a generative-AI assistant. The product name comes from the press."}],"effects":[{"label":"Conviction and trial annulled and retrial ordered; the chamber cites serious consequences for the parties","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/el-juez-de-esquel-que-uso-chat-para-redactar-una-sentencia-sera-investigado-nid17102025/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Full body read in the original Spanish (17 October 2025) by the reviewing agent without a human translator. Reports the appellate ruling; whether the journalist saw the ruling text is not stated.","independence_group":"esquel-camara-ruling"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://documento.errepar.com/actualidad/justicia-anulada-se-invalida-un-fallo-por-el-uso-indebido-de-la-ia-20251016143159365","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Article body is embedded in the page data and was decoded into bodies/gh-4-body.txt (16 October 2025). Read in Spanish without a human translator. It quotes the ruling. The linked full text of the ruling (documento.errepar.com/jurisprudencia/...) is gated and was not read.","independence_group":"esquel-camara-ruling"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.perfil.com/noticias/nea/inteligencia-artificial-anulan-sentencia-porque-un-juez-uso-un-chatgpt-y-una-frase-lo-delato.phtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Full body read in Spanish (17 October 2025) without a human translator. It relays a statement of the Ministerio Publico Fiscal of Chubut and quotes the ruling.","independence_group":"esquel-camara-ruling"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The full text of the ruling was not read (the Errepar copy is gated), so all findings are as reported by three outlets that share the same underlying ruling.","The share of the judgment written by the assistant is unknown. The chamber said the pasted text leaves a gap too wide to tell.","The specific AI product is not established. No chat log was seen.","The annulment date of 15 October 2025 is derived from La Nación's 'el miércoles' (article of 17 October 2025) and the metadata of a gated Errepar ruling page; no cited article states the date.","The outcome of the Superior Court review and the date of the new trial are not reported in the sources read.","The defendant's own view of the annulment and any effect of the delay on the defendant or on other parties to the case is not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"The court is the Penal Chamber of Esquel in Chubut province, and La Nación calls the ground for the annulment unprecedented in Argentine justice. The defendant's residence and where the judge used the assistant are not stated.","court_countries":["AR"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Three Spanish-language outlets report the same appellate ruling, which annulled a criminal judgment and trial after a pasted assistant phrase exposed undisclosed generative-AI use. The chamber's stated consequences for the parties (annulment and a repeated trial) are reported, and the effect on the defendant is not. The outlets share one reporting chain, so claims are attributed.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The appellate chamber, as quoted by three outlets, found a pasted chat phrase in the ruling and concluded that a generative-AI assistant was used. The chamber described delegation of the decision as probable. The product name ChatGPT is stated by one outlet as presumed and by another without qualification.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Argentina: appellate chamber annuls a robbery judgment and trial after the trial judge left a generative-AI chat phrase in the ruling","summary":"On 4 June 2025 a criminal judge in Esquel, Chubut province, convicted a defendant of simple robbery and imposed two years and six months of effective imprisonment. On 15 October 2025 the Penal Chamber of Esquel annulled the judgment and the trial, ordering a new trial before another judge. The chamber found that the ruling contained a pasted phrase from a generative-AI assistant (“Aquí tienes el punto IV reeditado, sin citas y listo para copiar y pegar”), that the AI had been used on the rulings on the nullity of two essential pieces of evidence, and that the judge had not exercised human supervision or recorded the use. Perfil's headline describes the assistant as ChatGPT and La Nación's text as presumably ChatGPT; the quoted ruling and the prosecution office statement refer only to a generative-AI assistant. The chamber referred the judge's conduct to the Chubut Superior Court of Justice for ethical and disciplinary review.","incidentDate":"2025-06-04","incidentEndDate":"2025-10-15","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-10-16","aiSystem":"Generative AI assistant (reported as ChatGPT)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Per press reports of the appellate ruling, the trial and conviction were annulled because of the judge's undisclosed generative-AI use and the case must be tried again before another judge. The chamber described serious consequences of this for the parties, the public and the State. The effect on the defendant is not reported and the annulment may favour the defendant.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"unquantified","affectedCountEvidence":"The chamber refers to serious consequences of the annulment for 'los justiciables' (the parties to the proceeding), the public and the State without a count. No inspected source reports harm to the defendant specifically, and annulment of a conviction may be favourable to the defendant.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/el-juez-de-esquel-que-uso-chat-para-redactar-una-sentencia-sera-investigado-nid17102025/","primarySourceLabel":"La Nación, 'El juez de Esquel que usó Chat para redactar una sentencia será investigado', 17 October 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T12:42:03.091102+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:55.894793+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-lacey-insurance-discovery-relief-denied-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 8 para 20: 'I have struck, and decline to'; 'consider, any of the supplemental briefs'; 'I decline to award any of the discovery relief'; p. 7 para 17: 'The initial, undisclosed use of AI products to'; 'generate the first draft of the brief was flat-out wrong.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought because her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research.","causal_attribution":"The order itself connects the struck briefs and denial of relief to counsel's undisclosed AI use, failure to cite-check and re-submission of the defective brief (paras 17-20)."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 2 para 5: 'approximately nine of the 27 legal'; 'citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect in some way. At least two of the'; 'authorities cited do not exist at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order records that about nine of the 27 citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect and that at least two cited authorities do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The special master's own after-the-fact review, as recorded in the order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 10 para 24: 'clearly not at fault for the AI debacle'; 'She will not, however, be financially'; para 25: 'I decline to order any sanction'; conclusion: 'aggregate amount of $31,100.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order makes the two firms jointly and severally pay $31,100 in aggregate, states the client was not at fault and will not be financially responsible for the awards, and declines any sanction against individual lawyers.","causal_attribution":"Allocation of financial responsibility is directly recorded in the order."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, declaration p. 46 para 3: 'generative AI capabilities found in CoCounsel and Westlaw Precision and'; p. 47 para 4: 'It is unclear to me whether'; 'research tools I utilized returned some erroneous information.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied in part on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he cannot tell whether particular errors arose from his transcription or from a tool.","causal_attribution":"The declarant's own statement; the order does not determine which tool produced each error."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, joint response section II p. 76: 'None of the K&L Gates attorneys who worked on the subject brief used any'; order p. 3 para 7: 'the attorneys at K&L Gates didn’t'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The second firm states that none of its lawyers who worked on the brief used or had access to AI tools or knew that AI had been used until the special master's inquiries.","causal_attribution":"The firm's own submission; the order records that the special master had no reason to doubt the sworn statements."}],"effects":[{"label":"Loss of requested discovery relief after the claimant's briefs were struck","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English; read on 2026-10-09 from the retained PDF text of the 77-page filing: order pp. 2-10, appendix inventory p. 11, originating lawyer's declaration pp. 46-47 and the firms' joint response section II p. 76. PDF page 1 yielded no text. Not every appended exhibit was read.","independence_group":"lacey-ecf119"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which tool, if any, produced each erroneous citation or quotation; the declarant says he cannot distinguish his transcription errors from tool output.","Whether the requested discovery relief would have been granted had the briefs been accurate.","The later course of the insurance action and where the AI-assisted drafting took place.","Paragraph 1 of the order (PDF page 1) was not inspected because the page yielded no extractable text."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was issued by a special master in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The record does not state where the AI-assisted drafting took place or where the claimant lives, so event and affected-person countries are left unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"A filed court order directly establishes that the claimant's briefs were struck and her discovery relief denied because of AI-generated false citations in her lawyers' filings, with the monetary award placed on the firms. The tool identities are attributed to the declarant and kept as reported.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The filed order records that a lawyer used AI tools to generate the research outline for the claimant's brief and that the resulting brief contained false citations and quotations (about nine of 27 wrong, at least two non-existent). The special master read those authorities, found they did not exist, and on that basis struck the briefs and denied the discovery relief, writing that the use of AI affirmatively misled him. The declarant names CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini but cannot say which tool produced each error, so the per-tool contribution is unestablished.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Insurance claimant loses discovery relief after her lawyers file AI-generated false citations; special master's order sanctions the two firms $31,100","summary":"In an order dated 5 May 2025 and filed on 6 May in Lacey v. State Farm (C.D. Cal.), a special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research: about nine of 27 citations were wrong and at least two cited authorities did not exist. One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he could not tell whether particular errors came from his transcription or from a tool; co-counsel at the second firm say they used no AI tools and did not know AI had been used. The order makes the two firms jointly pay $31,100, states the client was not at fault and will not bear the awards, and imposes no penalty on individual lawyers.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-05","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-05-06","aiSystem":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, named in one lawyer's sworn declaration as the generative AI tools used for the research outline; the order itself refers to 'various AI tools' and does not establish which tool produced each error","aiProduct":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Gemini (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated citations; the $31,100 award falls on the firms, not on her.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One claimant whose briefs were struck and whose discovery relief was denied (order paras 20 and 24). She did not use the AI tools herself, so participant users is 0. The lawyers and firms bear the monetary award but are not counted as harmed persons.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Co., C.D. Cal. 2:24-cv-05205, ECF 119: special master's sanctions order dated 5 May 2025, filed 6 May 2025 (with appendix)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:29:01.113121+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:12:38.363121+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025","ai-citations","court-sanction","legal-research","consequential-response"]},{"id":"2025-stephens-county-oklahoma-judge-chatgpt-fake-citations-paternity-order","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Wheeler denied a request from one of the parents' attorneys to have the other parent undergo a psychological test—and in his order denying the request, he pointed to multiple previous Oklahoma cases he said backed him up.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The 2025 order in a child paternity case'; 'He came under scrutiny after he reprimanded attorney [the attorney] last November in an order in the paternity case for asking for a psychological evaluation of the child’s father.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The issue came to light after a request for a mental evaluation was denied and a subsequent court order was filed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In November 2025, in a child paternity and custody case, Judge Wheeler issued an order denying a request by one parent's attorney for a psychological evaluation of the other parent, citing Oklahoma cases he said supported the decision.","causal_attribution":"Court history as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR and described by the mother; the order itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge told the OSBI he only used ChatGPT for research and created the order himself, DA Jason Hicks wrote. The judge, however, also “indicated that at least two of the case citations included in his order and produced by ChatGPT do not exist.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Stephens County District Attorney Jason Hicks says Wheeler admitted to OSBI agents he cited \"at least two\" cases ChatGPT fed him that \"do not exist.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Hicks wrote that Wheeler acknowledged using case citations generated by ChatGPT and that at least two citations included in the order did not exist.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler used OpenAI's ChatGPT for research while drafting the order, which cited two cases that do not exist, according to state records.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"According to the district attorney's 17 August 2026 letter, the judge told the OSBI that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and indicated that at least two case citations in the order, produced by ChatGPT, do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The judge's own statement to investigators as relayed in the district attorney's letter; all four reports rely on that letter, which was not read. The judge's attorney declined to comment."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge issued the reprimand “for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics” and cautioned that future similar filings may be subject to further sanctions.'; '[The attorney] challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February. He told justices that Wheeler based his order on two cases, Cummings v. Cimarron Elevator Co. and Hawkins v. Linhart, that do not exist.'; '[The attorney] dismissed his challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. Wheeler is no longer involved in the paternity case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'She said her attorney at the time challenged the ruling and began reviewing the legal authorities cited in the order.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The order reprimanded the attorney who had asked for a psychological evaluation of the child's father 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics' and warned of further sanctions; that attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, saying it relied on two nonexistent cases, and dismissed the challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. The mother told News 9 that her attorney at the time challenged the ruling.","causal_attribution":"The Oklahoman's account of the court filings and the mother's account to News 9; the Supreme Court filings were not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'[The mother] said learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child.'; '“Then it became very concerning to me that somebody would do something like that over a child custody case,” she said.'; '“He then turned around and decided to recuse himself from my case,” she said. “He called my attorney that I had at the time and apologized to him.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The mother told News 9 that learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child, and that the judge later recused himself from her case and apologised to her attorney.","causal_attribution":"The mother's first-person account in a broadcast interview."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints.'; 'The OSBI also looked into allegations “that Judge Wheeler offered to amend the order in exchange for a dismissal of a writ seeking relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court” and that he “eavesdropped on jury deliberations,” the DA disclosed in the letter.'; 'Prosecutors in the AG’s office “thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution,” the AG’s press secretary, Leslie Berger, said on Sept. 2.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The Criminal Justice Division of the Attorney General’s Office thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary possess ultimate jurisdiction over disciplinary actions for allegations of inappropriate behavior by judges regardless of whether the behavior constitutes a violation of a criminal statute.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Council on Judicial Complaints, including allegations that he offered to amend the order in exchange for dismissal of the writ and that he eavesdropped on jury deliberations; the attorney general's office said the evidence did not support criminal prosecution and that judicial discipline rests with the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary.","causal_attribution":"District attorney's letter and attorney general's statement as reported; no disciplinary finding has been made."}],"effects":[{"label":"the mother faced an order denying a psychological-evaluation request, with the judge citing authorities reported to have been generated by ChatGPT","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the attorney who requested the evaluation was reprimanded in the order and sought relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court before the order was vacated","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the mother describes learning of the fabricated citations in her child custody case as alarming","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Oklahoman's report (USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect) as republished by Minnesota Lawyer; read in full from the Wayback capture of 10 September 2026 because the live page returned 403. Its ChatGPT-admission passages relay the district attorney's letter; its account of the reprimand, the Supreme Court challenge and the vacatur draws on court filings and the attorney. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/oklahoma-judge-admitted-citing-fake-030000000.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"KFOR (Oklahoma City) report syndicated on AOL, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its account of the ChatGPT admission relays the same district attorney letter. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.news9.com/oklahoma-city-news/stephens-county-mother-speaks-out-after-judge-accused-of-using-chatgpt-in-custody-case","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"News 9 (Griffin Media) interview with the mother, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its description of the ChatGPT admission also relays the district attorney's letter; the mother's own account is independent of it. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/09/stephens-county-judge-faces-discipline-over-chatgpt-written-court-order/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Hoodline rewrite of the Reuters report, read in full on 2026-09-29. Reuters relays the same district attorney letter. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["The text of the order and whether the nonexistent citations were decisive for denying the evaluation and for the reprimand.","Whether any disciplinary proceeding follows from the Council on Judicial Complaints referral.","The current state of the custody case after the vacatur and the judge's departure from it.","The exact day in November 2025 on which the order was issued."],"geography":{"basis":"The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9 locate the order and proceedings in Stephens County, Oklahoma, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court. These establish the event and court countries as US. News 9 calls the interviewee a Stephens County mother but gives no explicit residence evidence for either counted person, so affected_person_countries is unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"This reported event connects specific ChatGPT-generated citations to an adverse order issued by a human judge. The Oklahoman and KFOR describe their use in the order, The Oklahoman reports the attorney's reprimand and successful challenge, and News 9 carries the mother's account. The AI admission is reported through one district attorney's letter, not independently verified model output. The family and attorney remain unnamed. No broader custody consequence or disciplinary finding is inferred.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9 relay a district attorney's letter saying the judge acknowledged using ChatGPT for research and incorporating at least two nonexistent citations it produced into his order. The cited authorities were presented in support of the human judge's denial of a requested evaluation and his reprimand of the attorney. This supports informed_decision_about for the affected mother and attorney. It does not establish that ChatGPT itself decided custody or communicated with either of them. The underlying letter and order were not inspected, and whether the citations determined the outcome is unknown.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Prosecutor: judge used ChatGPT citations in Oklahoma custody order later vacated","summary":"In November 2025 Stephens County Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler issued an order in a child paternity and custody case that denied one parent's request for a psychological evaluation of the other parent and reprimanded the requesting parent's attorney 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics'. The attorney challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, telling the justices that it relied on two cases that do not exist; the challenge was dismissed in March after Wheeler vacated the order, and he is no longer on the case. According to a 17 August 2026 letter from the Stephens County district attorney, Wheeler told the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and that at least two citations in it produced by ChatGPT do not exist. The mother in the case told News 9 that learning the order's citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because it concerned the custody of a child. The attorney general's office declined criminal prosecution; judicial discipline remains possible.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-09","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used by the judge for legal research while preparing the order","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the district attorney's letter as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR, a judge acknowledged that his custody-case order contained at least two nonexistent citations supplied by ChatGPT. The order denied a request for a psychological evaluation and reprimanded the requesting attorney. The attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court before it was vacated. The mother described the discovery as alarming in a News 9 interview. The order and letter have not been inspected directly.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people affected through the judge's use of ChatGPT: the mother, whose request for a psychological evaluation was denied by the order and who describes the discovery as alarming (News 9), and the attorney who requested the evaluation and was reprimanded in the order and challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court (The Oklahoman). The child and the other parent are not counted because no harm to them is reported. The judge, the AI user, is not counted: he faces a possible disciplinary process but no sanction has been reported and the complaint bundled other allegations.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OK","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","primarySourceLabel":"The Oklahoman via Minnesota Lawyer, 9 September 2026: judge used ChatGPT citations in custody order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:18.787549+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:44.069668+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["justice","family-court","judge","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","institutional-use","oklahoma"]},{"id":"2026-surat-customs-penalty-ai-hallucinated-citations-supreme-court","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The present appeal arose out of an Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposing a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on the appellant under Section 114, Customs Act, 1962, for misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The challenge to the said penalty before the Gujarat High Court failed, as the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20 January 2026.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The penalty was imposed for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to attract a lower tariff.'; 'the High Court dismissed his challenge on January 20, 2026, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds, and the Gujarat High Court dismissed his challenge on 20 January 2026.","causal_attribution":"Facts of the proceedings as recited in the Supreme Court judgment, reported by legal outlets; the judgment itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Upon verifying such judgments and articles, it does appear that the second respondent has relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations. A further investigation has also revealed that some of the case laws relied upon by the second respondent, which do exist, do not lay down the ratio deduced therefrom and it appears to be a hallucination of AI,' the Court observed.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Upon verification, the court found that the second respondent had \"relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations.\" It further found that some case laws which did exist did not lay down the legal propositions attributed to them, and that this \"appears to be a hallucination of AI\".'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Legal reports quote the Supreme Court finding that the penalty order relied on nonexistent case law or fake citations, and on existing cases that did not support the attributed legal propositions, which it described as apparent AI hallucination.","causal_attribution":"Finding of the Supreme Court after its own verification of the cited material, as quoted by the reports. The court attributes the defects to AI in qualified terms ('appears to be'); the tool is not named."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The use of AI in this case, resulting in reliance placed by the second respondent on material which is dubious, proves fatal to the sustainability of the order imposing penalty on the appellant. Such circumstances compel us to interfere and remand the case,' the Court said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The proceedings were revived for fresh adjudication by an officer of the same rank other than the officer who had passed the original order.'; 'The Court left it to the wisdom of the appointing authority to initiate such action against the author of the Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 as may be warranted in the circumstances, in accordance with law.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, set aside a customs penalty of over ₹425 crore'; 'A bench of Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Sheel Nagu did not examine the merits of the customs case at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Верховний суд Індії 2 вересня 2026 року розглянув справу щодо використання штучного інтелекту працівником митниці, який послався на неіснуючі судові справи та фальшиві цитати, накладаючи штраф у розмірі близько $45 млн' (the Supreme Court of India on 2 September 2026 considered a case of a customs officer's use of AI, who cited non-existent cases and fake quotations while imposing a fine of about $45 million)","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Legal reports say that on 2 September 2026 the Supreme Court treated reliance on dubious AI material as fatal to the penalty order, set aside that order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, and revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank. The reports also say the court left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority.","causal_attribution":"Holding of the Supreme Court as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"a ₹425 crore customs penalty order resting on non-existent and misattributed case law that the Supreme Court found appeared to be AI hallucination stood against the trader for about eleven months and was upheld by the Gujarat High Court","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the trader had to take the case to the Supreme Court, which voided the order but revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full body (including JSON-LD article body) read by curl on 2026-09-29. Reports and quotes the Supreme Court judgment of 2 September 2026. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/09/03/supreme-court-sets-aside-%E2%82%B9425-crore-customs-penalty-over-ai-generated-fake-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"SCC Times case note, read by curl on 2026-09-29; summarises the same judgment (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1741). Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://upstox.com/news/personal-finance/tax/how-a-diamond-trader-got-relief-from-a-425-crore-penalty-after-customs-used-ai-generated-citations/article-199828/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Upstox (4 September 2026), read by curl on 2026-09-29; based on the same judgment. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://sud.ua/uk/news/abroad/371427-mytnyk-poviryv-shi-i-vypysav-shtraf-na-45-mln-verkhovnyi-sud-use-skasuvav","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"uk","translation_note":"Ukrainian-language report (6 September 2026) read through the r.jina.ai relay on 2026-09-29 (direct fetch 403); translated by the reviewer. Cited only for context; it converts the penalty to about US$45 million. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review. The Ukrainian article body was read with AI language assistance; it explicitly credits Supreme Court Observer and supplies context only.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","public_services","finance"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the customs officer used and how it was used in drafting the order.","Whether the trader paid any part of the penalty or incurred other financial consequences while the order stood, and the trader's litigation costs.","The outcome of the revived adjudication and whether any action was taken against the officer.","The trader's country and place of residence."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, challenged in the Gujarat High Court and decided by the Supreme Court of India. The trader's country of residence is not stated in the read reports, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Legal reporting describes a concrete penalty imposed on a trader through an administrative decision that used apparently AI-generated false authorities. The reported Supreme Court ruling connects reliance on that material to the decision to set the order aside. The trader is unnamed and the underlying customs allegation remains undecided. All cited accounts derive from the same judgment, whose text has not been inspected. No payment of the penalty or quantified financial loss is asserted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Bar & Bench, SCC Times and Upstox report that the Supreme Court verified the authorities used in the officer's penalty order, found nonexistent cases, false citations and misattributed propositions, and described them as apparent AI hallucination. The reports connect this material to the officer's order imposing the penalty, which the court set aside on that basis. This supports informed_decision_about: the human officer used the material in an adverse decision about the trader. The tool and how it was used remain unknown, and the judgment itself has not been inspected.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"India's Supreme Court overturns customs penalty citing apparent AI hallucinations","summary":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Surat imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 (about ₹425 crore) on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The trader's challenge was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on 20 January 2026. Before the Supreme Court the trader argued that judgments and articles cited in the penalty order had been generated using artificial intelligence. On 2 September 2026 a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, after checking the material, found that the order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on real cases that did not lay down the propositions attributed to them, which the court said 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'. Holding that the use of AI and reliance on this dubious material was fatal to the order, the court set aside both the penalty order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, sent the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority. The AI tool used is not named in the read reports.","incidentDate":"2025-10-08","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-02","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-02","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tool reportedly used in authorities cited in a customs penalty order; legal reports quote the Supreme Court describing nonexistent and misattributed case law as apparent AI hallucination","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A diamond trader was subjected for about eleven months to a ₹425 crore customs penalty order, and lost a High Court challenge to it, before India's Supreme Court voided the order because it relied on non-existent and misattributed case law that the court found appeared to be AI hallucination (Supreme Court judgment as reported by Bar & Bench, SCC Online and Upstox). The underlying proceedings were revived.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One trader, the appellant, on whom the penalty was imposed. The trader did not use the AI; the customs officer did. No other person is reported harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","primarySourceLabel":"Bar & Bench, 2 September 2026: Supreme Court scraps ₹425 crore penalty over fake citations, AI hallucinations in customs order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:08:50.773251+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:47.973979+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["india","surat","customs","supreme-court","hallucinated-citations","institutional-use","administrative-decision","penalty"]},{"id":"2024-us-otter-notetaker-recorded-non-users-meetings-privacy-suit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'participated in a Zoom meeting in California on February'; '24, 2025, where the Otter Notetaker was used by a meeting participant to transcribe the'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in California in March 2025'; 'used Zoom to communicate with a medical professional, and'; 'Illinois on January 10, 2025 and May 19, 2025 where the Otter Notetaker was used to'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in Washington state in March'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state who'; 'participated in virtual meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their'; 'consent to record, transcribe, and store the contents of their communications.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the'; 'allegations concerning the named Plaintiff’s personal knowledge, experiences, expectations, or'","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'who alleges his privacy was \"severely invaded\" upon realizing Otter was secretly recording a confidential conversation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Seven people who were not Otter account holders allege that, on Zoom or Microsoft Teams calls (six give dates between March 2024 and May 2025), another participant used Otter Notetaker and Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations without their consent; the calls include one with a medical professional and meetings with a financial professional.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs attribute the recording to Otter's product design, which they say lets the notetaker record without every participant's consent; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'other personal information for its own commercial use, including to train its automatic speech'; 'The Illinois Plaintiffs allege that, during their virtual meetings, Otter'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter claims that before the audio of meetings is fed into its machine learning systems to help improve an AI speech recognition feature, it is \"de-identified,\"'","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter keeps their conversational data on its servers and uses it to train its speech-recognition and machine-learning models, and that it captured the Illinois plaintiffs' voiceprints; Otter's policy, as reported by NPR, says it trains on transcripts with users' permission and de-identifies audio.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'felt frustrated, embarrassed, and stressed to learn that his'; 'conversation was recorded without his consent, and his information, voice, and'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One California plaintiff alleges that he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn that his conversation had been recorded without his consent.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs as a consequence of Otter's recording."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ ECPA claim is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ BIPA claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'The motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend as to Count 2'; 'The motion is DENIED in all other respects.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 13 August 2026 the court denied Otter's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, holding that the alleged interception and retention of private conversations was a concrete injury, let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, and dismissed some other claims.","causal_attribution":"Procedural ruling on the pleadings; no finding that Otter recorded anyone unlawfully."}],"effects":[{"label":"the plaintiffs say Otter's notetaker recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations on calls they joined, without their consent, including a medical call and calls with a financial professional","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the plaintiffs say their conversations stay on Otter's servers for training its models and that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"one plaintiff says he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn he had been recorded","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.35.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 35, filed 5 December 2025; RECAP PDF (68 pages) read on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200), plaintiffs' experience sections read in full. Plaintiffs' allegations, not findings.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part, ECF 68, 13 August 2026 (Judge Eumi K. Lee); RECAP PDF read in full on 2026-09-29. Rules on the pleadings and accepts the allegations as true for that purpose; it makes no finding of fact.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.80.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Otter.ai's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 80, 17 September 2026; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29, plaintiff-experience paragraphs and responses read.","independence_group":"otter-answer"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Brewer v. Otter.ai, Inc., original Class Action Complaint, ECF 1, filed 15 August 2025; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.npr.org/2025/08/15/g-s1-83087/otter-ai-transcription-class-action-lawsuit","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"NPR, 15 August 2025, read live on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200). Reports the original complaint and summarises Otter's privacy policy; says neither side responded to requests for comment.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.79.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order, ECF 79, 16 September 2026; read on 2026-09-29. Procedural facts only.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","work","health","finance"],"unknowns":["Whether Otter's product notified the plaintiffs on their calls that the notetaker was present, and what the other participants' Otter settings were.","Whether the plaintiffs' conversations were in fact used to train Otter's models, and in what form.","The exact date of one Illinois plaintiff's meetings, which the complaint places only within the limitations period."],"geography":{"basis":"The consolidated complaint places the plaintiffs' calls in California, in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois, and in Washington state; the order describes the plaintiffs as individuals from California, Illinois and Washington state. The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a bounded series of concrete privacy harms reported by identified people in a pending federal suit: each named plaintiff describes a call on which another participant's AI notetaker recorded and transcribed them without consent. The account rests on the plaintiffs' pleadings and the court's ruling on them; Otter denies the allegations. Plaintiff names are omitted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Each plaintiff alleges that another participant's Otter account joined the Otter Notetaker, an AI transcription assistant, to a Zoom or Microsoft Teams call the plaintiff was on, and that the notetaker recorded, transcribed and stored the plaintiff's conversation on Otter's servers without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent (ECF 35, the consolidated complaint; the court's 13 August 2026 order summarises the same allegation). That alleged capture of the plaintiffs' conversations by an AI service is the reported harm. The complaint also alleges that Otter used the recordings to train its speech-recognition models and took voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs. Otter admits it offers an AI meeting assistant called Otter Notetaker but says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' calls and denies the allegations. The capture is alleged, not established, so the status is reported.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"United States: seven people who say they had no Otter account allege its AI Notetaker recorded calls without consent; a judge let core privacy claims proceed","summary":"Seven people in California, Illinois and Washington state are suing Otter.ai in a consolidated class action in the Northern District of California. Each says another meeting participant used Otter's AI Notetaker on a Zoom or Microsoft Teams call they joined, and that Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversation without their consent; six of them date their calls between March 2024 and May 2025. They say they were not Otter account holders. The calls they describe include a medical consultation, meetings with a financial professional and work discussions. They allege that Otter keeps the recordings and uses them to train its speech-recognition models, that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs, and one of them says learning of the recording left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed. On 13 August 2026 the court found that the alleged interception of private conversations was a concrete injury and let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, while dismissing some claims. Otter's answer to the consolidated complaint, filed on 17 September 2026, says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' experiences and denies the allegations.","incidentDate":"2024-03-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-19","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-08-15","aiSystem":"Otter Notetaker, Otter.ai's AI meeting assistant, joined to Zoom and Microsoft Teams calls by another participant's Otter account","aiProduct":"Otter Notetaker","aiCompany":"Otter.ai, Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter recorded, transcribed and kept their private conversations on calls they joined without their consent, including medical and financial discussions, used them to train its models and took voiceprints, and one plaintiff says learning this left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed (plaintiffs' allegations in a pending suit; Otter denies them).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":7,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The court order says 'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state' who participated in meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their consent; each describes their own call in the consolidated complaint. They were not Otter account holders (one says only that to her knowledge she did not create an account), so they are counted as other people. The proposed class members are not counted. Documented minimum 7.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Order granting motion to dismiss in part, In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, No. 5:25-cv-06911-EKL (N.D. Cal.), 13 August 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:04:08.493618+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:43.76525+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["otter-ai","ai-notetaker","meeting-transcription","privacy","wiretap","bipa","voiceprint","training-data","class-action","non-user"]},{"id":"2026-orelien-goncourt-selection-removed-ai-detector-accusation","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Le 21 septembre, le compte « Balance ton Claude », jusque-là peu connu, affirme avoir soumis plusieurs extraits de C’était ça ou mourir au logiciel américain Pangram, spécialisé dans la détection de textes potentiellement générés par intelligence artificielle. Certains passages auraient obtenu des scores allant jusqu’à 100 % de probabilité de génération par IA.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Les premières accusations ont été portées lundi par un compte anonyme sur X, mettant en avant le verdict du détecteur d'IA Pangram. L'essayiste Samuel Fitoussi a confirmé vendredi être derrière ce compte, Balance ton Claude, assurant n'être qu'un des membres d'un collectif.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The accusation began when an anonymous X account, Balance ton Claude, said it had run excerpts of the novel through the Pangram AI-detection software, with some passages scoring up to 100 per cent probability of AI generation; essayist Samuel Fitoussi later said he was one of the people behind the account.","causal_attribution":"Account of how the accusation arose, as reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'L'Académie Goncourt a annoncé, vendredi 25 septembre, la \"suppression\" du roman C'était ça ou mourir de Thélyson Orélien de sa première sélection'; 'L'ouvrage \"est selon toute vraisemblance très largement le produit d'une intelligence artificielle\", justifie-t-elle après plusieurs jours de polémique, expliquant se reposer sur le \"résultat convergent de plusieurs analyses de chercheurs et journalistes dignes de foi\".'; 'L'Académie Goncourt justifie également sa décision par \"des plagiats dont son auteur s'est rendu coupable au fil du temps et qui viennent d'être révélés\", qui ne concernent pas son roman mais au moins une nouvelle et des articles publiés au Canada.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'L'Académie Goncourt a annoncé vendredi qu'elle retirait le roman de l'auteur canado-haïtien Thélyson Orélien de sa sélection pour le prix Goncourt en raison des accusations de plagiat et d'utilisation de l'intelligence artificielle (IA) le visant.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 25 September 2026 the Académie Goncourt removed the novel from its first selection, stating that it is in all likelihood very largely the product of an artificial intelligence on the basis of several analyses by researchers and journalists, and also citing plagiarism by the author in older texts published in Canada that do not concern the novel.","causal_attribution":"The Académie's stated reasons combine AI analyses and plagiarism findings; the weight given to the Pangram results is not stated. The communiqué itself was not read directly."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'L'écrivain canado-haïtien conteste avoir eu recours à l'intelligence artificielle, et a dénoncé jeudi une \"volonté\" de le \"faire taire\".'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Il explique que son style, marqué notamment par les répétitions et certains rythmes propres à son univers linguistique et culturel, pourrait être interprété à tort par des outils automatisés.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Orélien denies using artificial intelligence to write the novel and says its repetitions and rhythms reflect his linguistic and cultural background and may be misread by automated tools.","causal_attribution":"The author's denial; the Académie and the accusers maintain the contrary. No decisive evidence either way is reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Les éditions du Boréal, basées à Montréal, ont annoncé suspendre \"les activités promotionnelles\" autour du livre'; '\"Malheureusement, il nous est impossible à ce stade-ci d'infirmer ou de confirmer les allégations auxquelles l'auteur fait face\", a expliqué Boréal'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Au Canada, les Éditions du Boréal ont suspendu les activités promotionnelles entourant le roman'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"His Montreal publisher, Éditions du Boréal, suspended promotional activities around the book, saying it could neither confirm nor refute the allegations.","causal_attribution":"Publisher statement as reported; the suspension followed both the AI and plagiarism allegations."}],"effects":[{"label":"novel removed from the Goncourt prize selection after accusations, based partly on AI-detector scores, that it was largely AI-generated","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"publisher suspended promotion of the book pending the allegations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.franceinfo.fr/culture/livres/le-roman-de-thelyson-orelien-supprime-de-la-selection-du-prix-goncourt-en-raison-de-soupcons-de-recours-a-l-intelligence-artificielle-et-d-accusations-de-plagiats_8209475.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read live in French on 2026-09-28; bylined 'franceinfo avec AFP'. Quotes the Académie communiqué. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"goncourt-communique-afp"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.rts.ch/info/culture/livres/2026/article/thelyson-orelien-l-essayiste-samuel-fitoussi-dit-avoir-lance-la-polemique-29367142.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read live in French on 2026-09-28 (25 September 2026). No wire credit visible in the saved text but the account parallels the AFP copy; treated as the same chain. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"goncourt-communique-afp"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.juno7.ht/thelyson-orelien-polemique-ia-goncourt-pangram/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read live in French on 2026-09-28 (26 September 2026). A Haitian synthesis of published reporting with no independent sourcing; treated as the same chain. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"goncourt-communique-afp"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://t24.com.tr/dunya/odullu-yazarin-romanina-yapay-zek-suclamasi-adayliktan-cikarildi,1350116","kind":"news_relay","access":"read","language":"tr","translation_note":"Read live in Turkish on 2026-09-28 (27 September 2026); relay of the same reporting. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"goncourt-communique-afp"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Whether generative AI was used to write the novel; the author denies it.","Which analyses by researchers and journalists the Académie relied on, and how much weight it gave the Pangram scores relative to the plagiarism findings.","The novel's status on the Femina, Médicis and Renaudot lists after the Goncourt decision.","The author's own account of personal or financial effects beyond the public statements reported."],"geography":{"basis":"The decision was taken by the Académie Goncourt for the French literary prize (franceinfo) while the author was in France promoting the book (RTS). The author is described as Canadian-Haitian and his publisher is in Montreal, but his country of residence is not stated in the read sources, so no affected-person country is recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["FR"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case (an AI-detection tool's output about his text launched public accusations of AI authorship, and the Académie Goncourt then removed his novel, citing unnamed analyses finding it probably AI-generated as well as separate plagiarism). AI authorship is disputed and unproven, and the decision also rested on separate plagiarism findings; the record states both. The author is a public figure; all read sources derive from the same public statements and AFP-led reporting.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-28"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Pangram AI-detection software was used by the accusing account to score excerpts of the novel as AI-generated (franceinfo; RTS; juno7). That generative AI was used to write the novel is disputed: the author denies it. The Académie relied on unspecified analyses by researchers and journalists, not solely on Pangram.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"France: the Académie Goncourt removes Thélyson Orélien's bestselling novel from its prize selection, saying it is in all likelihood largely AI-generated, days after an anonymous X account publicised Pangram AI-detector scores; the author denies using AI, and the Académie also cites separate plagiarism in his older texts","summary":"On 21 September 2026 an anonymous X account, Balance ton Claude, said it had run excerpts of Thélyson Orélien's debut novel C'était ça ou mourir through the American AI-detection software Pangram, with some passages scoring up to 100 per cent probability of AI generation. On 25 September the Académie Goncourt removed the novel from the first selection of sixteen books for its 2026 prize, stating that the work is 'in all likelihood very largely the product of an artificial intelligence', based on 'the convergent result of several analyses by researchers and journalists', and also citing plagiarism in older texts by the author published in Canada (at least one short story and articles), which do not concern the novel. Orélien, a 38-year-old Canadian-Haitian writer whose novel had won the Fnac novel prize, denies using AI and says its repetitions and certain rhythms reflect his linguistic and cultural world and may be misread by automated tools. His Montreal publisher Boréal suspended promotional activities, saying it could neither confirm nor refute the allegations. Essayist Samuel Fitoussi said he was one of the people behind the account. Whether AI was used to write the novel is disputed; AI-detector reliability is itself contested in the coverage.","incidentDate":"2026-09-21","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-25","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-25","aiSystem":"Pangram, an AI-text detection tool, used by the Balance ton Claude account to score excerpts of the novel (juno7; RTS; franceinfo); the alleged use of a generative-AI model to write the novel is denied by the author and unproven","aiProduct":"Pangram AI-text detector","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"disputed","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The author's novel was removed from the Goncourt prize selection and his publisher suspended its promotion after public accusations, based partly on AI-detector scores, that the book was largely AI-generated; he denies using AI and the Académie also cited separate plagiarism (franceinfo with AFP; RTS; juno7).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the author Thélyson Orélien, whose novel was removed from the selection (franceinfo; RTS). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"FR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.franceinfo.fr/culture/livres/le-roman-de-thelyson-orelien-supprime-de-la-selection-du-prix-goncourt-en-raison-de-soupcons-de-recours-a-l-intelligence-artificielle-et-d-accusations-de-plagiats_8209475.html","primarySourceLabel":"franceinfo (with AFP), 25 September 2026: Le roman de Thélyson Orélien supprimé de la sélection du prix Goncourt en raison de soupçons de recours à l'intelligence artificielle et d'accusations de plagiats","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-28T03:31:42.415125+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:48.719742+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-detection","ai-detector-accusation","literary-prize","goncourt","pangram","france","disputed","made-claim-about"]},{"id":"2024-york-county-sc-flock-alpr-misread-plate-gunpoint-stop-melvin-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'was stopped by a York County sheriff’s deputy on Feb. 14, 2024, while pulling into his apartment complex near Lake Wylie.'; 'received an alert from a Flock license plate reader that a stolen, dark-colored BMW sedan was traveling in the area, according to the filing.'; 'ordering him to kneel on the ground with his hands over his head for over five minutes, the filing said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'approached Melvin with his firearm drawn and ordered him out of the car, according to the lawsuit.'; 'remained there for roughly five minutes while deputies checked his information.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'ordered him out of his car at gunpoint.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the lawsuit, on 14 February 2024 a York County deputy who had received a Flock license-plate-reader alert for a stolen dark-coloured BMW approached Melvin's black BMW with his gun drawn as Melvin pulled into his apartment complex near Lake Wylie, and made him kneel with his hands over his head for more than five minutes until deputies established that the car was not stolen.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's lawsuit as reported; the Post and Courier says he was handcuffed, the Herald and Military.com describe him kneeling. The complaint itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Flock camera incorrectly identified the first letter of the license plate.'; 'tinted license plate cover was illegal, and obscured the camera, according to the filing.'; 'correctly identified Melvin’s plate 13 times that month prior to the traffic stop, according to the filing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The stop resulted from erroneous information associated with a Flock alert,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Flock camera misread the first letter of Melvin's South Carolina plate; the sheriff's office blamed an illegal tinted plate cover and its internal-affairs report says the stop resulted from erroneous information associated with a Flock alert, while an internal email cited in the filing says the cameras had read his plate correctly 13 times that month.","causal_attribution":"Filing and internal records as reported; the sheriff's office and the plaintiff disagree about why the plate was misread."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'said he suffered trauma and “emotional distress” because of the traffic stop.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'feared for his life and reasonably believed he could be shot.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Melvin says he suffered trauma and emotional distress and feared he could be shot.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's own account in the complaint."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'NOTICE OF REMOVAL from York County Court of Common Pleas, case number 2026CP4602329.'; 'Melvin v. York County Sheriff's Office, 0:26-cv-03474'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The defendants removed Melvin's suit from the York County Court of Common Pleas (case 2026CP4602329) to the US District Court for the District of South Carolina, where it is docketed as Melvin v. York County Sheriff's Office, 0:26-cv-03474.","causal_attribution":"Docket entry."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The York County Sheriff’s Office denies violating Melvin’s rights and has asked a federal judge to dismiss the case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'The sheriff’s office found in November 2024 that'; 'actions were “reasonable” after Melvin filed an internal affairs complaint against them.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The sheriff's office denies violating Melvin's rights and has asked the federal court to dismiss the case; a November 2024 internal-affairs review found the deputy's actions reasonable.","causal_attribution":"Defendants' position as reported; no dismissal motion appears among the docket entries read (through 8 September 2026)."}],"effects":[{"label":"held at gunpoint and made to kneel for more than five minutes after a misread license-plate-reader alert flagged his car as stolen","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"says the stop caused him trauma and emotional distress","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/crime/article316428323.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-28 from the Internet Archive capture of 25 September 2026 (The Herald, Rock Hill, 9 July 2026); the live site timed out. Reports from the lawsuit and attached documents; includes a Flock statement.","independence_group":"melvin-lawsuit-filings"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.postandcourier.com/york-county/news/flock-license-plate-readers-york-county-cameras/article_21d1fac9-69b0-4706-93ab-f0e43c0ede6e.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-28 (Post and Courier, 19 August 2026). Draws on the lawsuit and quotes the internal-affairs report; does not name the plaintiff.","independence_group":"melvin-lawsuit-filings"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.military.com/iraq-war-veteran-says-flock-camera-error-led-to-police-gunpoint-stop","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-28 (Military.com, 16 September 2026). Relays the lawsuit and the Herald's reporting on the dismissal request.","independence_group":"melvin-lawsuit-filings"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74652791/melvin-v-york-county-sheriffs-office/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-28: CourtListener docket for Melvin v. York County Sheriff's Office, 0:26-cv-03474 (D.S.C.); entries through 8 September 2026. No filed documents were available to read.","independence_group":"dsc-docket-0-26-cv-03474"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Whether Melvin was handcuffed as well as held kneeling (the Post and Courier and the Herald differ).","Whether the misread was caused by the tinted plate cover, the camera or both, and why the alert was not visually confirmed before the weapon was drawn.","The outcome of the dismissal request and of the suit."],"geography":{"basis":"The stop took place at Melvin's apartment complex near Lake Wylie, York County, South Carolina (Herald); the suit was filed in the York County Court of Common Pleas and removed to the US District Court for the District of South Carolina (docket).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case consistent with the existing Flock rows: an automated plate reader misread a man's plate and flagged his car as stolen, and deputies held him at gunpoint. The account rests on his lawsuit and the sheriff's own records as reported, with the federal docket confirming the case. He is named as the plaintiff in his own suit.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-28"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"According to the filing reported by the Herald, the deputy acted on a Flock license-plate-reader alert for a stolen BMW; the camera misread the first letter of Melvin's plate, and the sheriff's internal-affairs report says the stop 'resulted from erroneous information associated with a Flock alert' (Post and Courier). The misread plate matched against a hotlist is the automated system's claim about his car. The sheriff's office attributes the misread to an illegal tinted plate cover; an internal email says the cameras had read his plate correctly 13 times that month. The decision to draw a weapon was the deputy's.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"York County, South Carolina: Iraq War veteran Steven Melvin says deputies held him at gunpoint and made him kneel for more than five minutes outside his Lake Wylie apartment complex in February 2024 after a Flock license-plate reader misread his plate and flagged his BMW as stolen; he sued in June 2026","summary":"According to a lawsuit filed on 29 June 2026 and reported by The Herald (Rock Hill), a York County sheriff's deputy stopped Steven Melvin, 42, on 14 February 2024 as he pulled into his apartment complex near Lake Wylie, after receiving a Flock license-plate-reader alert that a stolen dark-coloured BMW sedan was in the area. The deputy approached Melvin's black BMW with his gun drawn and aimed at him and made him kneel with his hands over his head for more than five minutes; after calling for backup and checking his information, the deputy determined the car was not stolen. The camera had read the first letter of his South Carolina tag incorrectly, matching a stolen BMW one letter off. A sheriff's internal-affairs review in November 2024 found the deputy's actions reasonable and blamed an illegally tinted plate cover, for which Melvin received a verbal warning; an email cited in the filing says the cameras had read his plate correctly 13 times that month. Melvin says the stop caused him trauma and emotional distress. The sheriff's office removed the case to federal court in August 2026 and denies violating his rights.","incidentDate":"2024-02-14","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-07-09","aiSystem":"Flock Safety automated license-plate reader (a camera the Herald describes as AI-enabled) that read passing plates, matched Melvin's misread plate against a stolen-vehicle hotlist record and sent an alert to the deputy","aiProduct":"Flock Safety license plate readers","aiCompany":"Flock Safety","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Melvin says he was held at gunpoint and detained kneeling for more than five minutes after a misread Flock alert and suffered trauma and emotional distress (his complaint as reported by the Herald and Military.com); the sheriff's office disputes that the stop was unlawful.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, Steven Melvin, detained at gunpoint (lawsuit via the Herald, Military.com, Post and Courier). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-SC","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/crime/article316428323.html","primarySourceLabel":"The Herald (Rock Hill), 9 July 2026: York man was held at gunpoint over incorrect Flock hit. Sheriff blames illegal tag cover","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-28T03:31:25.729021+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:54.634302+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["flock","alpr","license-plate-reader","wrongful-stop","gunpoint","south-carolina","york-county","justice","made-claim-about","lawsuit"]},{"id":"2026-serra-es-personal-trainer-facial-biometrics-fraudulent-vehicle-financing","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Segundo a Polícia Civil, o personal foi convencido a fazer um reconhecimento facial para supostamente transferir a titularidade do automóvel. A vítima só descobriu que o carro não pertencia ao suspeito semanas após a negociação.'; 'Com o valor da motocicleta e o financiamento, o prejuízo total causado passou de R$ 100 mil.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'teria dito à vítima que seria necessário realizar um procedimento de reconhecimento facial para transferir a titularidade do automóvel. A biometria teria sido utilizada posteriormente para a contratação fraudulenta de um financiamento de veículo em nome da vítima.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'A biometria, porém, teria sido usada posteriormente para contratar um financiamento de veículo em nome do personal trainer, sem autorização dele.'; 'Somando o valor da motocicleta e do financiamento feito de forma fraudulenta, o prejuízo ultrapassou R$ 100 mil, segundo a investigação.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"According to the Espírito Santo Civil Police, the suspect offered a car in exchange for the personal trainer's motorcycle, persuaded him during the negotiation to complete a facial-recognition procedure on the pretext that it was needed to transfer the car's ownership, and later used the biometric to contract a vehicle financing in the victim's name without authorisation; weeks later the victim found the car was a rental; the combined loss exceeded R$100,000.","causal_attribution":"Police account (one chain, delegado Fabiano Alves) as reported by four outlets; the victim's own account is relayed only through the police."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Um homem foi preso por aplicar um golpe de mais de R$ 100 mil em um personal trainer na Serra, na Grande Vitória, na terça-feira (22).'; 'O preso foi encaminhado ao Centro de Triagem no Complexo Penitenciário Rodrigo Figueiredo da Rosa. Ele permanece à disposição da Justiça.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'ocorreu na última terça-feira (22) no cumprimento a um mandado judicial.'; 'Em julho do ano passado, ele foi preso pela Defa em São Paulo'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'foi preso na terça-feira (22). As informações, divulgadas pela Polícia Civil, foram publicadas pelo portal A Gazeta.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A 27-year-old suspect was taken into preventive detention in Serra on 22 September 2026 under a judicial warrant in a Defa estelionato investigation, taken to the Centro de Triagem of the Rodrigo Figueiredo da Rosa complex, and remains at the disposal of the courts; police say he had been detained in São Paulo in July 2025 in a 'love scam' case.","causal_attribution":"Police statement as reported; A Tribuna gives the arrest as 'terça-feira (24)', an evident dating error against the other reports."}],"effects":[{"label":"a vehicle financing was contracted in the victim's name after his facial biometric was captured on a false pretext, adding to the loss of his motorcycle; combined loss above R$100,000","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://g1.globo.com/es/espirito-santo/noticia/2026/09/24/golpista-troca-carro-alugado-por-moto-e-deixa-personal-trainer-com-divida-de-r-100-mil-na-serra.ghtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt-BR","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (G1 Espírito Santo, 24 September 2026; Portuguese). Police account with the delegado's quotes. Reviewer translation; no human translator.","independence_group":"pces-defa-statement"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://extra.globo.com/blogs/radar-brasil/post/2026/09/suspeito-de-estelionato-e-preso-em-golpe-com-fraude-de-reconhecimento-facial-para-financiamento-de-carro-em-es.ghtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt-BR","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (Extra, Radar Brasil blog, 25 September 2026; Portuguese). Same police statement; notes the victim's identity was not disclosed. Reviewer translation.","independence_group":"pces-defa-statement"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.correio24horas.com.br/brasil/personal-trainer-troca-moto-por-carro-alugado-e-golpista-usa-biometria-facial-da-vitima-para-financiar-r-100-mil-0926","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt-BR","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (Correio, Salvador, 25 September 2026; Portuguese). Relays the police information as published by A Gazeta (A Gazeta itself returned 403). Reviewer translation.","independence_group":"pces-defa-statement"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://eshoje.com.br/seguranca/policia/2026/09/personal-trainer-r-100-mil/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt-BR","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (ES Hoje, 24 September 2026; Portuguese). Same police statement. Reviewer translation.","independence_group":"pces-defa-statement"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use","others_use"],"contexts":["finance","privacy"],"unknowns":["When the exchange and the financing took place ('weeks' before the arrest; no dates given).","Which financing provider and which facial-recognition or identity-verification system was involved, and how a biometric captured for one purpose came to authorise a loan (the bodies say only that it was used).","Whether the financing has been cancelled or the victim remains liable; the exact loss.","The suspect's account and any charges filed.","The victim's age and residence beyond Serra."],"geography":{"basis":"The negotiation, the victim and the arrest are placed in Serra, Espírito Santo (G1 'na Serra, na Grande Vitória'; Extra 'no município de Serra, no Espírito Santo'); the arrest was under a judicial warrant and the suspect is at the disposal of the courts in Espírito Santo.","court_countries":["BR"],"event_countries":["BR"],"affected_person_countries":["BR"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case: the state Civil Police say a facial-recognition biometric captured from the victim on a false pretext was used to contract a vehicle financing in his name, a consequential identity decision about a person; four outlets carry the one police chain. How the biometric was used is not reported and is recorded as unknown. The victim is unnamed and the suspect is not named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-26"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Civil Police say the victim's facial-recognition biometric, captured during the negotiation on the pretext of a title transfer, was later used to contract the financing in his name (delegado Fabiano Alves via G1, Extra, Correio, ES Hoje). The bodies do not say how the biometric was used, for example whether a financing provider's automated face-verification check accepted it; the made_decision_about relation rests on that reading of a biometric identity check and is recorded with this caveat.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Serra, Espírito Santo: a personal trainer who swapped his motorcycle for what turned out to be a rented car was told to complete a facial-recognition check 'to transfer the car's title'; police say the biometric was then used to contract a vehicle financing in his name, leaving a loss above R$100,000 (suspect arrested 22 September 2026)","summary":"The Espírito Santo Civil Police (Defa, the fraud and forgery unit) said a 27-year-old man was arrested on a warrant in Serra on 22 September 2026, suspected of defrauding a personal trainer of more than R$100,000. According to the police, the suspect offered a car in exchange for the victim's motorcycle; during the negotiation he persuaded the victim to perform a facial-recognition procedure, saying it was needed to transfer the car's ownership; the biometric was later used to contract a vehicle financing in the victim's name without his authorisation, and weeks after the exchange the victim discovered that the car he had received did not belong to the suspect and was a rental. The loss, combining the motorcycle and the fraudulently contracted financing, exceeded R$100,000. The suspect, who police say had been arrested in São Paulo in July 2025 in a 'love scam' case, was taken to the Centro de Triagem at the Rodrigo Figueiredo da Rosa prison complex and remains at the disposal of the courts. The financing provider and the facial-recognition system are not identified, and the reports do not say how the captured biometric was used to pass the financing.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-24","aiSystem":"Facial-recognition (biometric) capture that the police say was later used to contract a vehicle financing in the victim's name; the financing provider, the verification system and the way the biometric was used are not reported","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The victim lost his motorcycle to a rental-car swap and, according to the police, was left with a vehicle financing contracted in his name through his own facial biometric, for a combined loss above R$100,000 (PCES statement via G1, Extra, Correio and ES Hoje).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One victim, the personal trainer (police statement via G1, Extra, Correio, ES Hoje). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"BR-ES","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://g1.globo.com/es/espirito-santo/noticia/2026/09/24/golpista-troca-carro-alugado-por-moto-e-deixa-personal-trainer-com-divida-de-r-100-mil-na-serra.ghtml","primarySourceLabel":"G1 Espírito Santo, 24 September 2026: golpista troca carro alugado por moto e deixa personal trainer com dívida de R$ 100 mil na Serra","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-26T04:07:12.519263+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:53.010934+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","biometrics","identity-fraud","financing","scam","brazil","espirito-santo","made-decision-about"]},{"id":"2026-st-louis-county-gatlin-facial-recognition-wrongful-arrest-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Jan 13, 2025 | COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants ... filed by Christopher Gatlin'; 'Jan 29, 2025 | AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant Matthew Shute, St. Louis County, Surescan Technology, LLC, The City of Saint Louis, Matthew Welle, Cody Goodwin'; 'Oct 15, 2025 | MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of St. Louis's Motion to Dismiss Count 9 (Doc. 22 ) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Matthew Welle's Motion to Dismiss Counts 2-5 and 10-12 (Doc. 25 ) is granted in part in that Count V is hereby dismissed, and denied in all other respects.'; 'Aug 13, 2026 | SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants'; 'Aug 25, 2026 | SUMMONS Returned Executed filed by Christopher Gatlin. Amazon Web Services, Inc. served on 8/18/2026'; 'Aug 27, 2026 | ANSWER to 105 Amended Complaint'; 'Sep 8, 2026 | ORDER granting 115 Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer ... due no later than September 21'; 'Sep 17, 2026 | MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Plead ;Proposed extension date September 28, 2026 by Defendant Amazon Web Services'; 'Aug 31, 2026 | ADR COMPLIANCE REPORT ... The parties did not achieve a settlement.'; 'Jul 23, 2026 | AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER ... Jury Trial set for 11/1/2027 09:00 AM ... Pretrial Conference set for 10/27/2027'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Christopher Gatlin alleged Thursday in an amended complaint that his arrest and indictment were the product of shoddy police work, poor training, police misconduct, and the use of a defective facial recognition program developed by Amazon for law enforcement use, known as the Rekognition program.'; 'Gatlin originally filed the lawsuit in January 2025, but amended the complaint to name Amazon as a defendant'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Amazon has until Sept. 28 to file a response to the suit's allegations.'; 'Gatlin sued in January of this year. His suit lists 14 counts against the various defendants'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Gatlin filed a civil-rights suit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on 13 January 2025 against St. Louis County, the City of St. Louis and named officers (an amended complaint of 29 January 2025 also named Surescan Technology, LLC, dismissed on 8 May 2025); on 15 October 2025 the court denied the City's motion to dismiss and granted Welle's motion only as to Count V; on 13 August 2026 the court granted leave for a second amended complaint adding Amazon Web Services, which was served on 18 August 2026; the county, its officers, the city and Welle answered on 27 August 2026; AWS's response deadline was extended to 21 September 2026 and AWS moved on 17 September for a further extension to 28 September (no ruling on the docket when read); a July 2026 mediation did not settle; a pretrial conference is set for 27 October 2027 and a jury trial for 1 November 2027.","causal_attribution":"Court docket entries; the Surescan dismissal is docket entry 31 (8 May 2025); the 28 September date is AWS's requested extension (motion of 17 September, unruled when read) and the Post-Dispatch's report; the trial date is from the amended case management order of 23 July 2026 (the earlier 23 August 2027 date in the 5 May 2026 order was superseded)."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'Eight months later, in August 2021, Shute and one of the other officers, St. Louis Officer Matthew Welle, revisited the case and uploaded a \"grainy surveillance photo\" from the bus into SMRT.'; 'The program spit out a list of names. On that list: Gatlin.'; 'Gatlin was charged with first-degree assault and held in jail for almost two years.'; 'Gatlin's public defender filed a motion to suppress the photo identification, arguing it was unconstitutionally suggestive, and the judge agreed'; 'On March 14, 2024 — more than two years after Gatlin's arrest — prosecutors dismissed the charges.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'Biometric Update reported that Gatlin was arrested on August 14, 2021, and remained incarcerated for roughly 17 months while his case was pending.'; 'St. Louis County Judge Brian May suppressed the witness identification in February 2024 after finding officers had not followed accepted impartial-lineup procedures, and prosecutors dismissed the charges the following month, Biometric Update reported.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'A man who was wrongfully arrested and held in the St. Louis County Jail for two years sued Amazon Web Services LLC along with the city and county over their allegedly improper use of facial recognition technology.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Christopher Gatlin, arrested by police in St. Louis, Missouri (August 2021)'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Gatlin was arrested in August 2021 (13 August per the Post-Dispatch's 'four days' after the 9 August lineup; 14 August per Biometric Update via Hoodline) for a December 2020 assault on a security guard at the St. Charles Rock Road MetroLink station after two officers of a joint county-city MetroLink team uploaded a grainy bus surveillance photo into the St. Louis Mugshot Recognition Technology System and the guard, after prompting, picked Gatlin from a photo lineup; he was charged with first-degree assault and held roughly 17 months to almost two years; the identification was suppressed as unconstitutionally suggestive and prosecutors dismissed the charges on 14 March 2024.","causal_attribution":"The Post-Dispatch's own account of the investigation and the suit, Biometric Update via Hoodline, Bloomberg Law and the ACLU; the jail duration is stated differently by each (roughly 17 months while pending; almost two years; two years) and the arrest date differs by a day."},{"id":"c3","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'in a statement, the company said its terms of service prohibit the use of its facial recognition technology in criminal investigations.'; '\"We expect our customers to comply with those terms,\" the company said in an unsigned statement.'; 'it said it would \"fully investigate\" any additional information that comes out during litigation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'The company told Biometric Update that its terms of service prohibit the use of Rekognition's face-comparison feature by police departments in connection with criminal investigations. Amazon's current Rekognition documentation also states the technology does not support images that are too blurry or grainy for a human to recognize a face'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Amazon says its terms of service prohibit the use of its facial recognition technology in criminal investigations, that it expects customers to comply and that it will fully investigate any information that emerges in the litigation; Biometric Update adds that Rekognition's documentation excludes images too blurry or grainy for a human to recognise a face.","causal_attribution":"Amazon's statements to the Post-Dispatch and to Biometric Update (via Hoodline)."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Gatlin, who now lives outside of Missouri, says he suffers from mental health issues since he was released.'; 'No one has been charged with Feldman's assault.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Gatlin says he has suffered from mental health issues since his release; the assault victim, who was not the person the officers were pursuing in this suit, continues to suffer lasting injury and no one has been charged with the assault.","causal_attribution":"Gatlin's own account to the Post-Dispatch."}],"effects":[{"label":"arrested and jailed roughly 17 months to almost two years on a first-degree assault charge dismissed in March 2024, after officers acted on a facial-recognition match from a grainy bus photo and a suggestive photo lineup; lasting mental-health effects reported","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69538618/gatlin-v-welle/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (CourtListener docket 69538618, descending and ascending entry pages). Entry text quoted; the pleadings themselves were not opened (no free RECAP PDFs listed).","independence_group":"courtlistener-docket"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/amazon-facial-id-tech-targeted-in-st-louis-false-arrest-suit","kind":"legal_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (Bloomberg Law News, 14 August 2026). Only the opening paragraphs before the subscriber wall were rendered; the cited passages are from them.","independence_group":"bloomberglaw"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/more-than-a-dozen-wrongful-arrests-due-to-police-reliance-on-facial-recognition-technology","kind":"advocacy_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (ACLU, 14 April 2026). Lists Gatlin among fourteen known facial-recognition wrongful arrests.","independence_group":"aclu"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/09/st-louis-county-man-jailed-in-case-involving-facial-id-match-sues/","kind":"news_aggregator","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (Hoodline, 25 September 2026). Aggregates the Post-Dispatch, Biometric Update, IDTechWire and Bloomberg Law; used here mainly for the Biometric Update passages (17 months, 14 August 2021 arrest, Judge May, February 2024 suppression), which were not read directly.","independence_group":"hoodline-aggregating-stltoday-biometricupdate"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-courts/article_21ae18eb-d1d4-44e8-9e8f-0c6f3c92b94d.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-26 (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 25 September 2026). The page delivered the article body in the Lee/BLOX ROT47 obfuscation; decoded locally (bodies/stltoday-gatlin-decoded.txt) and read in full: the assault, the investigation, the SMRT upload, the body-camera lineup, the dismissal date, the suit's counts and Amazon's statement.","independence_group":"stltoday"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Whether the mugshot system's match was the sole basis for the arrest or how it was weighed against the lineup identification; the complaint's allegations have not been tested.","The exact arrest date (13 August 2021 per the Post-Dispatch's account; 14 August per Biometric Update via Hoodline) and the length of detention (roughly 17 months while pending per Biometric Update; almost two years per the Post-Dispatch; two years per Bloomberg Law).","The size of the mug-shot database (more than 500,000 per the suit as reported by the Post-Dispatch; more than 250,000 per Biometric Update via Hoodline).","Whether Rekognition was in fact the engine behind SMRT during the 2021 search; Amazon disputes intended use, and AWS had not yet answered when the docket was read.","The contents of the second amended complaint and the 15 October 2025 order, which were not opened.","The plaintiff's current state of residence (outside Missouri)."],"geography":{"basis":"The assault and the arrest concerned the St. Charles Rock Road MetroLink station in north St. Louis County and the plaintiff was jailed in St. Louis County (Post-Dispatch; ACLU: 'arrested by police in St. Louis, Missouri'); the suit is in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (docket). The plaintiff now lives outside Missouri (Post-Dispatch); his state of residence is not given.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case in which a facial-recognition system's match about a person contributed, on the plaintiff's account, to a wrongful arrest and roughly 17 months to almost two years' detention: the litigation is documented on the federal docket, the arrest, lineup and dismissal are reported by the Post-Dispatch (read in full), Biometric Update via Hoodline and Bloomberg Law, and the ACLU lists the case. The allegations against the police and Amazon remain allegations.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-26"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges, and the Post-Dispatch, Biometric Update and IDTechWire reporting summarised by Hoodline describes, that officers uploaded the bus photo into the St. Louis Mugshot Recognition Technology System and built the investigation around its match; Bloomberg Law reports the amended complaint's allegation that the system used Amazon's Rekognition. No court finding on the system's role is reported; the ACLU lists the case as a facial-recognition wrongful arrest.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"St. Louis County, Missouri: Christopher Gatlin was arrested in August 2021 after officers ran a grainy bus surveillance photo through a regional facial-recognition system and was held roughly 17 months (Post-Dispatch and Bloomberg Law: about two years) on a first-degree assault charge dismissed in March 2024; his federal civil-rights suit (filed January 2025) was amended in August 2026 to add Amazon Web Services, whose Rekognition technology the complaint says underpinned the match","summary":"Christopher Gatlin was arrested on 14 August 2021 for an assault at the St. Charles Rock Road MetroLink station after a joint St. Louis County and city team uploaded a grainy, blurry surveillance photograph from a bus into the St. Louis Mugshot Recognition Technology System, a facial-recognition tool that searches stored mug shots (more than 500,000 uploaded, the suit says per the Post-Dispatch; more than 250,000 per Biometric Update via Hoodline), and built the investigation around the resulting match together with a witness identification; he was charged with first-degree assault and held roughly 17 months (the Post-Dispatch says almost two years), a county judge suppressed the witness identification as unconstitutionally suggestive, and prosecutors dismissed the charges on 14 March 2024 (Post-Dispatch; Hoodline citing Biometric Update; Bloomberg Law). Gatlin sued St. Louis County, the City of St. Louis and named officers in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on 13 January 2025; on 15 October 2025 the court denied the city's motion to dismiss and granted a detective's motion only as to one count; on 13 August 2026 the court allowed a second amended complaint adding Amazon Web Services, which the complaint says supplied the Rekognition program the system used; the county, city and officers answered on 27 August 2026, AWS's response was extended to 21 September 2026 and on 17 September it moved for a further extension to 28 September (no ruling on the docket when read), and a jury trial is set for 1 November 2027 (CourtListener docket). Amazon told the Post-Dispatch that its terms of service prohibit the use of its facial recognition technology in criminal investigations and that it would fully investigate any information that emerges in the litigation. The ACLU lists Gatlin among fourteen people known to have been wrongfully arrested in the US because police relied on erroneous facial-recognition results.","incidentDate":"2021-08-14","incidentEndDate":"2024-03-14","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-01-13","aiSystem":"St. Louis Mugshot Recognition Technology System (SMRT), a regional facial-recognition tool created by St. Louis County with an Amazon Rekognition credit in June 2018 and loaded with more than 500,000 mug shots according to the suit (Post-Dispatch; Biometric Update via Hoodline gives more than 250,000)","aiProduct":"St. Louis mugshot recognition (SMRT)","aiCompany":"Amazon Web Services (Rekognition, per the amended complaint as reported)","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","legal_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Gatlin was jailed for roughly 17 months to almost two years on a first-degree assault charge dismissed in March 2024 after the identification evidence was suppressed; his suit attributes the arrest to reliance on a facial-recognition match from an unusable photograph together with a suggestive lineup (the complaint's allegations as reported by the Post-Dispatch, Bloomberg Law and Hoodline; the ACLU lists the case as a wrongful arrest). He told the Post-Dispatch he has suffered from mental health issues since his release.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person arrested and jailed, the plaintiff (docket; Hoodline; ACLU). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MO","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69538618/gatlin-v-welle/","primarySourceLabel":"CourtListener docket, Gatlin v. Welle, 4:25-cv-00043 (E.D. Mo.), read 26 September 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-26T04:07:10.387911+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:58:41.366922+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","wrongful-arrest","police","rekognition","amazon","lawsuit","civil-rights","missouri","st-louis","made-claim-about"]},{"id":"2026-delhi-police-facial-recognition-jantar-mantar-list-25-in-jail","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'According to the police affidavit submitted on August 17, its FRS identified individuals with criminal records at the protest site'; 'It said that 2,402 people were identified by the Delhi Police'; 'and 471 through criminal records.'; 'No actions are taken solely based upon the result of the facial recognition system which is only the first step to identify a person in the crowd who has a criminal record.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'According to the Delhi Police affidavit, 2,402 people were identified through its biometric database, Crime Kundli, while another 471 were identified through criminal records.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The Delhi Police's affidavit of August 17, 2026 told the Supreme Court that 2,873 persons with criminal records had been spotted by the FRS at the protest site.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In an affidavit of 17 August 2026 before the Supreme Court, Delhi Police said its Facial Recognition System had identified 2,873 people with criminal antecedents at the Jantar Mantar protest site between 20 and 26 July 2026, 2,402 through its 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and 471 through criminal records, and that no action is taken solely on an FRS result before field verification.","causal_attribution":"The affidavit as quoted by The Indian Express and relayed by Outlook and IFF; not inspected directly."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'An investigation of those with serious charges, murder, attempted murder and rape, and child abuse, shows that at least 25 people on the list, identified by the Facial Recognition System (FRS) at Jantar Mantar, were in jail as per police, jail and court records.'; 'In this group, 17 faced charges of murder; four of rape, including two in POCSO cases; and four more of attempt to murder were lodged in Delhi'; 'Court and jail records for all 25 show custody dates precede the protest'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'At least 25 of the 2,873 people identified by Delhi Police'; 'were already in jail when they were flagged, an investigation of police, prison and court records by The Indian Express has found.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Three were \"identified\" on July 24, twenty-one on July 25 and one on July 26, each with a timestamp.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"At least 25 of the 205 listed people facing murder, rape, POCSO or attempted-murder charges were in Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini jails when the FRS logged them at Jantar Mantar (17 murder, four rape of which the Express's narrative counts two and its itemised list three as POCSO cases, four attempted murder), with timestamps on 24, 25 and 26 July 2026 and custody dates that in some cases precede the protest by years.","causal_attribution":"The Indian Express's own check of police, prison and court records (one chain, relayed by Outlook and IFF); the Delhi Police response did not address the 25 cases."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On Tuesday, when the Supreme Court quashed all FIRs related to the exam leak protests by students, it let the government proceed against the 2,873 people who the Delhi Police claimed had criminal records'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Delhi Police was given permission to register one fresh FIR concerning 2,873 people alleged to have serious criminal antecedents and initially reported to have been present at Jantar Mantar.'; 'The Court did not find that the 2,873 were present, had qualifying criminal records or committed violence.'; 'the order prescribed no method or express requirement that checks precede arrest or other action'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'On September 1, 2026, a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, invoking Article 142, quashed all FIRs registered against students who participated in the July protests'; 'while directing that this should not prejudice their rights and that they must be given every opportunity to defend themselves'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 1 September 2026 the Supreme Court quashed the FIRs against the student protesters but permitted Delhi Police to register a fresh FIR concerning the 2,873 persons with alleged serious antecedents, directing that this should not prejudice their rights, and without a finding that they were present; the undertaking that action would follow field verification is the police's own, and The Federal notes the order prescribed no such requirement.","causal_attribution":"The order as described by the three outlets; not inspected directly."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Responding on Monday to a questionnaire from the Express, the Delhi Police said:'; 'During the protests, 2873 individuals identified as prima facie having criminal antecedents were spotted. However, further verification in this regard is pending.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In its response to the Express, the Delhi Police did not address the 25 cases'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Responding to The Indian Express, Delhi Police said the 2,873 individuals had been spotted as prima facie having criminal antecedents and that further verification was pending; the response did not address the 25 cases.","causal_attribution":"Police statement as quoted by the Express."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In response to a Right to Information (RTI) request in 2022, the police had revealed that it considered a match to be'; 'if its system showed an accuracy rate of 80 per cent.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'the Delhi Police disclosed that it treats any match with a similarity score above 80% as \"positive\"'; 'extracted in 2022 only after a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Delhi Police disclosed in 2022, in reply to Right to Information requests, that it treats a facial-recognition match with an 80 per cent similarity or accuracy score as positive.","causal_attribution":"Delhi Police's 2022 RTI replies as described by IFF, which obtained them, and by The Indian Express, which IFF says relies on the same disclosures; one chain. The reply itself was not inspected. IE describes the threshold as an accuracy rate of 80 per cent and IFF as a similarity score above 80 per cent."}],"effects":[{"label":"at least 25 people in judicial custody were logged by the police facial-recognition system as present at a protest and listed in a sworn affidavit of persons with criminal antecedents against whom a fresh FIR and field verification were permitted","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://indianexpress.com/article/express-exclusive/delhi-police-facial-recognition-jantar-mantar-protest-accused-in-jail-10862099/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-24 from an Internet Archive capture of 15 September 2026 (web.archive.org/web/20260915075622id_/...); the live page returns 403 to this host. Express Investigation of 4 September 2026 with the list of the 25 and the police response.","independence_group":"indian-express-investigation"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.outlookindia.com/national/jantar-mantar-protest-25-people-flagged-by-facial-recognition-were-in-jail-records-show","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-24 (Outlook India, 4 September 2026): relays the Express findings and the affidavit figures; same chain.","independence_group":"indian-express-investigation"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://internetfreedom.in/delhi-polices-facial-recognition-flagged-25-jailed-people-at-jantar-mantar-this-dragnet-must-end/","kind":"other","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-24 (Internet Freedom Foundation, Apar Gupta, 4 September 2026): advocacy analysis that relays the Express findings (same chain for the 25) and adds IFF's own 2022 RTI replies on the 80 per cent threshold, its 24 July 2026 representation and RTI applications.","independence_group":"iff-own-rti"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://thefederal.com/the-federal-special/one-protest-two-probes-why-the-2873-person-fir-raises-questions-255688","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-24 (The Federal, 4 September 2026): analysis of the Supreme Court order and the affidavit relying on the Express report; same chain.","independence_group":"indian-express-investigation"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","public_services","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether any of the 25 has been named in the fresh FIR, visited for field verification or otherwise acted against.","Whether the 25 (or the other 2,848 listed people) have been told they are on the list.","How many of the remaining 2,668 entries would fail the same check; the Express examined only the 205 most serious.","The vendor, algorithm and threshold actually applied at Jantar Mantar in July 2026.","The full text of the 17 August affidavit and the 1 September order (described as quoted).","Whether two or three of the four rape accused are POCSO cases: The Indian Express's narrative says two, its itemised list says three.","The protest window: The Indian Express and Outlook give 20 to 26 July; The Federal gives 20 to 25 July."],"geography":{"basis":"The protests and the facial-recognition deployment were at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi; the 25 were in Delhi's Tihar, Mandoli and Rohini prisons; the affidavit and order are in the Supreme Court of India (The Indian Express, IFF, The Federal).","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":["IN"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case in which an AI system made a consequential claim about identifiable people: a police facial-recognition system placed at least 25 people who were in prison at a protest, on a sworn list that the Supreme Court permitted police to act on. The finding rests on The Indian Express's records investigation (one chain, relayed by Outlook, IFF and The Federal) with the affidavit and order described as quoted; the 80 per cent threshold rests on IFF's 2022 RTI replies, which IFF says the Express also relies on. The listed people are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Delhi Police's own affidavit, as quoted by The Indian Express, attributes the 2,873 identifications to its Facial Recognition System matching faces against the 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and criminal records; the Express's records check shows the system logged at least 25 people who were in custody. The affidavit was not inspected directly.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Delhi: the police facial-recognition system logged at least 25 people who were in Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini jails as present at the Jantar Mantar student protests (20 to 26 July 2026), with timestamps on 24 to 26 July, on a sworn list of 2,873 persons with 'criminal antecedents' that the Supreme Court allowed police to register a fresh FIR against (Indian Express investigation, 4 September 2026)","summary":"In an affidavit of 17 August 2026 before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi Police said its Facial Recognition System (FRS) had identified 2,873 people with criminal antecedents at the Jantar Mantar protests of 20 to 26 July 2026 (2,402 through its 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and 471 through other criminal records). On 1 September the Court quashed the FIRs against the student protesters but let the police proceed against the 2,873; the police say any action will follow field verification. The Indian Express checked the 205 listed people facing murder, attempted-murder, rape or child-sexual-offence charges against police, prison and court records and found that at least 25 of them (17 accused of murder, four of rape (two or three under POCSO; the Express's narrative and its list differ), four of attempted murder) were lodged in Delhi's Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini prisons when the system logged them at the protest site with timestamps on 24, 25 and 26 July; some had been in custody for years. Delhi Police told the newspaper that further verification of the 2,873 was pending and, in its affidavit, that no action is taken solely on a facial-recognition result and that field verification follows each match. The police disclosed in 2022, in reply to a Right to Information request, that it treats a match with an 80 per cent similarity score as positive. Whether any of the 25 has since been named in the fresh FIR or visited for verification is not reported.","incidentDate":"2026-07-24","incidentEndDate":"2026-07-26","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-04","aiSystem":"Delhi Police Facial Recognition System (FRS): face-matching software run on protest footage against the police 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and other criminal records; the vendor and algorithm are not identified in the inspected reporting","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"At least 25 people in judicial custody were recorded by the police facial-recognition system as present at a protest they could not have attended and were placed, in a sworn affidavit before the Supreme Court, on a list of 2,873 persons with criminal antecedents against whom the Court permitted a fresh FIR and police field verification; The Indian Express reports the misidentifications and the Internet Freedom Foundation describes the exposure to verification visits and prosecution as the harm. No arrest, FIR entry or verification visit of any of the 25 is reported in the inspected sources.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":25,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The Indian Express states 'at least 25 people on the list' were in jail when logged, and lists them (17 murder, four rape, four attempted murder). The other 2,668 entries were not checked, so the count is a documented minimum of 25.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://indianexpress.com/article/express-exclusive/delhi-police-facial-recognition-jantar-mantar-protest-accused-in-jail-10862099/","primarySourceLabel":"The Indian Express, 4 September 2026: Police say cameras 'caught' murder, rape accused at CJP protest - some were actually in jail (Express Investigation)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-24T03:46:45.247544+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:35.08761+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","india","delhi","protest-surveillance","supreme-court","police","false-match","made-claim-about","jantar-mantar"]},{"id":"2026-brazil-openai-report-user-detained-without-charge","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","causal_attribution":"Police account carried by two independent chains (BBC interviews; G1 with civil-police material)."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): He was held in pre-trial detention for 54 days; on 13 August 2026 a court granted habeas corpus because, after more than 50 days, the police inquiry had not been concluded and no charge had been filed, and imposed an electronic ankle monitor and a ban on approaching or contacting his son and the child's mother; no charges had been brought and the investigation continues.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): He was held in pre-trial detention for 54 days; on 13 August 2026 a court granted habeas corpus because, after more than 50 days, the police inquiry had not been concluded and no charge had been filed, and imposed an electronic ankle monitor and a ban on approaching or contacting his son and the child's mother; no charges had been brought and the investigation continues.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"He was held in pre-trial detention for 54 days; on 13 August 2026 a court granted habeas corpus because, after more than 50 days, the police inquiry had not been concluded and no charge had been filed, and imposed an electronic ankle monitor and a ban on approaching or contacting his son and the child's mother; no charges had been brought and the investigation continues.","causal_attribution":"Court decision as reported by the BBC (single chain; the Spanish version is the same report)."},{"id":"c3","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Police say the reported messages were corroborated by material found during the arrest. The man denied intending harm and his lawyer disputed whether any concrete step had been taken.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Police say the reported messages were corroborated by material found during the arrest. The man denied intending harm and his lawyer disputed whether any concrete step had been taken.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Police say the reported messages were corroborated by material found during the arrest. The man denied intending harm and his lawyer disputed whether any concrete step had been taken.","causal_attribution":"Police and defence accounts as quoted by the BBC; the dispute concerns intent, not the detention."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): OpenAI provided investigators with the user's details and the messages he sent but not ChatGPT's replies; it did not answer the BBC's question why and said it may notify law enforcement when it detects a credible and imminent risk of harm to others; G1 reported that OpenAI's process combines automated systems and human moderators who may contact outside bodies, as happened in this case, and that the police chief called it the third such case in Brazil.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): OpenAI provided investigators with the user's details and the messages he sent but not ChatGPT's replies; it did not answer the BBC's question why and said it may notify law enforcement when it detects a credible and imminent risk of harm to others; G1 reported that OpenAI's process combines automated systems and human moderators who may contact outside bodies, as happened in this case, and that the police chief called it the third such case in Brazil.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): OpenAI provided investigators with the user's details and the messages he sent but not ChatGPT's replies; it did not answer the BBC's question why and said it may notify law enforcement when it detects a credible and imminent risk of harm to others; G1 reported that OpenAI's process combines automated systems and human moderators who may contact outside bodies, as happened in this case, and that the police chief called it the third such case in Brazil.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"OpenAI provided investigators with the user's details and the messages he sent but not ChatGPT's replies; it did not answer the BBC's question why and said it may notify law enforcement when it detects a credible and imminent risk of harm to others; G1 reported that OpenAI's process combines automated systems and human moderators who may contact outside bodies, as happened in this case, and that the police chief called it the third such case in Brazil.","causal_attribution":"OpenAI statements and investigators' accounts as reported; the absence of the replies is stated by investigators to the BBC."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Police say the conversations ran for about two months and an alert reached Brazilian authorities in June 2026, three days before the arrest.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Police say the conversations ran for about two months and an alert reached Brazilian authorities in June 2026, three days before the arrest.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Police say the conversations ran for about two months and an alert reached Brazilian authorities in June 2026, three days before the arrest.","causal_attribution":"BBC account (single chain)."}],"effects":[{"label":"held 54 days in pre-trial detention without charge after OpenAI reported his messages; released under electronic monitoring and a ban on contacting his son and the child's mother","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"police say the report let them arrest him a day before the date on which they believed the plan against the child would be carried out","claim_id":"c1","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c8dn1l7vr6ro","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt-br","translation_note":"Read live in Portuguese on 2026-09-23 (BBC News Brasil, Iara Diniz, 14 August 2026): messages seen by the BBC, police chief and defence-lawyer interviews, the habeas corpus release and precautionary measures. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"bbc"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/cxnvlg14e1p8o","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Read live in Spanish on 2026-09-23 (BBC News Mundo, 16 September 2026): Spanish text produced by AI translation from an English-language BBC original and reviewed by a BBC journalist before publication (stated in the article); same reporting chain as s1, which is preferred where the two diverge. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"bbc"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://g1.globo.com/tecnologia/noticia/2026/06/27/como-chatgpt-identificou-plano-de-pai-para-matar-o-filho-e-levou-alerta-para-autoridades.ghtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt-BR","translation_note":"Read live in Portuguese on 2026-09-23 (G1, 27 June 2026): arrest on 19 June, the OpenAI to FBI to Ministry of Justice to state police chain, message images from the civil police, OpenAI statement, police chief to TV Gazeta. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"g1-globo"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/459083/pai-e-preso-apos-planejar-morte-do-filho-no-chatgpt-veja-analise","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read live in Portuguese on 2026-09-23 (Migalhas, 26 June 2026): summary attributed to an earlier G1/TV Gazeta report of 26 June, with lawyers' analysis; same Globo chain as s3. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"g1-globo"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships","privacy"],"unknowns":["What ChatGPT replied during the two months of conversations (OpenAI did not provide the replies).","Whether charges will be brought after the forensic results and phone examination.","Whether he in fact contacted a hired killer, as he told ChatGPT.","The exact date OpenAI made its report to the FBI.","His identity (withheld by the BBC; not sought here)."],"geography":{"basis":"Arrest at his home in rural [identifying or operational detail withheld], [identifying or operational detail withheld] (BBC, G1, Migalhas); he lives there; habeas corpus granted by the Brazilian court handling the pre-trial detention (BBC: a Justiça). OpenAI's report went via the FBI in the United States, which is not an event location.","court_countries":["BR"],"event_countries":["BR"],"affected_person_countries":["BR"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case: an AI operator's report about a user, generated by ChatGPT safety systems, led to 54 days of pre-trial detention without charge, ended by habeas corpus. Two independent reporting chains (BBC; Globo) support the arrest and its cause; the release and its terms rest on the BBC. The police account that the report prevented a planned killing is preserved as context and intent is recorded as disputed. Nobody is named; the child is not identified. The charter states that this class needs no separate ruling.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"He conversed with ChatGPT for about two months; OpenAI's safety systems flagged the conversations and the company reported them to the FBI, which passed them to Brazilian authorities (BBC, G1, with the police chief's account). OpenAI did not provide ChatGPT's replies, so what the chatbot said is unknown.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Brazilian man detained without charge after OpenAI reported messages; he denies intending harm","summary":"BBC reporting describes a Brazilian man detained for 54 days after OpenAI reported messages to the FBI and Brazilian authorities. Police described a credible threat; he denied intending harm. A court released him without charges under protective conditions. The report did not include ChatGPT’s replies.","incidentDate":"2026-06-19","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-13","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-06-26","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI); OpenAI's automated detection and human moderation systems, which generated the report","aiProduct":"ChatGPT and OpenAI moderation","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The user was held in pre-trial detention for 54 days without charge on the strength of his ChatGPT messages as reported by OpenAI, then released under electronic monitoring and a no-contact order covering his son and the child's mother while the investigation continues. Police say the report was corroborated at the scene and prevented a planned killing; he and his lawyer dispute any intent. The consequence to him is undisputed; whether it was warranted is contested.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the ChatGPT user who was detained (BBC, G1). The child and the child's mother are not counted as harmed. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"BR","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c8dn1l7vr6ro","primarySourceLabel":"BBC News Brasil — report on the case","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-23T03:45:57.312143+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T11:09:49.574842+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["chatgpt","openai","brazil","espirito-santo","law-enforcement-report","pre-trial-detention","fbi","institutional-response","communicated-with","made-claim-about"]},{"id":"2026-evans-santos-v-draftkings-ai-personalization-gambling-addiction","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"EVANS VS DRAFTKINGS INC. ETAL\"; \"Filing Date: Friday , July 24th, 2026\"; \"Case ID: 260702927\"; \"Case 2:26-cv-07168 Document 1-3 Filed 09/16/26\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"docketNumber \"2:26-cv-07168\", court \"paed\", dateFiled \"2026-09-16\", \"NOTICE OF REMOVAL by CROWN PA GAMING, INC., DRAFTKINGS INC.\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Christopher Evans filed a product-liability complaint against DraftKings Inc. and Crown PA Gaming in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on 24 July 2026 (Case ID 260702927); the defendants removed it to the E.D. Pa. on 16 September 2026 as 2:26-cv-07168.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court record (state docket report and federal removal filing)."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHESTER COUNTY\"; \"29 Jul 2026 03:54 PM\"; \"MICHAEL SANTOS,\"; \"2026-07200-TT\"; \"Case 2:26-cv-07176 Document 1-3 Filed 09/16/26\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"docketNumber \"2:26-cv-07176\", court \"paed\", dateFiled \"2026-09-16\", \"NOTICE OF REMOVAL by FANDUEL INC., FLUTTER ENTERTAINMENT, PLC, BETFAIR INTERACTIVE US LLC, FANDUEL GROUP PARENT LLC, FANDUEL PA LLC\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Michael Santos filed a complaint against DraftKings, Crown PA Gaming, FanDuel Inc. and FanDuel's affiliates in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas on 29 July 2026 (2026-07200-TT); the FanDuel defendants removed it to the E.D. Pa. on 16 September 2026 as 2:26-cv-07176.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court record."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"He began using the DraftKings applications in or around August 2017\"; \"Plaintiff has wagered over $2,100,000.00 with net losses of approximately $81,000.00\"; \"constantly received targeted promotions, personalized push notifications, and incentives like prop bets and free credits intended to repetitively lure him back into the gambling applications\"; \"also had a VIP account manager, who would send him promotional offers, bonuses, and perks\"; \"He soon began suffering from depression and anxiety and stopped going outside altogether in favor of gambling all day\"; \"creating financial strain that has placed him into debt and resulted in the repossession of his vehicle\"; \"resulted in his wife separating from him\"; \"was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Evans pleads that since about August 2017 he wagered over US$2,100,000 on DraftKings' apps with net losses of about US$81,000, constantly received targeted promotions and personalised push notifications and had a VIP account manager, developed depression and anxiety and was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020, stopped going outside, fell into debt, had his vehicle repossessed and separated from his wife.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegations in a pending complaint; untested."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"has wagered over $1,164,000.00 with net losses of approximately $58,000.00\"; \"has wagered nearly $7,000 on FanDuel with losses of nearly $1,500\"; \"constantly received targeted advertisements, personalized push notifications, and incentive-based emails from DraftKings intended to repetitively lure him back into the gambling app\"; \"despite Plaintiff expressly stating he did not want to continue gambling\"; \"max out multiple credit cards and accrue debt so significant that it forced him to sell his house\"; \"has received formal diagnoses of depression and anxiety\"; \"drove Plaintiff MICHAEL SANTOS to suicidal ideation\"; \"voluntarily placed himself on a self-exclusion list with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Santos pleads that he wagered over US$1,164,000 on DraftKings with net losses of about US$58,000 and nearly US$7,000 on FanDuel with losses of nearly US$1,500, received targeted advertisements, personalised push notifications and incentive emails, had a VIP manager who kept offering bonus bets after he said he wanted to stop, maxed out multiple credit cards and was forced to sell his house, received diagnoses of depression and anxiety, experienced suicidal ideation, and self-excluded with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegations in a pending complaint; untested."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"Defendants utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users and continuously lure them back to their sports gambling apps\"; \"data science and machine learning to help optimize conversion\"; \"recommendation engines\"; \"Defendants operate sophisticated AI-powered engagement platforms that, on information and belief, employ the precise personalization mechanisms the study identifies as risk-generating\"; \"Limit or eliminating artificial intelligence to track individual\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"\"Defendants utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users\"; \"Limiting or eliminating artificial intelligence to track individual\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Both complaints allege that the defendants combine artificial intelligence with tracking of personalised user data to addict users and lure them back, that DraftKings' 10-K discloses machine-learning recommendation engines, and, on information and belief, that the defendants operate AI-powered engagement platforms; both ask the court to limit or eliminate the use of artificial intelligence to track individual users.","causal_attribution":"The contents of the pleadings are established by the record; the truth of the AI allegations is not."}],"effects":[{"label":"two plaintiffs plead gambling addiction, six-figure wagering with net losses of about US$81,000 and US$58,000, debt, family breakdown, depression and suicidal ideation, attributed to AI-driven personalization","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662095/gov.uscourts.paed.662095.1.3.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-17 and 2026-09-19: Exhibit A to the notice of removal in Evans v. DraftKings Inc., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07168 (47 pages: the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas docket report and the complaint of 24 July 2026), from the CourtListener RECAP archive.","independence_group":"evans-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662118/gov.uscourts.paed.662118.1.3.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-19: Exhibit A to the notice of removal in Santos v. DraftKings Inc., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07176 (53 pages: the complaint filed and attested in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas on 29 July 2026), from the CourtListener RECAP archive.","independence_group":"santos-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74801358/evans-v-draftkings-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket metadata read on 2026-09-19 through the CourtListener v4 search API (saved as cl-evans.json): case name, docket number 2:26-cv-07168, court E.D. Pa., filed 2026-09-16, cause 28:1332 diversity product liability, removal notice by Crown PA Gaming and DraftKings.","independence_group":"courtlistener-evans-docket"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74803784/santos-v-draftkings-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket metadata read on 2026-09-19 through the CourtListener v4 search API (saved as cl-santos3.json): docket number 2:26-cv-07176, court E.D. Pa., filed 2026-09-16, removal notice by FanDuel Inc., Flutter Entertainment, Betfair Interactive US, FanDuel Group Parent and FanDuel PA.","independence_group":"courtlistener-santos-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","health","relationships","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether AI or machine-learning systems, rather than human account managers and conventional marketing, generated the promotions and notifications the plaintiffs describe; the 'AI-powered engagement platforms' allegation is pleaded on information and belief.","The defendants' responses; no answer, motion or ruling is recorded as of 2026-09-19.","When Santos began gambling on the apps and his current financial position.","Whether the plaintiffs also gambled on other operators' products."],"geography":{"basis":"Both plaintiffs are Pennsylvania residents (Philadelphia; Coatesville, Chester County) per the complaints; suits filed in Pennsylvania state courts and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case: two pending complaints, read in full from the court record, allege that an operator's AI-driven personalization and engagement systems fostered gambling addiction with quantified losses, debt, family breakdown, psychiatric diagnoses and suicidal ideation. Filing facts are documented; the harms and the AI involvement are the plaintiffs' allegations and are recorded as such. Plaintiffs are identified only by the public case captions.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaints allege that the defendants' AI and machine-learning personalization systems tracked the plaintiffs' play and targeted them with promotions and notifications, and quote DraftKings' 10-K on machine-learning recommendation engines; the 'AI-powered engagement platforms' allegation is pleaded on information and belief. Nothing in the record yet establishes that AI systems made the targeting decisions about these two users, so the relation (a system making decisions about the person) is recorded as alleged.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Pennsylvania: two men sued DraftKings (one also FanDuel) alleging that AI-driven personalization, targeted promotions and VIP handling fostered gambling addiction; they plead net losses of about US$81,000 and US$58,000, debt, family breakdown, depression and, in one case, suicidal ideation","summary":"Christopher Evans (Philadelphia; complaint filed 24 July 2026 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas) and Michael Santos (Coatesville, Chester County; complaint filed 29 July 2026 in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas) sued DraftKings and its Pennsylvania affiliate; Santos also sued FanDuel and its parents. Both product-liability complaints, filed by the same law firm, allege that the defendants' sports-betting, daily-fantasy and casino apps are designed to addict, and that the companies 'utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users', operating 'AI-powered engagement platforms' (pleaded on information and belief) and, per DraftKings' 10-K as quoted, 'data science and machine learning' recommendation engines. Evans pleads that since about August 2017 he wagered over US$2.1 million with net losses of about US$81,000, received constant targeted promotions and personalised push notifications and a VIP account manager, developed depression and anxiety and was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020, stopped going outside, fell into debt, had his vehicle repossessed and separated from his wife. Santos pleads over US$1.164 million wagered on DraftKings with net losses of about US$58,000 plus small FanDuel losses, targeted advertising and a VIP manager who kept offering bonus bets after he said he wanted to stop, maxed-out credit cards, the forced sale of his house, diagnoses of depression and anxiety, suicidal ideation, and self-exclusion with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023. Both cases were removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 16 September 2026 (2:26-cv-07168 and 2:26-cv-07176). The allegations are untested.","incidentDate":"2017-08-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-07-24","aiSystem":"DraftKings' and FanDuel's sportsbook, daily-fantasy and online-casino apps and their alleged AI and machine-learning personalization, recommendation and engagement systems (as pleaded; the complaints quote DraftKings' 10-K on 'data science and machine learning' and 'recommendation engines')","aiProduct":"DraftKings and FanDuel apps","aiCompany":"DraftKings Inc. (and Crown PA Gaming); FanDuel Inc. and affiliates (Flutter Entertainment) in the Santos suit","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","psychiatric_deterioration","relationship_disruption","property_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"As pleaded: gambling addiction with net losses of about US$81,000 (Evans) and about US$58,000 plus small FanDuel losses (Santos), debt, a repossessed vehicle and marital separation (Evans), maxed-out credit cards, a forced house sale, diagnosed depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation (Santos), attributed by the plaintiffs to the defendants' AI-driven personalization and engagement design.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":2,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two named plaintiffs, each pleading his own gambling addiction and losses as a user of the apps. Exact count of two; family members mentioned in the complaints are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662095/gov.uscourts.paed.662095.1.3.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Evans v. DraftKings Inc. et al., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07168, Notice of Removal Exhibit A (Philadelphia CCP complaint filed 24 July 2026), via CourtListener RECAP","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-20T03:19:52.470392+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:36.906135+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["gambling","sports-betting","algorithmic-personalization","engagement-design","product-liability","lawsuit","united-states","pennsylvania","draftkings","fanduel","institutional-use"]},{"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"]}]}