{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-15T07:01:04.953Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"court","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":9,"coverage":{"cases":9,"countries":5,"languages":6,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":9,"minors":0,"coreRelations":4,"contextualRelations":9,"mixedRelations":4,"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-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-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-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":"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-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"]}]}