{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-15T07:01:51.100Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"court","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":11,"coverage":{"cases":11,"countries":3,"languages":4,"unknownLocation":3,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":2,"minors":0,"coreRelations":3,"contextualRelations":11,"mixedRelations":3,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-oregon-federal-court-dismisses-family-plaintiffs-claims-after-briefs-with-ai-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The issue before the Court is the appropriate sanctions for Plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence'; 'Plaintiffs filed three briefs containing citations to fifteen non-existent cases and fabricated quotations falsely attributed to eight legitimate authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs filed three summary-judgment briefs citing fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations attributed to eight real authorities, and the court framed its sanctions as being for the plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'[t]he inclusion of inaccurate citations was inadvertent and the result of reliance on an automated legal citation tool'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs told the court the inaccurate citations were inadvertent and resulted from reliance on an automated legal citation tool.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' filing as quoted by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Court finds that Plaintiffs share responsibility with'; 'for the submission of fifteen non-existent cases and eight fabricated quotations'; 'is a serial self-represented litigator who was likely the person responsible for using artificial intelligence to draft the summary judgment briefs in this case'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that the plaintiffs shared responsibility with their lead lawyer and that one plaintiff, a serial self-represented litigator, was likely the person responsible for using AI to draft the briefs.","causal_attribution":"A court finding of likelihood on unrebutted circumstantial evidence; the drafter's AI use is not otherwise established."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'STRICKEN without leave to refile'; 'to pay the Clerk of the Court $15,500 within 30'; 'Defendants are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney' ; 'Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED with'; 'Local Rules provides an additional basis for terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs' claims.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court struck the briefs without leave to refile, ordered the lead lawyer to pay $15,500 to the Clerk, awarded the defendants reasonable fees and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice; it found the plaintiffs' continual violations of the Local Rules an additional basis for that dismissal.","causal_attribution":"Established by the order."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'finds the requested amount of $94,704.38 reasonable'; 'is ORDERED to pay Defendants 15% of that award, $14,205.66'; 'pay Defendants the remaining 85%'; '$80,498.72 within thirty (30) days'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In March 2026 the court found fees of $94,704.38 reasonable and ordered local counsel to pay 15% ($14,205.66) and the lead lawyer 85% ($80,498.72).","causal_attribution":"Established by the fees order."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Defendants' unopposed Motion for Partial Summary'; 'summary judgment on their eighth counterclaim for breach of contract and ordered specific performance of the inheritance contract'; 'Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 228) is DENIED.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In June 2026 the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its grant of the defendants' unopposed motion for partial summary judgment, which had awarded specific performance of an inheritance contract on a breach-of-contract counterclaim.","causal_attribution":"Established by the reconsideration order; the orders do not say the counterclaim outcome resulted from the AI sanction."}],"effects":[{"label":"family plaintiffs' claims dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for briefs with AI-fabricated citations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"lead lawyer fined $15,500 and two lawyers ordered to pay $94,704.38 in fees","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.215.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.225.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, pdftotext); the background and fee-allocation sections were inspected.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.233.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, pdftotext); five-page order read in full.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used; the orders name none.","Who drafted the briefs: the court's finding is one of likelihood, and the plaintiffs gave no explanation.","Whether the fine and fees were paid, and the outcome of the order sent to the Oregon State Bar and of a later show-cause order to the lead lawyer.","Whether the counterclaim ruling was affected by the striking of the plaintiffs' briefs."],"geography":{"basis":"The briefs were filed in and the sanctions imposed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Where the briefs were drafted and where the parties live are not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's own orders establish that it dismissed the family plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and sanctioned their lawyers for briefs citing nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations, which the court attributes to the plaintiffs' misuse of generative AI and finds one plaintiff likely drafted with AI. The three orders were read.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's 12 December 2025 order describes the sanctions as being for the plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence, finds that three briefs cited fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations, records the plaintiffs' statement that the citations resulted from reliance on an automated legal citation tool, and finds that one plaintiff was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs (communicated_with). The AI output reached the court in those briefs, and the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and sanctioned their lawyers because of it (informed_decision_about). No product is named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Oregon federal court dismisses family plaintiffs' claims and fines their lawyer after briefs cited 15 nonexistent cases it attributes to generative AI misuse","summary":"On 12 December 2025 the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed with prejudice the claims of plaintiffs in a family dispute over their late mother's estate and family property, as a sanction for what the court called their misuse of generative artificial intelligence, and found their continual violations of the court's Local Rules an additional basis for the dismissal. Three of the plaintiffs' summary-judgment briefs cited fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations attributed to eight real authorities. The plaintiffs had said the inaccurate citations came from reliance on an automated legal citation tool. The court found that the plaintiffs shared responsibility with their lead lawyer and that one plaintiff, a frequent self-represented litigant, was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs. It struck the briefs, ordered the lead lawyer to pay $15,500 to the court and awarded the defendants their fees. In March 2026 it set those fees at $94,704.38, ordering the lead lawyer to pay 85% and local counsel 15%. In June 2026 it denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider a later ruling for the defendants on a counterclaim.","incidentDate":"2025-01-31","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-12","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-12-12","aiSystem":"Generative AI used to draft summary-judgment briefs, according to the court; the plaintiffs described it as an automated legal citation tool. No product is named in the orders","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's orders, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice because their briefs cited nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations that the court attributes to misuse of generative AI, which it found one plaintiff likely used to draft them; the lead lawyer was fined $15,500 and the two lawyers were ordered to pay $94,704.38 in fees.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Three people counted from the orders: the individual plaintiff whose claims were dismissed (found likely to have drafted the briefs with AI, so that AI use is a finding of likelihood and she is not counted as an established user), the lead lawyer (fined and ordered to pay 85% of fees) and local counsel (ordered to pay 15% of fees). The estate whose claim was also dismissed has beneficiaries the orders do not count; the LLC plaintiff is not a person.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.215.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Opinion and Order, ECF 215, case 1:21-cv-00157 (12 December 2025)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:05:45.14301+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:05:45.14301+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","oregon","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","claims-dismissed","client-responsibility"]},{"id":"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":"2025-chandler-arizona-ai-victim-video-sentencing-vacated","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'FILED 09-30-2026'; 'AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART'; 'we affirm the manslaughter conviction but vacate the sentence for manslaughter, and remand for resentencing'; 'term of 10.5 years’ imprisonment on the count of manslaughter'; 'during a road rage confrontation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'An Arizona appeals court has upheld the manslaughter conviction of a man who fatally shot another driver during a road rage confrontation, but it has ordered a new sentencing hearing after finding a judge improperly relied on an AI-generated video portraying the victim.'; 'The court affirmed his conviction but vacated his 10.5-year prison sentence and sent the case back to Superior Court for resentencing.'; 'The case will return to Maricopa County Superior Court for a new sentencing hearing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'will have to be resentenced after the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated his sentence for a 2021 road rage killing in Chandler due to an AI video of the victim affecting the judge'; 'manslaughter conviction is upheld, but the 10 1/2-year sentence is vacated, and he will be resentenced.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 30 September 2026 the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the manslaughter conviction of a defendant who shot and killed a man during a road-rage confrontation, vacated his 10.5-year manslaughter sentence and remanded for resentencing.","causal_attribution":"The disposition stated in the opinion itself, also reported by two Arizona newsrooms, which date the killing to 2021, place it in Chandler and describe the victim as another driver."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶53: 'consideration of the AI video so prejudiced'; 'as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair'; 'Accordingly, we vacate the sentence for manslaughter and remand for resentencing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'In its decision announced Wednesday, the state Court of Appeals said the sentencing judge was prejudiced by the AI video, which made his decision fundamentally unfair.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'consideration of the AI video so prejudiced'; 'as to render the sentencing procedure'; 'improperly allowed at a sentencing hearing an artificial intelligence-generated video in which the victim is depicted talking about forgiveness and addressing the defendant directly.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The appeals court held that the sentencing judge's consideration of the AI video so prejudiced the defendant as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair.","causal_attribution":"Holding of the appeals court, read in the opinion; also reported by AZFamily and by the ABA Journal citing Reuters."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It included some real footage of the victim, but also had an AI-generated version of him delivering statements about his beliefs, forgiveness and his family.'; 'picture and voice profile'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'using a previously recorded video, a picture and a script written by'; 'sister. That video was played during the sentencing.'; 'was sentenced to 10 1/2 years in prison last year'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"¶36: 'recreated through AI that use[d] [his] picture and [his] voice profile'; ¶50: 'created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'His family used voice recordings, videos and pictures of'; 'to recreate him in a video using AI'; 'said she wrote the words that the AI version read in court based on how forgiving she knew her brother to be.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The video, made by the victim's family and played at the sentencing hearing in 2025, used the victim's picture and voice profile and combined some real footage with an AI-generated version of the victim delivering statements about his beliefs, forgiveness and his family, from a script written by his sister.","causal_attribution":"Description of the video by ABC15 and AZFamily; the BBC reports the sister saying she wrote the words; the opinion confirms the picture and voice profile, the embedded real footage and the sister's authorship, and does not state the date of the hearing."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶41: 'I loved that AI. Thank you for that'; 'I feel that that was genuine; that his obvious forgiveness of'; 'For that reason I find the presumptive term [of 10.5 years in prison] is appropriate. That’s more than the State asked for.'; ¶38: 'she asked the sentencing judge to impose a slightly mitigated sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'The sentencing judge later said he \"loved\" the AI video and described it as \"genuine.\"'; 'The judge specifically referenced what he viewed as the victim'; 'the presumptive 10.5 years in prison for manslaughter'; 'a longer sentence than the nine years requested by prosecutors'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'obvious forgiveness'; 'expressed in'; 'before handing down the punishment'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'I loved that AI, thank you for that. As angry as you are, as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness'; 'I feel that that was genuine.'; 'seemed to appreciate the use of AI at the hearing'; '10-and-a-half years in prison on manslaughter charges.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The sentencing judge said he loved the AI video, described it as genuine and referred to the forgiveness it expressed, then imposed the presumptive 10.5-year term, longer than the nine years prosecutors had requested.","causal_attribution":"The sentencing transcript as quoted in the appeals opinion; also reported by ABC15 and AZFamily."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶53: 'video footage of the victim was permissible, allowing the presentation of the AI video constituted fundamental error'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'The appeals court specifically said the real video footage of the victim was permissible. Its ruling was focused on the AI-generated portions that portrayed the victim saying things he never actually said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appeals court said the embedded real video footage of the victim was permissible and that allowing the presentation of the AI video was fundamental error.","causal_attribution":"Stated in the opinion; ABC15 summarises the ruling as focused on AI-generated portions that portrayed the victim saying things he never said."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'He says the new sentence could range from seven to ten and a half years, and the case could still reach the state supreme court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The defense attorney said the new sentence could range from seven to ten and a half years and that the case could still reach the Arizona Supreme Court.","causal_attribution":"Statement by the defense attorney to ABC15."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶1: 'remand for resentencing because the AI video was not reliable'; ¶45: 'only evidence bearing a “minimal indicia of reliability” may be considered at sentencing'; ¶50: 'does not reflect actual events'; 'presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister'; ¶51: 'It erases the interpretive distance between the family’s belief about what the victim would have said and the victim’s own voice and opinions'; 'No disclaimer could cure that error.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The opinion gives unreliability as the ground: only evidence bearing minimal indicia of reliability may be considered at sentencing, and the AI video, apart from the embedded real footage, does not reflect actual events and presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim's sister, erasing the distance between the family's belief about what the victim would have said and the victim's own voice; the court wrote that no disclaimer could cure that error.","causal_attribution":"Reasoning of the appeals court, read in the opinion."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶34: 'did not object to the AI video at sentencing, we review only for fundamental error'; ¶52: 'And it clearly impacted the sentencing judge'; 'While the record does not reflect precisely how the AI video factored into the sentencing calculus, there is no question it played a role.'; ¶48: 'No Arizona case has addressed the admissibility of an'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'no Arizona case has addressed the admissibility of an AI-generated depiction of a victim offered as victim impact evidence'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The defendant had not objected to the AI video at sentencing, so the court reviewed for fundamental error; the opinion says the video clearly impacted the sentencing judge, that the record does not reflect precisely how it factored into the sentencing calculus and that there is no question it played a role, and that no Arizona case had addressed an AI-generated depiction of a victim offered as victim impact evidence.","causal_attribution":"Stated in the opinion. The opinion does not find that the sentence would have been shorter without the video."},{"id":"c9","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶36: 'recreated through AI that use[d] [his] picture and [his] voice profile'; 'is a true representation of who [he] was'; 'not how the courtroom portrayed [him]'; 'I believe in forgiveness and in God who forgives.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The opinion records that the AI rendering of the victim explained that it was a version of him recreated through AI using his picture and voice profile, said the video was a true representation of who he was and not how the courtroom portrayed him, and told the defendant that he believed in forgiveness and in God who forgives.","causal_attribution":"The appeals court's account of the video played at sentencing."},{"id":"c10","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶37: 'the maximum sentence authorized by the jury verdict'; ¶40: 'impose a mitigated term of 7 years’ imprisonment'; ¶13: 'concurrent, presumptive term of 2.25 years’ imprisonment on the count of endangerment'; ¶1: 'argument that the court erred in precluding text messages obtained from the victim’s phone'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The opinion records that the attorney for the victim's family asked for the maximum sentence authorized by the verdict and defense counsel for a mitigated seven-year term, and that the judge also imposed a concurrent 2.25-year term for endangerment; the court affirmed the conviction after rejecting a challenge to the exclusion of text messages from the victim's phone.","causal_attribution":"The appeals court's account of the sentencing record and its own disposition."},{"id":"c11","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'We were disappointed of course'; 'She says her family is now prepared to go through a second sentencing hearing.'; 'during the spring 2025 sentencing in Maricopa County Superior Court'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The victim's sister told FOX 10 Phoenix on 1 October 2026 that the family was disappointed by the ruling, and FOX 10 reports that the family is prepared to go through a second sentencing hearing; FOX 10 places the original sentencing in spring 2025.","causal_attribution":"Statement by the victim's sister to FOX 10 Phoenix and FOX 10's own description."},{"id":"c12","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'with the help of artificial intelligence, he returned earlier this month at his killer' (sentence continues: 's sentencing to deliver a victim's statement himself; BBC, 7 May 2025)","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"'Immediately after the sentencing, defense attorney'; 'appealed the decision.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"'In May 2025, FOX 10 reported on the sentencing of'; 'during the spring 2025 sentencing in Maricopa County Superior Court'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'This story comes from our reporting from May of 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The sentencing hearing took place in May 2025 (the BBC, writing on 7 May 2025, says the AI statement was delivered earlier that month; FOX 10 and ABC15 date their reporting on the sentencing to May 2025), and the defense attorney appealed immediately after the sentencing.","causal_attribution":"Dating by three newsrooms; the appeal is ABC15's report of the defense attorney's action. The day of the hearing is not stated in any inspected body."}],"effects":[{"label":"sentencing procedure found fundamentally unfair because the judge considered an AI-generated video of the victim; 10.5-year sentence vacated and resentencing ordered","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.abc15.com/news/arizona-appeals-court-throws-out-sentence-after-judge-relied-on-ai-generated-victim-video","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-02 (ABC15 Arizona, published 30 September 2026 and updated 1 October 2026 according to the page metadata). Own reporting with interviews of the victim's sister and the defense attorney.","independence_group":"abc15"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.azfamily.com/2026/10/01/court-appeals-vacates-chandler-road-rage-sentence-due-ai-victim-video/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-02 (AZFamily, published 30 September 2026 at 5:36 PM MST). Own report of the ruling.","independence_group":"azfamily"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/arizona-appeals-court-says-judge-wrongly-permitted-ai-generated-victim-video","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-02 and re-read on 2026-10-05 (ABA Journal, 1 October 2026), which relays a Reuters story and quotes the opinion; Reuters itself returned HTTP 401.","independence_group":"reuters"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/30/state_v._horcasitas.pdf","kind":"court_opinion","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English on 2026-10-05: the published opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CR 25-0191, filed 30 September 2026 (16 pages), from the copy stored by CourtListener. The Arizona courts' own address for the file returned HTTP 403. The case caption, and so this address, carries the defendant's surname; the record text does not.","independence_group":"arizona-court-of-appeals-opinion"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-manslaughter-sentencing-vacated-due-use-ai-victim-impact-statement","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-05 (FOX 10 Phoenix, published 30 September 2026, updated 1 October 2026). Quotes the opinion and carries its own 1 October interview with the victim's sister.","independence_group":"fox10phoenix"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq808px90wxo","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-09 (BBC News, published 7 May 2025 per page metadata). Own reporting with an interview of the victim's sister and a video of the AI statement; dates the hearing to earlier in May 2025.","independence_group":"bbc"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/chandler/defense-attorney-appeals-after-ai-video-used-in-court-sentencing","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-09 (ABC15 Arizona, published 9 May 2025 per page metadata). Same newsroom as s1; interviews with the defense attorney and the family's attorney.","independence_group":"abc15"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The day of the May 2025 sentencing hearing. The month rests on the BBC's 7 May 2025 report that the AI statement was delivered 'earlier this month' and on FOX 10 Phoenix's 'In May 2025'; an ABC15 feature dated 5 May 2025 says 'last month', which would place the hearing in April 2025, and no inspected body gives the day.","The AI tools used to make the video; the opinion does not identify them.","How far the video affected the length of the sentence: the opinion says the record does not reflect precisely how it factored in.","The outcome of resentencing, its date, and whether either party seeks review by the Arizona Supreme Court; no resentencing date had been reported by 9 October 2026."],"geography":{"basis":"The sentencing took place in the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona, in May 2025, and the appeal was decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One (opinion; ABC15; AZFamily; BBC). The defendant's residence is not stated, so affected_person_countries stays empty.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse consequence of an AI-generated depiction used in a criminal proceeding: an appeals court found that the video made a May 2025 sentencing fundamentally unfair and vacated the sentence. The ruling is read in the opinion itself and reported by independent Arizona and national newsrooms; names of the deceased victim, his family, the judge and the defendant are left out of the public text and claims. Reviewed on 2026-10-09 to record the AI system's relation to the harmed defendant (the rendering impersonated the victim toward him and informed the judge's sentencing decision about him) and the month of the hearing.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Output: the appeals opinion describes an artificial-intelligence video rendering of the victim, recreated from his picture and voice profile and played at sentencing with embedded real footage, in which the AI version of the victim addressed the defendant and said he believed in forgiveness (claims c3, c9); ABC15, AZFamily, FOX 10 Phoenix, the BBC and the ABA Journal (relaying Reuters) describe the same AI-generated video, made by the victim's family from a script the sister wrote. The tools are not identified. Relation to the affected person: the rendering impersonated the deceased victim toward the court and addressed the defendant directly, so the defendant is a person toward whom generated material impersonated someone else (depicted_or_impersonated). Human use: the sentencing judge said he loved the AI video, felt it was genuine and pointed to the victim's obvious forgiveness before fixing the term (c4), and the opinion finds that the video clearly impacted the judge and played a role in the sentencing calculus (c8), so the AI output informed the judge's sentencing decision about the defendant (informed_decision_about). Consequence: the judge imposed the presumptive 10.5-year term, more than the State asked for (c4), and the appeals court held that his consideration of the AI video made the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair and vacated the sentence (c2, c5). The opinion does not find that the sentence would have been shorter without the video (c8).","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Arizona appeals court vacates a manslaughter sentence, holding that an AI-generated video of the deceased victim made a 2025 sentencing fundamentally unfair","summary":"At a sentencing hearing in May 2025 in Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona, the family of a man killed in a 2021 road-rage shooting in Chandler played a video that combined real footage with an AI-generated likeness and voice of the victim delivering a script written by his sister, including statements of forgiveness addressed to the defendant. The judge said he loved the video, described it as genuine and referred to the forgiveness it expressed, then imposed the presumptive 10.5-year term for manslaughter, longer than the nine years the prosecutor had requested. The defense attorney appealed immediately. On 30 September 2026 the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but vacated the sentence, holding that the AI video was not reliable and that the judge's consideration of it so prejudiced the defendant that the sentencing procedure was fundamentally unfair. The opinion says the record does not show precisely how the video factored into the sentence, and that there is no question it played a role. The case returns to the trial court for resentencing; as of 1 October 2026 no new sentencing date had been set.","incidentDate":"2025-05-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-30","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tools used by the victim's family to generate a likeness and voice of the deceased victim from a recorded video, a picture and a written script","aiProduct":"Unidentified video tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Arizona Court of Appeals held, in a published opinion of 30 September 2026, that the sentencing judge's consideration of an AI-generated video of the victim at the May 2025 hearing prejudiced the defendant and made the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair, vacating his 10.5-year sentence and ordering resentencing.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the defendant whose sentencing the appeals court found fundamentally unfair. He did not use the AI tool, so he is counted among people harmed through others' use. The victim's family is not counted because no harm to them from the AI video is reported. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AZ","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.abc15.com/news/arizona-appeals-court-throws-out-sentence-after-judge-relied-on-ai-generated-victim-video","primarySourceLabel":"ABC15 Arizona, 30 September 2026: \"Arizona appeals court throws out sentence after judge relied on AI-generated victim video\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-02T03:20:58.232078+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:23:23.878144+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-video","arizona","courts","deepfake","informed-decision","justice","others-use","sentencing","victim-impact-statement"]},{"id":"2025-nova-scotia-google-ai-overview-musician-sex-offender-summary-concert-cancelled","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"They had read online, Mr. MacIsaac was told, that he had convictions related to internet luring and sexual assault.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"That information is not true","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the summary falsely asserted he had been convicted of a series of offences including sexual assault","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"returned a result that said he had been “convicted of sexual assault.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"MacIsaac says a Google AI-generated search summary described him as having convictions for sexual offences including internet luring and sexual assault, and that this was untrue.","causal_attribution":"MacIsaac's account relayed by two outlets. The Globe adds that the only public record of a run-in with the law it found is a cannabis discharge. The summary was not inspected. The Globe reporter saw a Google result stating 'convicted of sexual assault' on a query that included the other man's town; that result was seen after the first amendments and may differ from what the First Nation read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"its leadership had changed their mind","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"this situation was the result of mistaken identity caused by an AI error","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"had cancelled one of his concerts planned for Dec. 19","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"the cancellation was based on incorrect information","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"We deeply regret the harm this error caused to your reputation, your livelihood, and your sense of personal safety","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Sipekne'katik First Nation cancelled MacIsaac's concert planned for 19 December 2025 after learning of the summary, then apologised in writing and said the cancellation was based on incorrect information.","causal_attribution":"The apology letter (seen by the Globe) and an online post (cited by Global News) are the First Nation's own statements. The First Nation did not respond to the Globe's requests for comment."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"blending MacIsaac’s biography with that of another man","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the inaccurate claims were taken from online articles regarding a man in Atlantic Canada with the same last name","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The false information was the result of the AI summary blending MacIsaac's biography with that of another man in Atlantic Canada with the same last name.","causal_attribution":"The Globe states the blending in its own voice. Global News attributes the origin to MacIsaac."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The fiddler says the ordeal left him worried for his safety","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"He’s also concerned about work he may have lost without realizing it","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I feared for my own safety going on stage because of what I was labelled as.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"MacIsaac says the episode left him worried for his safety and concerned that other venues may have declined to book him without telling him.","causal_attribution":"MacIsaac's own account. Lost work beyond the one concert is his speculation."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Google has amended search results for the musician","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"we use those examples to improve our systems, and may take action under our policies","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Google amended the search results for MacIsaac. A Google spokesperson said AI Overviews change frequently and that Google uses examples of misinterpreted content to improve its systems.","causal_attribution":"Globe reporting and a Google statement. The exact edits were not inspected."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In a statement of claim filed in February with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"None of the claims in the document has been tested in court.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"claiming the online giant defamed him by falsely identifying him as a sex offender in an AI-generated summary","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Google is also liable for injuries and losses arising from the AI overview's defective design","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"MacIsaac is seeking $1.5 million in damages from Google LLC.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In February 2026 MacIsaac filed a statement of claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice alleging defamation and defective design and seeking damages of 1.5 million from Google LLC (US dollars in the Globe and Mail copy of the Canadian Press story, no currency stated in the CBC copy). Its claims have not been tested in court.","causal_attribution":"News paraphrase of the statement of claim (Canadian Press, relayed by CBC, the Globe and Billboard Canada). The claim itself was not inspected. The Globe copy of the wire story gives US dollars and the CBC copy gives no currency."}],"effects":[{"label":"Concert cancelled and reputational harm after a false AI-generated summary","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Reported fear for personal safety and possible unnoticed lost work","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.theglobeandmail.com/culture/article-ashley-macisaac-show-cancelled-google-ai-misinformation-music-fiddler/","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"globe-and-mail-dec-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://globalnews.ca/news/11589560/ashley-macissac-ai-content-accusation/amp","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"canadian-press-2025-12"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cape-breton-fiddler-ashley-macisaac-lawsuit-against-google-9.7187490","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"canadian-press-2026-05-lawsuit"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.theglobeandmail.com/culture/music/article-ashley-macisaac-lawsuit-google-ai-error-sex-offender/","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"canadian-press-2026-05-lawsuit"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://ca.billboard.com/business/legal/ashley-macisaac-google-lawsuit","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"canadian-press-2026-05-lawsuit"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use","others_use"],"contexts":["work","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The AI Overview text the First Nation read was not preserved in the inspected sources (the Globe reporter saw a later result with a similar statement), and its content changed over time.","Exact date of the cancellation (the concert was planned for 19 December 2025).","Whether any other booking was lost (MacIsaac speculates, including about a concert in Mexico earlier in 2025).","Currency of the claimed damages (US dollars in one copy of the wire story, unstated in another).","The statement of claim was not read. Google's defence and the lawsuit outcome are unknown."],"geography":{"basis":"The concert was planned with the Sipekne'katik First Nation, described as north of Halifax (Nova Scotia is named by Billboard Canada). The statement of claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The country of residence of the affected person is not stated, so it is left unknown.","court_countries":["CA"],"event_countries":["CA"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Named public figure who is the subject. Two December 2025 outlets and May 2026 lawsuit coverage report a concrete cancelled concert and reputational harm traced to a Google AI-generated summary. The First Nation's written apology and Google's response are reported. Lawsuit claims remain allegations.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Globe and Mail states the false description was the result of Google's AI-generated search summary blending MacIsaac's biography with that of another man. Google's spokesperson statement refers to AI Overviews generally and does not address this summary. The summary itself was not inspected and its content changed over time.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Google AI Overview reportedly described fiddler Ashley MacIsaac as a convicted sex offender, and a concert was cancelled","summary":"In December 2025 Cape Breton fiddler Ashley MacIsaac said a First Nation north of Halifax cancelled his concert planned for 19 December after reading a Google AI-generated search summary that said he had convictions for sexual offences. He says the statements were false and came from online articles about another man in Atlantic Canada with the same last name. The First Nation apologised in writing and Google amended the search results. MacIsaac says he feared for his safety and worries about other lost work. In a statement of claim filed in February 2026 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice he seeks damages of 1.5 million from Google (US dollars in the Globe and Mail copy of the Canadian Press story, no currency stated in the CBC copy). None of its claims has been tested in court, and the claim says Google did not admit responsibility.","incidentDate":"2025-12-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-12-23","aiSystem":"Google Search AI Overviews","aiProduct":"Google AI Overviews","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm","professional_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"MacIsaac reports a cancelled concert, damage to his reputation and livelihood, fear for his safety and possible unnoticed lost bookings after the AI summary said he had convictions for sexual offences (his account, plus the First Nation's apology letter).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the musician, is reported harmed. The other man with the same last name is reported as the source of the mixed-up information and no harm to him is reported. The First Nation is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theglobeandmail.com/culture/article-ashley-macisaac-show-cancelled-google-ai-misinformation-music-fiddler/","primarySourceLabel":"The Globe and Mail, 23 December 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:29:04.774728+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:12.421073+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-us-eightfold-ai-match-score-applicant-screening-class-action","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"about unsuspecting job applicants and to score them from 0 to 5 for potential employers based on","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This results in a Match Score, which ranges from 0 through 5 in increments of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Employers then use these reports to sift through","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"But candidates who apply for jobs at companies that use those tools are not given notice and a chance to dispute errors","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that Eightfold collects applicant information and scores applicants from 0 to 5 by predicted likelihood of success for employers, that employers use these reports to sift applications, and that Eightfold provides no notice, access or dispute rights.","causal_attribution":"These are the plaintiffs' allegations as stated in a filing. The filing establishes only its own contents."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In or around July 2025,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"applied online via Microsoft’s website for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Manager-Responsible AI position two days after she applied, without being invited to interview.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On or around December 16, 2025,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"received an automated rejection for the Senior Technical Program","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint says one plaintiff applied to Microsoft in or around July 2025 and again around 16 December 2025, and received an automated rejection two days after the first application without an interview.","causal_attribution":"The complaint attributes the screening to Eightfold's Evaluation Tools used by the employer. No employer record or score was inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On or around December 17,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"applied online via Paypal’s website","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"was not asked to interview and was not given a job offer for any of the","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint says the other plaintiff applied to PayPal on or around 17 December 2025 for two roles and was not asked to interview or given an offer for any position applied to.","causal_attribution":"The complaint alleges Eightfold's tools were applied to this application. Reuters reports the plaintiffs believe the tools played a role. The link to any specific rejection is not established."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"is being sued in California for allegedly compiling reports used to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"On January 20, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"sued in California state court on behalf of all U.S. job seekers who applied for jobs","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Neither was hired, and both believe that Eightfold's tools played a role.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The proposed class action was filed by two women with STEM backgrounds who believe Eightfold’s AI tools hurt their careers by unfairly screening them out","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Reuters reports the plaintiffs, who are not named by this record, filed a proposed class action in California state court on 20 January 2026 on behalf of all US job seekers evaluated with the tools, and that neither plaintiff was hired and both believe Eightfold's tools played a role.","causal_attribution":"Reuters and the plaintiffs' counsel release both trace to the complaint and counsel. They are one reporting chain."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"We do not scrape social media and the like.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"said the platform operates on data shared by candidates or provided by customers.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"An Eightfold spokesperson said the platform does not scrape social media and operates on data shared by candidates or provided by customers.","causal_attribution":"Company statement to Reuters. It disputes the complaint's data-collection allegation and does not address the scoring allegation."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Document 1 Filed 03/02/26","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/24/2026.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"NOTICE OF REMOVAL Eightfold AI, Inc.'s Notice of Removal from Contra Costa Superior Court.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"MOTION to Dismiss filed by Eightfold AI Inc..","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"ORDER VACATING HEARING Re: 29 MOTION to Dismiss.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Eightfold removed the case to the US District Court for the Northern District of California on 2 March 2026 and filed a motion to dismiss. The docket shows the hearing on that motion vacated on 24 July 2026 and no ruling in the entries inspected.","causal_attribution":"Procedural facts documented by the court docket. The docket does not establish the merits."}],"effects":[{"label":"Applicants allegedly scored and screened by an undisclosed AI ranking without statutory notice or dispute rights, and not interviewed or hired","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465146/gov.uscourts.cand.465146.1.0_2.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ai-company-eightfold-sued-helping-181520410.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.outtengolden.com/newsroom/landmark-class-action-accuses-eightfold-ai-of-illegally-producing-hidden-credit-reports-on-job-applicants","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72351430/kistler-v-eightfold-ai-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"court-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether Eightfold's tools produced a score for either plaintiff or influenced either employer's decision is not established. The complaint and reports rest on the plaintiffs' allegations and belief.","The start date of the alleged practice is not stated. The incident range covers only the plaintiffs' dated applications (July to December 2025). The complaint says one plaintiff has applied to Microsoft and other employers since 2023. Earlier applications are not described and are outside this record.","Whether the defendant's tools collected social media or other third-party data about the plaintiffs is disputed by Eightfold and unresolved.","The other plaintiff's location is not stated in the sources inspected.","The outcome of the pending motion to dismiss is unknown. Docket entry 46 (24 Sep 2026, a statement of recent decision) had no readable content.","Microsoft and PayPal are not defendants. Microsoft declined comment and no PayPal response was inspected."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint states that one plaintiff lives in, applied from and was denied employment while living in Contra Costa County, California. The removed case is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The other plaintiff's location is not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The complaint was read from the copy attached to the defendant's notice of removal, with Reuters, the plaintiffs' counsel release and the court docket. The plaintiffs are described by role and not named. All allegations are attributed and remain at reported status. The AIAAIC archive entry had no description and is not cited.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges Eightfold's Match Score model scored and ranked the plaintiffs' applications for the employers. Eightfold's statement disputes the alleged data collection. No document showing a score for either plaintiff was inspected.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: two applicants sue Eightfold AI over 0-to-5 applicant scores used in hiring","summary":"Two job applicants filed a proposed class action on 20 January 2026 in California state court (removed to federal court on 2 March 2026) against Eightfold AI Inc. The complaint alleges that Eightfold's hiring tools collect applicant data and produce a 0-to-5 'Match Score' that employers use to rank candidates, without the notice, access and dispute rights the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a California statute require. One plaintiff says she applied to Microsoft in or around July 2025 and again in December 2025 and received an automated rejection two days after the first application. The other says she applied to PayPal in December 2025. Both say they were not interviewed or hired and believe Eightfold's tools played a role. Eightfold says it does not scrape social media and operates on data candidates or customers provide. The allegations are unproven and Eightfold filed a motion to dismiss (no ruling appears in the docket entries inspected).","incidentDate":"2025-07-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-17","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-01-21","aiSystem":"Eightfold AI talent-evaluation tools including the 'Match Score' applicant ranking model","aiProduct":"Eightfold Match Score","aiCompany":"Eightfold AI Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complaint alleges that two applicants were scored by Eightfold's tools, not interviewed and not hired, and that they received none of the disclosures or dispute rights the statutes require. The plaintiffs believe the tools played a role in their rejections. Eightfold's involvement in any particular rejection is not established.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Two plaintiffs each allege they were scored and not hired. The proposed class of all US applicants evaluated with the tools is not counted because no class has been certified and no other applicant's experience is reported.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465146/gov.uscourts.cand.465146.1.0_2.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Notice of removal with the state-court complaint, plaintiffs v. Eightfold AI Inc. (N.D. Cal., filed 2 Mar 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:41.995961+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.000724+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-us-neh-humanities-grant-mass-termination-chatgpt-dei-screening","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"The Mass Termination is DECLARED unlawful,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"was unlawful because it was undertaken in violation of the First Amendment","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the resulting terminations were ultra vires","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the termination, in early April 2025, of more than 1,400 grants,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing, implementing, or giving any effect to the Mass Termination.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 7 May 2026 the court declared the April 2025 mass termination of NEH grants (more than 1,400 grants, over $100 million) unlawful, unconstitutional and ultra vires, and permanently enjoined its enforcement.","causal_attribution":"The declaration rests on the First Amendment, equal protection and lack of statutory authority. It does not rest on a finding that ChatGPT was inaccurate."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Does the following relate at all to DEI? Respond factually in less than 120 characters. Begin with ‘Yes.’ or ‘No.’ followed by a brief explanation.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"did not provide ChatGPT with a definition of “DEI”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"it enlisted the help of ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"two employees of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) used ChatGPT to determine whether previously approved National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants should be canceled","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"A DOGE staff member used ChatGPT with a standardized prompt asking whether each grant description related at all to DEI, without defining DEI for the model.","causal_attribution":"The opinion recites deposition testimony and the spreadsheet. The prompt text is a quotation of the court record."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"thereby combining DOGE’s AI-generated classifications with NEH staff recommendations.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"did not know ChatGPT had been used","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The ChatGPT outputs were combined with NEH staff ratings into the lists used to select grants for termination, and the NEH acting chair testified to not knowing ChatGPT had been used.","causal_attribution":"The court ties the ChatGPT-generated rationales to the lists presented to the NEH chair. The acting chair's account is deposition testimony as recited by the court."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"were terminated on that basis and that basis alone.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Of the 1,163 grant proposals DOGE analyzed via ChatGPT for DEI-related content, 1,057 were flagged, and just 42 were kept","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The opinion states that 1,057 grants were identified as DEI-related through the DOGE review process and terminated on that basis alone.","causal_attribution":"The opinion attributes the identification to a process that combined keyword searches and ChatGPT rationales. The opinion says ChatGPT rationales were generated in a second-stage review of grants NEH staff had labelled \"N/A\" and were merged with NEH ratings. It does not apportion the 1,057 between NEH ratings and ChatGPT. Fortune attributes all 1,057 flags to ChatGPT from a spreadsheet exhibit."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Yes. This description highlights how the plastics industry influenced municipal government officials to favor plastics","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Nevertheless, ChatGPT classified the project as “DEI,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The utter lack of reasoning behind so many of its “rationales”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court describes ChatGPT classifying projects as DEI on the basis of short descriptions, including a project on the plastics industry and municipal building codes, with rationales the court found lacking.","causal_attribution":"The court characterises the outputs. Whether each terminated grant was flagged by ChatGPT is not stated for the individual plaintiffs."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The individual plaintiffs are scholars and writers who received NEH grants for specific research and writing projects and whose awards were terminated before the completion of their funded work.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"allege concrete professional, financial, and scholarly harms","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"That funding was terminated effective April 2, 2025, resulting in the loss of the fellowship itself.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"individual grantees whose awards were terminated suffered a concrete economic injury sufficient to confer Article III standing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Seven individual grantees whose NEH awards were terminated before completion allege professional, financial and scholarly harm, including lost funding, and in one case loss of a fellowship that depended on NEH funding.","causal_attribution":"The harms are the plaintiffs' allegations as summarised by the court, and the standing holding is recited from the court's earlier preliminary injunction opinion. The link between ChatGPT and the termination of these seven specific awards is not stated in the inspected passages."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"DOGE officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select, or direct the termination of NEH grants","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court declared that DOGE officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select or direct the termination of NEH grants.","causal_attribution":"A legal declaration in the judgment."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Yes. Improving HVAC systems enhances preservation conditions for collections, aligning with the goal of providing greater access to diverse audiences. #DEI,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"We were able to recoup about 70% of the original award through the grant termination clause,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A North Carolina history museum's $349,000 HVAC grant was flagged by ChatGPT as DEI and terminated after the project had begun, and the museum director says it recouped about 70% of the award through the termination clause.","causal_attribution":"Organisation-level example from one outlet and one interview. It is not counted as harm to a person."}],"effects":[{"label":"Individual grantees lost or had interrupted NEH funding when their awards were terminated in a mass termination that relied on a ChatGPT DEI screen","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/NEH.sj_.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"sdny-opinion-2026-05"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/research/2026/03/11/how-doge-gutted-neh-22-days","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://fortune.com/2026/03/19/doge-cancelled-350000-hvac-grant-dei-lawsuit-elon-musk/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.artforum.com/news/doge-allegedly-used-chatgpt-to-cancel-humanities-grants-1234745040/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","education","public_services"],"unknowns":["Whether ChatGPT reviewed or flagged the specific grants of the seven individual plaintiffs is not stated in the passages inspected.","The dates on which ChatGPT was used are not stated beyond the second stage of review beginning on 12 March 2025 and terminations sent 1 to 3 April 2025. The incident dates are the bounded series between those points.","The number of individual people (as opposed to organizations) whose awards were terminated is not stated.","The opinion separates grants marked \"DEI\" from grants terminated without a DEI mark (its Biden-Era Subclass). It does not say which group any of the seven individual plaintiffs' grants belonged to.","Whether funding has been restored is unknown. The judgment states it does not require immediate payment.","Appeal status of the May 2026 judgment is unknown.","The New York Times article listed in the AIID entry returned HTTP 403 and was not read. The opinion is 143 pages and was read through its factual sections, the standing recital and the judgment, not every legal section."],"geography":{"basis":"The opinion describes terminations by the US federal agency NEH and by DOGE staff of grants to scholars, writers and institutions, and describes the individual plaintiffs as holding positions at US universities. The court is a US federal district court (S.D.N.Y.).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"A federal court opinion (7 May 2026), Inside Higher Ed and Fortune were read. Claims about the court record are documented by the opinion. Individual grantee harms are the plaintiffs' allegations as summarised by the court. Individual plaintiffs and DOGE staff are not named in public fields.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The federal court opinion finds that a DOGE staff member submitted grant descriptions to ChatGPT with a DEI yes/no prompt and that the outputs were folded into the lists used to select grants for termination. The opinion does not state whether each of the seven individual plaintiffs' grants was reviewed or flagged by ChatGPT.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: National Endowment for the Humanities grants terminated after DOGE staff used ChatGPT to flag projects as DEI-related","summary":"In March and early April 2025 (the opinion gives no date for the ChatGPT step), a DOGE staff member working with the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) submitted short grant descriptions to ChatGPT with a prompt asking whether each project related at all to DEI, and the answers were combined with NEH staff ratings into lists of grants to terminate. More than 1,400 NEH grants (over $100 million) were terminated in notices sent 1 to 3 April 2025. A federal district court found the mass termination unlawful in May 2026 and described the ChatGPT step in its findings. Seven individual grantees who sued report lost or interrupted funding for their research and writing projects. The opinion does not state whether ChatGPT reviewed those seven grants.","incidentDate":"2025-03-12","incidentEndDate":"2025-04-03","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-08","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used through a standardized DEI yes/no prompt","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court opinion describes seven individual grantee plaintiffs whose NEH awards were terminated before completion, and reports their allegations of lost funding, interrupted research and leave from employment taken in reliance on the awards. Individual counts beyond these seven are not established in the inspected sources.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"unclear","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":7,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"The court opinion names seven individual grantee plaintiffs whose awards were terminated. It states the terminations reached more than 1,400 grants awarded to scholars, writers, research institutions and other humanities organizations, and does not give a count of individual people. The opinion does not state whether these seven grants were flagged by ChatGPT. Organizations, members of plaintiff associations and the wider class are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/NEH.sj_.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"S.D.N.Y. opinion and order granting summary judgment, 7 May 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:29.039734+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.404135+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-krafton-unknown-worlds-executives-terminated-after-chatgpt-takeover-strategy","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton breached the EPA by terminating the Key Employees without valid Cause and by improperly seizing operational control of Unknown Worlds.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Date Decided: March 16, 2026","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Krafton agreed the studio would remain independent and that its leadership would retain operational control and could only be fired for cause, according to the ruling","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 16 March 2026 the Delaware Court of Chancery entered judgment that Krafton breached the acquisition agreement by terminating the three Key Employees without valid Cause and by improperly seizing operational control of the studio.","causal_attribution":"Phase One judgment on the contract claims. The court reserves damages for a second phase and does not decide whether the earnout was wrongfully impaired."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"a “dismissal with cause” would not eliminate the earnout obligation","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"turned to ChatGPT for help.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Now, chatgpt starts to answer that it is difficult to cancel the earn-out.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"When the AI chatbot responded that the earnout would be “difficult to cancel,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that after the Head of Corporate Development at Krafton warned the CEO that a dismissal with cause would not eliminate the earnout obligation, the CEO turned to ChatGPT, and that the CEO told the Head of Corporate Development in a Slack message that ChatGPT answered the earnout would be difficult to cancel.","causal_attribution":"Findings of fact drawn from Slack messages and trial testimony. The chat itself was deleted."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"The AI chatbot prepared a “Response Strategy to a ‘No-Deal’ Scenario,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Lock down Steam/console publishing rights and access rights over code/build pipeline","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Preemptive Framing - Repeat that protecting quality and fan trust is the highest priority","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Systematic materials for legal defense - Prepare contract interpretation memorandums, log all communications","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Team retention - Operation of retention packages for key personnel and rapid backfill pipelines","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Over the next month, Krafton followed most of ChatGPT’s recommendations.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Over the next month, Krafton followed most of ChatGPT’s recommendations,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court found that ChatGPT prepared a \"Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario\" recommending, among other steps, preemptive public framing, locking down publishing rights and access to the build pipeline, legal defense materials and team retention, and that Krafton followed most of these recommendations over the next month.","causal_attribution":"The opinion lists the strategy items and the steps Krafton took. The listed strategy does not include dismissing the executives. The dismissal decision is Krafton's."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton locked down Steam publishing rights to ensure Unknown Worlds could not publish Subnautica 2.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This severed Unknown Worlds’ practical ability to launch Subnautica 2.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On June 12, Krafton posted a message on the Unknown Worlds and Subnautica websites.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the Unknown Worlds team were shocked, since they had “nothing to do with” the message","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On July 1, 2025, Krafton sent termination letters to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The letters identified a single ground for dismissal","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that Krafton locked Unknown Worlds out of its Steam publishing rights, which the court found severed the studio's practical ability to launch its game, posted a message on the studio websites without the studio's involvement, and on 1 July 2025 sent termination letters citing a single ground.","causal_attribution":"Court findings of fact. The opinion links the lockdown to ChatGPT's recommendation and does not state that ChatGPT recommended the July terminations."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton’s newly manufactured justifications for the terminations are pretextual.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"had secretly entered semi-retirement and that all three leaders had executed massive downloads of company data","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found Krafton's later justifications for the terminations (semi-retirement of two founders and data downloads) were pretextual.","causal_attribution":"Judicial finding after an expedited trial. Krafton's arguments are its litigation positions."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"is hereby reinstated as CEO of Unknown Worlds","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"authority over the early access launch of Subnautica 2","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the base earnout Testing Period is equitably extended by 258 days","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court reinstated the CEO of Unknown Worlds, enjoined Krafton from impeding the studio CEO's authority over the game's early access launch, and extended the base earnout Testing Period by 258 days.","causal_attribution":"Specific performance remedy. The court declined to return the two founders to their earlier roles."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"had deleted specific, relevant ChatGPT logs.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This particular chat was deleted.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The CEO admitted at trial to deleting relevant ChatGPT logs, including the particular chat in which the earnout question was put to the chatbot.","causal_attribution":"A limit on the record. It bears on what the chatbot said, not on the court's findings about the terminations."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"formed an internal task force, dubbed “Project X.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The task force’s mandate was to either negotiate a “deal” on the earnout or execute a “Take Over” of Unknown Worlds.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"formed an internal taskforce, dubbed Project X.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The task force’s mandate was to either negotiate a ‘deal’ on the earnout or execute a ‘takeover’ of Unknown Worlds,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The court found that, at ChatGPT's suggestion, the Krafton CEO formed an internal task force, Project X, whose mandate was either to negotiate a deal on the earnout or to execute a takeover of Unknown Worlds.","causal_attribution":"Finding of fact in the opinion, relayed by the Guardian and IGN. The task force's mandate is Krafton's; the opinion attributes only the suggestion to form it to ChatGPT."},{"id":"c9","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"began to explore options, including firing the Key Employees.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that the Krafton CEO had begun exploring options, including firing the Key Employees, before the 2 June 2025 warning and the ChatGPT consultation that followed it.","causal_attribution":"Contrary evidence on causation: the idea of dismissal preceded the chatbot consultation."},{"id":"c10","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"It also suggested a “key summary of responses” Krafton could deliver to the Key Employees:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Krafton’s seizure of Steam and other systems forced","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"to the negotiating table, and they began to discuss a solution.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"It might actually be easier to just do a takeover.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"responded: “Set a date.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that ChatGPT's strategy also suggested a key summary of responses Krafton could deliver to the Key Employees, that Krafton's seizure of Steam and other systems forced the studio's CEO to the negotiating table, and that when negotiations stalled Krafton's Head of Strategy wrote on 27 June 2025 that it might be easier to just do a takeover, to which the Krafton CEO replied to set a date.","causal_attribution":"Findings of fact from Slack messages and trial testimony. They connect the ChatGPT-recommended lockdown to the negotiations and the takeover decision; the takeover decision itself is the Krafton executives'."},{"id":"c11","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"have reached a mutual settlement and agreed to dismiss all pending legal proceedings,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Krafton said in a regulatory filing Wednesday that the company and the lead developers behind the globally popular Subnautica video game franchise decided to drop their court fight over controversial earn out bonuses.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"officially settled the dispute and decided to withdraw all pending lawsuits as of Tuesday, the filing read.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Krafton said in a statement to IGN that Krafton, Unknown Worlds and the three executives had reached a mutual settlement and agreed to dismiss all pending legal proceedings, and Yonhap, via The Korea Times, reported a Krafton regulatory filing on Wednesday 1 July 2026 saying the dispute was settled and all pending lawsuits withdrawn as of Tuesday 30 June 2026.","causal_attribution":"Both outlets relay Krafton's own announcement (a statement to IGN and a regulatory filing), one origin. The settlement terms beyond dismissal are not published by Krafton."},{"id":"c12","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"had stepped down, leaving the company to look for a new boss.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"The entire staff of Subnautica 2 developer Unknown Worlds will get their bonuses after parent company Krafton reached a settlement with studio leadership.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"IGN, citing Bloomberg, reported that the studio's CEO stepped down as part of the settlement and that the studio's entire staff would receive their bonuses.","causal_attribution":"Second-hand report (IGN relaying Bloomberg); Krafton's statement does not confirm these terms."},{"id":"c13","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton said in a statement that it disagreed with the ruling and was evaluating its options and remained focused on delivering the best possible game for fans.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Krafton said in a statement after the ruling that it disagreed with the ruling and was evaluating its options.","causal_attribution":"Krafton's litigation position as reported by the Guardian."}],"effects":[{"label":"Three studio executives terminated without valid Cause and removed from operational control during a takeover campaign that followed a CEO's ChatGPT strategy","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=392880","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"delaware-chancery-opinion-2026-03"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/18/subnautica-2-publisher-krafton-ceo-reinstated-ai-chatgpt-failed-bid-avoid-paying-bonus","kind":"journalistic","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"delaware-chancery-opinion-2026-03"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.ign.com/articles/subnautica-2-developers-entire-staff-get-their-bonuses-after-krafton-agrees-to-settlement-but-ceo-steps-down","kind":"journalistic","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"krafton-settlement-announcement-2026-07"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/business/companies/20260701/krafton-unknown-worlds-settle-legal-dispute-over-bonuses","kind":"journalistic","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"krafton-settlement-announcement-2026-07"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["The date of the CEO's first ChatGPT use is not given beyond the sequence in the opinion (a legal warning on 2 June 2025 followed by the ChatGPT consultation). The incident date is the month.","The content of the deleted ChatGPT chat is unknown.","Whether ChatGPT recommended or was asked about terminating the executives is not stated in the opinion; the opinion records that the Krafton CEO had explored firing them before consulting it.","Phase Two (damages and earnout impairment) was never decided: the parties settled in July 2026, and the settlement terms beyond dismissal of all proceedings are known only from IGN's account of a Bloomberg report.","Whether Krafton appealed the March 2026 opinion before the settlement is not stated in the inspected sources.","Where the executives lived and worked is not stated in the inspected passages; the Korea Times describes the studio as a U.S. game studio and the opinion as a California corporation, which does not locate the lockout or the terminations.","The end of the harmful series is not a single date: termination letters were sent on 1 July 2025 effective 31 July, and the court counted the studio CEO's ouster as lasting until 16 March 2026."],"geography":{"basis":"The opinion is from the Delaware Court of Chancery (court country US). It describes Krafton as a South Korean company and the studio as a California corporation, and the Korea Times calls the studio a U.S. game studio; none of the inspected sources states where the executives were when locked out and terminated, so event and affected-person countries are left unknown rather than inferred from incorporation or headquarters.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"The full Delaware Court of Chancery opinion was read for the ChatGPT passages, the termination chronology, the holding and the remedy; the Guardian's report of the ruling and the IGN and Korea Times/Yonhap reports of the July 2026 settlement were read in full. Claims drawn from the opinion are court findings and are documented; Krafton's statements and the settlement terms are reported and attributed. The AI output (the chatbot's strategy and task-force suggestion), Krafton's use of it (the Steam lockdown as ChatGPT recommended) and the consequence for the three executives (loss of operational control and termination found to be without valid Cause) are cited separately. The affected executives are described by role.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-10"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Output: the court opinion finds that Krafton's CEO consulted ChatGPT after being warned that a dismissal with cause would not eliminate the earnout, that the chatbot answered the earnout would be difficult to cancel, that at ChatGPT's suggestion the CEO formed the Project X task force whose mandate was a deal or a takeover of the studio, and that ChatGPT prepared a \"Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario\" recommending, among other steps, locking down Steam and console publishing rights and build-pipeline access and a key summary of responses to deliver to the Key Employees. Use: the court finds that over the next month Krafton followed most of ChatGPT's recommendations and that, as ChatGPT recommended, it locked down the studio's Steam publishing rights. Consequence: the court finds the lockdown severed the studio's practical ability to launch its game and forced its CEO to the negotiating table, that the takeover and the 1 July 2025 terminations followed when negotiations stalled, and holds that Krafton breached the agreement by improperly seizing operational control from the Key Employees and terminating them without valid Cause. Limits: the strategy the opinion quotes does not list dismissing the executives, the CEO had explored firing them before consulting ChatGPT, and the first chat log was deleted, so the chatbot's first replies are known only through Slack messages.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Delaware court finds Krafton fired three Unknown Worlds executives without valid cause in a takeover that followed its CEO's ChatGPT strategy","summary":"A Delaware Court of Chancery opinion of 16 March 2026 finds that in June 2025 the CEO of Krafton, after being warned that a dismissal with cause would not eliminate a contingent earnout obligation, consulted ChatGPT. The chatbot answered that the earnout would be difficult to cancel, suggested an internal task force (Project X) whose mandate was to negotiate a deal or execute a takeover of the studio, and prepared a \"Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario\" that recommended locking down the studio's Steam and console publishing rights and build-pipeline access. The court found that Krafton followed most of these recommendations over the next month: it locked the studio out of its Steam publishing rights, which severed the studio's practical ability to launch its game and forced the studio's CEO to the negotiating table, posted a message on the studio's websites, and on 1 July 2025 sent termination letters to the studio's two founders and its CEO. The court held that Krafton breached the acquisition agreement by terminating the three executives without valid Cause and by improperly seizing operational control, reinstated the studio's CEO and extended the earnout period by 258 days. The opinion records that the Krafton CEO had begun exploring options including firing the executives before consulting ChatGPT, and does not find that ChatGPT recommended the terminations. Krafton said it disagreed with the ruling. On 1 July 2026 Krafton announced a mutual settlement with the studio and the three executives dismissing all pending proceedings; IGN, citing Bloomberg, reported that the studio's CEO stepped down as part of it.","incidentDate":"2025-06-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-16","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court found three studio executives were terminated without valid Cause and had operational control taken from them in a campaign that followed most of a ChatGPT-prepared strategy; one was reinstated by court order in March 2026 and the dispute was settled in July 2026.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"unclear","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The opinion finds three Key Employees (two founders and the CEO) were terminated without valid Cause. Former shareholders represented by the plaintiff, studio staff and players are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"assistant","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=392880","primarySourceLabel":"Delaware Court of Chancery opinion, Fortis Advisors v. Krafton, C.A. No. 2025-0805-LWW, 16 March 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:25.863533+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T03:20:34.158615+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025","informed-decision"]},{"id":"2025-ar-esquel-criminal-judgment-annulled-judge-generative-ai-draft","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"decidió el miércoles anular de oficio una sentencia dictada el 4 de junio pasado","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"anular de oficio una sentencia porque el juez la delegó en un ChatGPT","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"La sentencia anulada había condenado al imputado a dos años y seis meses de prisión efectiva por robo simple","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 4 June 2025 a criminal judge in Esquel convicted a defendant of simple robbery and sentenced the defendant to two years and six months of effective imprisonment, and the Penal Chamber of Esquel later annulled that judgment.","causal_attribution":"Sources give the annulment as the chamber's response to the judge's AI use."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Aquí tienes el punto IV reeditado, sin citas y listo para copiar y pegar","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"el magistrado utilizó la IA generativa, ni más ni menos, que en un aspecto central de la resolución en crisis como es la resolución de las nulidades de dos pruebas esenciales en el proceso","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"el juez de primera instancia incluyó accidentalmente una frase que revela el uso de un asistente de Inteligencia Artificial (IA) generativa","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The judgment contained the phrase “Aquí tienes el punto IV reeditado, sin citas y listo para copiar y pegar”, which the chamber took to show generative-AI use, including on the rulings on the nullity of two essential pieces of evidence.","causal_attribution":"The chamber's finding, as quoted in the press, connects the phrase to AI use. The full ruling text was not read."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"anular tanto la sentencia como el juicio que la precedió","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"declaración de nulidad de la sentencia y del juicio que la precede, con todo lo que ello significa para los justiciables","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"ordenando que el proceso se realice nuevamente con la intervención de otro magistrado","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"el tribunal ordenó reenviar el caso a otro juez penal, prohibiendo al Ministerio Público Fiscal exhibir en el nuevo juicio los videos omitidos en el anterior","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A raíz de esto deberá realizarse nuevamente el juicio, con otro juez","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The chamber annulled the judgment and the preceding trial and ordered a new trial before another judge, and barred the prosecution from showing at the new trial the videos omitted at the first.","causal_attribution":"The annulment is attributed by the chamber to the judge's undisclosed and unsupervised AI use, which the chamber said prevented control of the judge's reasoning."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"remitir las actuaciones al Superior Tribunal de Justicia de Chubut (STJ), que deberá investigar el alcance ético y disciplinario de la conducta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"pudo haber incumplido los recaudos de confidencialidad exigidos por el Acuerdo Plenario N° 5435 del STJ, al incluir nombres de las partes, testigos y peritos en el texto procesado por el asistente","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The chamber referred the matter to the Chubut Superior Court of Justice to investigate the judge's conduct and said the judge may have breached that court's confidentiality rules by including the names of parties, witnesses and experts in the text processed by the assistant.","causal_attribution":"The confidentiality point is the chamber's stated possibility and was not established as fact."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"presumiblemente ChatGPT","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"el juez la delegó en un ChatGPT","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Press coverage identifies the assistant as ChatGPT (La Nación as presumed, Perfil without qualification).","causal_attribution":"The ruling as quoted refers to a generative-AI assistant. The product name comes from the press."}],"effects":[{"label":"Conviction and trial annulled and retrial ordered; the chamber cites serious consequences for the parties","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/el-juez-de-esquel-que-uso-chat-para-redactar-una-sentencia-sera-investigado-nid17102025/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Full body read in the original Spanish (17 October 2025) by the reviewing agent without a human translator. Reports the appellate ruling; whether the journalist saw the ruling text is not stated.","independence_group":"esquel-camara-ruling"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://documento.errepar.com/actualidad/justicia-anulada-se-invalida-un-fallo-por-el-uso-indebido-de-la-ia-20251016143159365","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Article body is embedded in the page data and was decoded into bodies/gh-4-body.txt (16 October 2025). Read in Spanish without a human translator. It quotes the ruling. The linked full text of the ruling (documento.errepar.com/jurisprudencia/...) is gated and was not read.","independence_group":"esquel-camara-ruling"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.perfil.com/noticias/nea/inteligencia-artificial-anulan-sentencia-porque-un-juez-uso-un-chatgpt-y-una-frase-lo-delato.phtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Full body read in Spanish (17 October 2025) without a human translator. It relays a statement of the Ministerio Publico Fiscal of Chubut and quotes the ruling.","independence_group":"esquel-camara-ruling"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The full text of the ruling was not read (the Errepar copy is gated), so all findings are as reported by three outlets that share the same underlying ruling.","The share of the judgment written by the assistant is unknown. The chamber said the pasted text leaves a gap too wide to tell.","The specific AI product is not established. No chat log was seen.","The annulment date of 15 October 2025 is derived from La Nación's 'el miércoles' (article of 17 October 2025) and the metadata of a gated Errepar ruling page; no cited article states the date.","The outcome of the Superior Court review and the date of the new trial are not reported in the sources read.","The defendant's own view of the annulment and any effect of the delay on the defendant or on other parties to the case is not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"The court is the Penal Chamber of Esquel in Chubut province, and La Nación calls the ground for the annulment unprecedented in Argentine justice. The defendant's residence and where the judge used the assistant are not stated.","court_countries":["AR"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Three Spanish-language outlets report the same appellate ruling, which annulled a criminal judgment and trial after a pasted assistant phrase exposed undisclosed generative-AI use. The chamber's stated consequences for the parties (annulment and a repeated trial) are reported, and the effect on the defendant is not. The outlets share one reporting chain, so claims are attributed.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The appellate chamber, as quoted by three outlets, found a pasted chat phrase in the ruling and concluded that a generative-AI assistant was used. The chamber described delegation of the decision as probable. The product name ChatGPT is stated by one outlet as presumed and by another without qualification.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Argentina: appellate chamber annuls a robbery judgment and trial after the trial judge left a generative-AI chat phrase in the ruling","summary":"On 4 June 2025 a criminal judge in Esquel, Chubut province, convicted a defendant of simple robbery and imposed two years and six months of effective imprisonment. On 15 October 2025 the Penal Chamber of Esquel annulled the judgment and the trial, ordering a new trial before another judge. The chamber found that the ruling contained a pasted phrase from a generative-AI assistant (“Aquí tienes el punto IV reeditado, sin citas y listo para copiar y pegar”), that the AI had been used on the rulings on the nullity of two essential pieces of evidence, and that the judge had not exercised human supervision or recorded the use. Perfil's headline describes the assistant as ChatGPT and La Nación's text as presumably ChatGPT; the quoted ruling and the prosecution office statement refer only to a generative-AI assistant. The chamber referred the judge's conduct to the Chubut Superior Court of Justice for ethical and disciplinary review.","incidentDate":"2025-06-04","incidentEndDate":"2025-10-15","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-10-16","aiSystem":"Generative AI assistant (reported as ChatGPT)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Per press reports of the appellate ruling, the trial and conviction were annulled because of the judge's undisclosed generative-AI use and the case must be tried again before another judge. The chamber described serious consequences of this for the parties, the public and the State. The effect on the defendant is not reported and the annulment may favour the defendant.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"unquantified","affectedCountEvidence":"The chamber refers to serious consequences of the annulment for 'los justiciables' (the parties to the proceeding), the public and the State without a count. No inspected source reports harm to the defendant specifically, and annulment of a conviction may be favourable to the defendant.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/el-juez-de-esquel-que-uso-chat-para-redactar-una-sentencia-sera-investigado-nid17102025/","primarySourceLabel":"La Nación, 'El juez de Esquel que usó Chat para redactar una sentencia será investigado', 17 October 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T12:42:03.091102+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:55.894793+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-lacey-insurance-discovery-relief-denied-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 8 para 20: 'I have struck, and decline to'; 'consider, any of the supplemental briefs'; 'I decline to award any of the discovery relief'; p. 7 para 17: 'The initial, undisclosed use of AI products to'; 'generate the first draft of the brief was flat-out wrong.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought because her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research.","causal_attribution":"The order itself connects the struck briefs and denial of relief to counsel's undisclosed AI use, failure to cite-check and re-submission of the defective brief (paras 17-20)."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 2 para 5: 'approximately nine of the 27 legal'; 'citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect in some way. At least two of the'; 'authorities cited do not exist at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order records that about nine of the 27 citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect and that at least two cited authorities do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The special master's own after-the-fact review, as recorded in the order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 10 para 24: 'clearly not at fault for the AI debacle'; 'She will not, however, be financially'; para 25: 'I decline to order any sanction'; conclusion: 'aggregate amount of $31,100.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order makes the two firms jointly and severally pay $31,100 in aggregate, states the client was not at fault and will not be financially responsible for the awards, and declines any sanction against individual lawyers.","causal_attribution":"Allocation of financial responsibility is directly recorded in the order."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, declaration p. 46 para 3: 'generative AI capabilities found in CoCounsel and Westlaw Precision and'; p. 47 para 4: 'It is unclear to me whether'; 'research tools I utilized returned some erroneous information.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied in part on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he cannot tell whether particular errors arose from his transcription or from a tool.","causal_attribution":"The declarant's own statement; the order does not determine which tool produced each error."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, joint response section II p. 76: 'None of the K&L Gates attorneys who worked on the subject brief used any'; order p. 3 para 7: 'the attorneys at K&L Gates didn’t'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The second firm states that none of its lawyers who worked on the brief used or had access to AI tools or knew that AI had been used until the special master's inquiries.","causal_attribution":"The firm's own submission; the order records that the special master had no reason to doubt the sworn statements."}],"effects":[{"label":"Loss of requested discovery relief after the claimant's briefs were struck","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English; read on 2026-10-09 from the retained PDF text of the 77-page filing: order pp. 2-10, appendix inventory p. 11, originating lawyer's declaration pp. 46-47 and the firms' joint response section II p. 76. PDF page 1 yielded no text. Not every appended exhibit was read.","independence_group":"lacey-ecf119"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which tool, if any, produced each erroneous citation or quotation; the declarant says he cannot distinguish his transcription errors from tool output.","Whether the requested discovery relief would have been granted had the briefs been accurate.","The later course of the insurance action and where the AI-assisted drafting took place.","Paragraph 1 of the order (PDF page 1) was not inspected because the page yielded no extractable text."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was issued by a special master in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The record does not state where the AI-assisted drafting took place or where the claimant lives, so event and affected-person countries are left unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"A filed court order directly establishes that the claimant's briefs were struck and her discovery relief denied because of AI-generated false citations in her lawyers' filings, with the monetary award placed on the firms. The tool identities are attributed to the declarant and kept as reported.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The filed order records that a lawyer used AI tools to generate the research outline for the claimant's brief and that the resulting brief contained false citations and quotations (about nine of 27 wrong, at least two non-existent). The special master read those authorities, found they did not exist, and on that basis struck the briefs and denied the discovery relief, writing that the use of AI affirmatively misled him. The declarant names CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini but cannot say which tool produced each error, so the per-tool contribution is unestablished.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Insurance claimant loses discovery relief after her lawyers file AI-generated false citations; special master's order sanctions the two firms $31,100","summary":"In an order dated 5 May 2025 and filed on 6 May in Lacey v. State Farm (C.D. Cal.), a special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research: about nine of 27 citations were wrong and at least two cited authorities did not exist. One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he could not tell whether particular errors came from his transcription or from a tool; co-counsel at the second firm say they used no AI tools and did not know AI had been used. The order makes the two firms jointly pay $31,100, states the client was not at fault and will not bear the awards, and imposes no penalty on individual lawyers.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-05","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-05-06","aiSystem":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, named in one lawyer's sworn declaration as the generative AI tools used for the research outline; the order itself refers to 'various AI tools' and does not establish which tool produced each error","aiProduct":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Gemini (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated citations; the $31,100 award falls on the firms, not on her.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One claimant whose briefs were struck and whose discovery relief was denied (order paras 20 and 24). She did not use the AI tools herself, so participant users is 0. The lawyers and firms bear the monetary award but are not counted as harmed persons.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Co., C.D. Cal. 2:24-cv-05205, ECF 119: special master's sanctions order dated 5 May 2025, filed 6 May 2025 (with appendix)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:29:01.113121+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:12:38.363121+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025","ai-citations","court-sanction","legal-research","consequential-response"]},{"id":"2025-stephens-county-oklahoma-judge-chatgpt-fake-citations-paternity-order","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Wheeler denied a request from one of the parents' attorneys to have the other parent undergo a psychological test—and in his order denying the request, he pointed to multiple previous Oklahoma cases he said backed him up.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The 2025 order in a child paternity case'; 'He came under scrutiny after he reprimanded attorney [the attorney] last November in an order in the paternity case for asking for a psychological evaluation of the child’s father.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The issue came to light after a request for a mental evaluation was denied and a subsequent court order was filed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In November 2025, in a child paternity and custody case, Judge Wheeler issued an order denying a request by one parent's attorney for a psychological evaluation of the other parent, citing Oklahoma cases he said supported the decision.","causal_attribution":"Court history as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR and described by the mother; the order itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge told the OSBI he only used ChatGPT for research and created the order himself, DA Jason Hicks wrote. The judge, however, also “indicated that at least two of the case citations included in his order and produced by ChatGPT do not exist.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Stephens County District Attorney Jason Hicks says Wheeler admitted to OSBI agents he cited \"at least two\" cases ChatGPT fed him that \"do not exist.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Hicks wrote that Wheeler acknowledged using case citations generated by ChatGPT and that at least two citations included in the order did not exist.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler used OpenAI's ChatGPT for research while drafting the order, which cited two cases that do not exist, according to state records.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"According to the district attorney's 17 August 2026 letter, the judge told the OSBI that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and indicated that at least two case citations in the order, produced by ChatGPT, do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The judge's own statement to investigators as relayed in the district attorney's letter; all four reports rely on that letter, which was not read. The judge's attorney declined to comment."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge issued the reprimand “for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics” and cautioned that future similar filings may be subject to further sanctions.'; '[The attorney] challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February. He told justices that Wheeler based his order on two cases, Cummings v. Cimarron Elevator Co. and Hawkins v. Linhart, that do not exist.'; '[The attorney] dismissed his challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. Wheeler is no longer involved in the paternity case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'She said her attorney at the time challenged the ruling and began reviewing the legal authorities cited in the order.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The order reprimanded the attorney who had asked for a psychological evaluation of the child's father 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics' and warned of further sanctions; that attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, saying it relied on two nonexistent cases, and dismissed the challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. The mother told News 9 that her attorney at the time challenged the ruling.","causal_attribution":"The Oklahoman's account of the court filings and the mother's account to News 9; the Supreme Court filings were not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'[The mother] said learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child.'; '“Then it became very concerning to me that somebody would do something like that over a child custody case,” she said.'; '“He then turned around and decided to recuse himself from my case,” she said. “He called my attorney that I had at the time and apologized to him.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The mother told News 9 that learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child, and that the judge later recused himself from her case and apologised to her attorney.","causal_attribution":"The mother's first-person account in a broadcast interview."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints.'; 'The OSBI also looked into allegations “that Judge Wheeler offered to amend the order in exchange for a dismissal of a writ seeking relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court” and that he “eavesdropped on jury deliberations,” the DA disclosed in the letter.'; 'Prosecutors in the AG’s office “thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution,” the AG’s press secretary, Leslie Berger, said on Sept. 2.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The Criminal Justice Division of the Attorney General’s Office thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary possess ultimate jurisdiction over disciplinary actions for allegations of inappropriate behavior by judges regardless of whether the behavior constitutes a violation of a criminal statute.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Council on Judicial Complaints, including allegations that he offered to amend the order in exchange for dismissal of the writ and that he eavesdropped on jury deliberations; the attorney general's office said the evidence did not support criminal prosecution and that judicial discipline rests with the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary.","causal_attribution":"District attorney's letter and attorney general's statement as reported; no disciplinary finding has been made."}],"effects":[{"label":"the mother faced an order denying a psychological-evaluation request, with the judge citing authorities reported to have been generated by ChatGPT","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the attorney who requested the evaluation was reprimanded in the order and sought relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court before the order was vacated","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the mother describes learning of the fabricated citations in her child custody case as alarming","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Oklahoman's report (USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect) as republished by Minnesota Lawyer; read in full from the Wayback capture of 10 September 2026 because the live page returned 403. Its ChatGPT-admission passages relay the district attorney's letter; its account of the reprimand, the Supreme Court challenge and the vacatur draws on court filings and the attorney. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/oklahoma-judge-admitted-citing-fake-030000000.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"KFOR (Oklahoma City) report syndicated on AOL, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its account of the ChatGPT admission relays the same district attorney letter. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.news9.com/oklahoma-city-news/stephens-county-mother-speaks-out-after-judge-accused-of-using-chatgpt-in-custody-case","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"News 9 (Griffin Media) interview with the mother, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its description of the ChatGPT admission also relays the district attorney's letter; the mother's own account is independent of it. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/09/stephens-county-judge-faces-discipline-over-chatgpt-written-court-order/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Hoodline rewrite of the Reuters report, read in full on 2026-09-29. Reuters relays the same district attorney letter. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["The text of the order and whether the nonexistent citations were decisive for denying the evaluation and for the reprimand.","Whether any disciplinary proceeding follows from the Council on Judicial Complaints referral.","The current state of the custody case after the vacatur and the judge's departure from it.","The exact day in November 2025 on which the order was issued."],"geography":{"basis":"The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9 locate the order and proceedings in Stephens County, Oklahoma, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court. These establish the event and court countries as US. News 9 calls the interviewee a Stephens County mother but gives no explicit residence evidence for either counted person, so affected_person_countries is unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"This reported event connects specific ChatGPT-generated citations to an adverse order issued by a human judge. The Oklahoman and KFOR describe their use in the order, The Oklahoman reports the attorney's reprimand and successful challenge, and News 9 carries the mother's account. The AI admission is reported through one district attorney's letter, not independently verified model output. The family and attorney remain unnamed. No broader custody consequence or disciplinary finding is inferred.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9 relay a district attorney's letter saying the judge acknowledged using ChatGPT for research and incorporating at least two nonexistent citations it produced into his order. The cited authorities were presented in support of the human judge's denial of a requested evaluation and his reprimand of the attorney. This supports informed_decision_about for the affected mother and attorney. It does not establish that ChatGPT itself decided custody or communicated with either of them. The underlying letter and order were not inspected, and whether the citations determined the outcome is unknown.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Prosecutor: judge used ChatGPT citations in Oklahoma custody order later vacated","summary":"In November 2025 Stephens County Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler issued an order in a child paternity and custody case that denied one parent's request for a psychological evaluation of the other parent and reprimanded the requesting parent's attorney 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics'. The attorney challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, telling the justices that it relied on two cases that do not exist; the challenge was dismissed in March after Wheeler vacated the order, and he is no longer on the case. According to a 17 August 2026 letter from the Stephens County district attorney, Wheeler told the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and that at least two citations in it produced by ChatGPT do not exist. The mother in the case told News 9 that learning the order's citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because it concerned the custody of a child. The attorney general's office declined criminal prosecution; judicial discipline remains possible.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-09","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used by the judge for legal research while preparing the order","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the district attorney's letter as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR, a judge acknowledged that his custody-case order contained at least two nonexistent citations supplied by ChatGPT. The order denied a request for a psychological evaluation and reprimanded the requesting attorney. The attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court before it was vacated. The mother described the discovery as alarming in a News 9 interview. The order and letter have not been inspected directly.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people affected through the judge's use of ChatGPT: the mother, whose request for a psychological evaluation was denied by the order and who describes the discovery as alarming (News 9), and the attorney who requested the evaluation and was reprimanded in the order and challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court (The Oklahoman). The child and the other parent are not counted because no harm to them is reported. The judge, the AI user, is not counted: he faces a possible disciplinary process but no sanction has been reported and the complaint bundled other allegations.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OK","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","primarySourceLabel":"The Oklahoman via Minnesota Lawyer, 9 September 2026: judge used ChatGPT citations in custody order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:18.787549+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:44.069668+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["justice","family-court","judge","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","institutional-use","oklahoma"]},{"id":"2026-surat-customs-penalty-ai-hallucinated-citations-supreme-court","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The present appeal arose out of an Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposing a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on the appellant under Section 114, Customs Act, 1962, for misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The challenge to the said penalty before the Gujarat High Court failed, as the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20 January 2026.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The penalty was imposed for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to attract a lower tariff.'; 'the High Court dismissed his challenge on January 20, 2026, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds, and the Gujarat High Court dismissed his challenge on 20 January 2026.","causal_attribution":"Facts of the proceedings as recited in the Supreme Court judgment, reported by legal outlets; the judgment itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Upon verifying such judgments and articles, it does appear that the second respondent has relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations. A further investigation has also revealed that some of the case laws relied upon by the second respondent, which do exist, do not lay down the ratio deduced therefrom and it appears to be a hallucination of AI,' the Court observed.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Upon verification, the court found that the second respondent had \"relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations.\" It further found that some case laws which did exist did not lay down the legal propositions attributed to them, and that this \"appears to be a hallucination of AI\".'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Legal reports quote the Supreme Court finding that the penalty order relied on nonexistent case law or fake citations, and on existing cases that did not support the attributed legal propositions, which it described as apparent AI hallucination.","causal_attribution":"Finding of the Supreme Court after its own verification of the cited material, as quoted by the reports. The court attributes the defects to AI in qualified terms ('appears to be'); the tool is not named."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The use of AI in this case, resulting in reliance placed by the second respondent on material which is dubious, proves fatal to the sustainability of the order imposing penalty on the appellant. Such circumstances compel us to interfere and remand the case,' the Court said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The proceedings were revived for fresh adjudication by an officer of the same rank other than the officer who had passed the original order.'; 'The Court left it to the wisdom of the appointing authority to initiate such action against the author of the Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 as may be warranted in the circumstances, in accordance with law.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, set aside a customs penalty of over ₹425 crore'; 'A bench of Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Sheel Nagu did not examine the merits of the customs case at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Верховний суд Індії 2 вересня 2026 року розглянув справу щодо використання штучного інтелекту працівником митниці, який послався на неіснуючі судові справи та фальшиві цитати, накладаючи штраф у розмірі близько $45 млн' (the Supreme Court of India on 2 September 2026 considered a case of a customs officer's use of AI, who cited non-existent cases and fake quotations while imposing a fine of about $45 million)","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Legal reports say that on 2 September 2026 the Supreme Court treated reliance on dubious AI material as fatal to the penalty order, set aside that order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, and revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank. The reports also say the court left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority.","causal_attribution":"Holding of the Supreme Court as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"a ₹425 crore customs penalty order resting on non-existent and misattributed case law that the Supreme Court found appeared to be AI hallucination stood against the trader for about eleven months and was upheld by the Gujarat High Court","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the trader had to take the case to the Supreme Court, which voided the order but revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full body (including JSON-LD article body) read by curl on 2026-09-29. Reports and quotes the Supreme Court judgment of 2 September 2026. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/09/03/supreme-court-sets-aside-%E2%82%B9425-crore-customs-penalty-over-ai-generated-fake-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"SCC Times case note, read by curl on 2026-09-29; summarises the same judgment (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1741). Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://upstox.com/news/personal-finance/tax/how-a-diamond-trader-got-relief-from-a-425-crore-penalty-after-customs-used-ai-generated-citations/article-199828/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Upstox (4 September 2026), read by curl on 2026-09-29; based on the same judgment. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://sud.ua/uk/news/abroad/371427-mytnyk-poviryv-shi-i-vypysav-shtraf-na-45-mln-verkhovnyi-sud-use-skasuvav","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"uk","translation_note":"Ukrainian-language report (6 September 2026) read through the r.jina.ai relay on 2026-09-29 (direct fetch 403); translated by the reviewer. Cited only for context; it converts the penalty to about US$45 million. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review. The Ukrainian article body was read with AI language assistance; it explicitly credits Supreme Court Observer and supplies context only.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","public_services","finance"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the customs officer used and how it was used in drafting the order.","Whether the trader paid any part of the penalty or incurred other financial consequences while the order stood, and the trader's litigation costs.","The outcome of the revived adjudication and whether any action was taken against the officer.","The trader's country and place of residence."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, challenged in the Gujarat High Court and decided by the Supreme Court of India. The trader's country of residence is not stated in the read reports, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Legal reporting describes a concrete penalty imposed on a trader through an administrative decision that used apparently AI-generated false authorities. The reported Supreme Court ruling connects reliance on that material to the decision to set the order aside. The trader is unnamed and the underlying customs allegation remains undecided. All cited accounts derive from the same judgment, whose text has not been inspected. No payment of the penalty or quantified financial loss is asserted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Bar & Bench, SCC Times and Upstox report that the Supreme Court verified the authorities used in the officer's penalty order, found nonexistent cases, false citations and misattributed propositions, and described them as apparent AI hallucination. The reports connect this material to the officer's order imposing the penalty, which the court set aside on that basis. This supports informed_decision_about: the human officer used the material in an adverse decision about the trader. The tool and how it was used remain unknown, and the judgment itself has not been inspected.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"India's Supreme Court overturns customs penalty citing apparent AI hallucinations","summary":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Surat imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 (about ₹425 crore) on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The trader's challenge was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on 20 January 2026. Before the Supreme Court the trader argued that judgments and articles cited in the penalty order had been generated using artificial intelligence. On 2 September 2026 a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, after checking the material, found that the order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on real cases that did not lay down the propositions attributed to them, which the court said 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'. Holding that the use of AI and reliance on this dubious material was fatal to the order, the court set aside both the penalty order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, sent the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority. The AI tool used is not named in the read reports.","incidentDate":"2025-10-08","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-02","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-02","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tool reportedly used in authorities cited in a customs penalty order; legal reports quote the Supreme Court describing nonexistent and misattributed case law as apparent AI hallucination","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A diamond trader was subjected for about eleven months to a ₹425 crore customs penalty order, and lost a High Court challenge to it, before India's Supreme Court voided the order because it relied on non-existent and misattributed case law that the court found appeared to be AI hallucination (Supreme Court judgment as reported by Bar & Bench, SCC Online and Upstox). The underlying proceedings were revived.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One trader, the appellant, on whom the penalty was imposed. The trader did not use the AI; the customs officer did. No other person is reported harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","primarySourceLabel":"Bar & Bench, 2 September 2026: Supreme Court scraps ₹425 crore penalty over fake citations, AI hallucinations in customs order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:08:50.773251+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:47.973979+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["india","surat","customs","supreme-court","hallucinated-citations","institutional-use","administrative-decision","penalty"]}]}