{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-15T07:02:40.177Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"court","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2024","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":6,"coverage":{"cases":6,"countries":1,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":6,"regulatory":0,"minors":1,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":3,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2024-beijing-court-rules-insurer-unlawfully-dismissed-legal-officer-over-ai-platform-upload","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'在某保险公司担任法务，负责合规稽查、风险核查等工作。2024年7月，为优化工作流程、提升PPT制作及数据分析效率'; '在公司领导推荐下，将自行整理加工后的公司稽核问题数据表，上传至第三方AI平台用于辅助办公'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'2024年7月，为优化工作流程、提升PPT制作及数据分析效率，她在公司领导推荐下，将自行整理加工后的公司稽核问题数据表上传至第三方AI平台辅助办公'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A legal officer at an insurance company, responsible for compliance audits and risk checks, uploaded a company audit-issues data table she had compiled and processed to a third-party AI platform in July 2024, to help make presentations and analyse data, on the recommendation of company leadership.","causal_attribution":"The court's account as relayed by two outlets that share it as their source."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'2024年8月，公司却突然向'; '出具《解除劳动合同告知书》'; '“严重违反规章制度”为由，单方解除了双方劳动关系'; '其将公司稽核类内部文件上传至第三方AI平台，平台会收集、留存用户数据用于模型迭代，存在信息泄露、被第三方窃取的重大风险'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'一个月后，公司向她出具《解除劳动合同告知书》，理由是'; '“严重违反规章制度”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In August 2024 the company served a notice terminating her labour contract for serious violation of its rules, arguing that as a compliance employee bound by a confidentiality agreement she had uploaded internal audit files to a platform that collects and retains user data for model iteration, creating a risk of leakage.","causal_attribution":"The company's stated reason for the dismissal, as recounted in the court's account; the dismissal responded to the employee's use of the AI platform."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'认为，自己没有泄密的主观故意，使用AI工具是为了提高工作效率，上传至AI的数据表已经过整理加工，并非公司核心保密信息，属于合规办公，此次操作也并未造成公司信息外泄或经济损失等现实后果'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The employee said she had no intent to disclose secrets, that the uploaded table had been processed and was not core confidential information, and that no leak or economic loss resulted.","causal_attribution":"The employee's position as recounted in the court's account."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'朝阳法院审理认为'; '不存在违反规章制度的主观故意'; '所有内部规章制度均未明确禁止员工使用第三方AI工具辅助办公'; '公司未针对AI工具使用开展任何专项培训'; '公司仅以AI平台存在数据留存的通用规则，推定存在泄密风险，不足以认定员工行为构成“严重违反规章制度”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'法院还指出，公司未能举证证明'; '上传的文件属于法定或制度界定的核心保密信息，也无法证实该行为造成了信息外泄、经济损失或声誉受损等实际后果'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Chaoyang District People's Court found that she had no intent to breach the rules, that none of the company's rules expressly prohibited third-party AI tools, that the company had given no training on them, and that the platform's general data-retention rules did not establish a serious violation.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning as relayed by the press; the judgment text was not inspected."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'依法判决撤销其向'; '作出的《解除劳动合同告知书》，双方继续履行劳动合同，同时判令保险公司向'; '支付因违法解约产生的年终奖差额、绩效工资、工资损失等。目前，该判决已经生效'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'一审认定保险公司单方解除行为违法，判决撤销解除告知书、双方继续履行劳动合同，并判令公司支付年终奖差额、绩效工资及工资损失，目前判决已生效'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'法院一审认定，公司单方解除行为违法，判决撤销解除通知、双方继续履行合同，并补发年终奖差额、绩效工资及工资损失。判决已生效'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The court ruled at first instance that the dismissal was unlawful, revoked the termination notice, ordered the labour contract to continue and ordered the insurer to pay the year-end bonus shortfall, performance pay and lost wages; the judgment has taken effect.","causal_attribution":"Reports of the judgment that all derive from the court's disclosure, so the claim stays reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"employee dismissed by her employer for uploading a work data table to a third-party AI platform","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"employee lost year-end bonus, performance pay and wages through the dismissal, which a court ordered the insurer to make good","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://xinwen.bjd.com.cn/content/s6acee3f7e4b0e42f8f0189ec.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese in full. Quotations and their English renderings in this record were translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed them. Beijing Daily's own report (reporter credited) of the Chaoyang court's account of the case.","independence_group":"chaoyang-court-account-oct-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://news.mydrivers.com/1/1157/1157186.htm","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese in full. Quotations and their English renderings in this record were translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed them. Kuai Keji relays the case from China National Radio (Voice of China); the court is the underlying source, so it shares an independence group with Beijing Daily.","independence_group":"chaoyang-court-account-oct-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.mrjjxw.com/articles/2026-10-14/4604034.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese in full. Quotations and their English renderings in this record were translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed them. A signed commentary in National Business Daily that summarises the court's disclosure of the case; it adds no independent reporting.","independence_group":"chaoyang-court-account-oct-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The name of the insurer and of the AI platform.","The date of the judgment and the amounts ordered.","Whether the employee returned to work after the ruling.","Whether the platform retained or used the uploaded table."],"geography":{"basis":"The ruling was given by the Chaoyang District People's Court in Beijing. No source states where the insurer or the employee was located, so the event and affected-person countries are left unrecorded rather than inferred from the court's seat.","court_countries":["CN"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as an employer's dismissal of a named-role employee for her own use of a third-party AI platform, followed by a court ruling, now effective, that the dismissal was unlawful. The facts are the court's account as reported by the press; the judgment itself was not read.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the employer's response to the employee's own use of AI. In the court's account relayed by Beijing Daily and Kuai Keji, she uploaded a compiled company audit data table to a third-party AI platform to help with presentations and data analysis, and the company's termination notice treated that upload, and the platform's retention of user data for model iteration, as a serious breach of its rules. No source says the AI platform produced any output about the employee or that any output reached the decision, so the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Beijing court rules an insurer unlawfully dismissed a legal officer for uploading an internal audit table to a third-party AI platform","summary":"A legal officer at an insurance company, responsible for compliance audits and risk checks, uploaded a company audit-issues data table that she had compiled and processed to a third-party AI platform in July 2024, to help make presentations and analyse data. According to the court's account, she did so on the recommendation of company leadership. In August 2024 the company served her a notice terminating her labour contract for serious violation of its rules, arguing that as a compliance employee bound by a confidentiality agreement she had exposed internal audit material to a platform that collects and retains user data for model iteration. The Chaoyang District People's Court in Beijing ruled at first instance that the dismissal was unlawful: the company's rules did not prohibit third-party AI tools, it had given no training on their use, and it had not shown that the table was core confidential information or that any leak or loss occurred. The court revoked the termination notice, ordered the contract to continue and ordered the company to pay the employee's year-end bonus shortfall, performance pay and lost wages. Kuai Keji, citing China National Radio, reported the ruling on 13 October 2026 and Beijing Daily on 14 October; both say the judgment has taken effect. No source names the insurer or the AI platform.","incidentDate":"2024-08-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-13","aiSystem":"A third-party AI platform, not named in any source, to which the employee uploaded a compiled company audit-issues data table to help make presentations and analyse data","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI presentation and data-analysis tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The employee lost her job in August 2024 over her upload of a work data table to a third-party AI platform; the Chaoyang court later ruled the dismissal unlawful and ordered the insurer to pay the year-end bonus shortfall, performance pay and wage losses arising from it (court's account as reported by Beijing Daily and Kuai Keji). Whether the sums have been paid is not reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One employee: the claimant in the reported labour dispute, who used the AI platform herself.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://xinwen.bjd.com.cn/content/s6acee3f7e4b0e42f8f0189ec.html","primarySourceLabel":"Beijing Daily, 14 October 2026: 用外部AI处理内部文件遭公司辞退？法院判决：企业违法！","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:00:01.598786+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:00:01.598786+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["dismissal","workplace-ai","labour-dispute","reinstatement","insurance","consequential-response"]},{"id":"2024-us-otter-notetaker-recorded-non-users-meetings-privacy-suit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'participated in a Zoom meeting in California on February'; '24, 2025, where the Otter Notetaker was used by a meeting participant to transcribe the'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in California in March 2025'; 'used Zoom to communicate with a medical professional, and'; 'Illinois on January 10, 2025 and May 19, 2025 where the Otter Notetaker was used to'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in Washington state in March'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state who'; 'participated in virtual meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their'; 'consent to record, transcribe, and store the contents of their communications.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the'; 'allegations concerning the named Plaintiff’s personal knowledge, experiences, expectations, or'","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'who alleges his privacy was \"severely invaded\" upon realizing Otter was secretly recording a confidential conversation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Seven people who were not Otter account holders allege that, on Zoom or Microsoft Teams calls (six give dates between March 2024 and May 2025), another participant used Otter Notetaker and Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations without their consent; the calls include one with a medical professional and meetings with a financial professional.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs attribute the recording to Otter's product design, which they say lets the notetaker record without every participant's consent; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'other personal information for its own commercial use, including to train its automatic speech'; 'The Illinois Plaintiffs allege that, during their virtual meetings, Otter'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter claims that before the audio of meetings is fed into its machine learning systems to help improve an AI speech recognition feature, it is \"de-identified,\"'","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter keeps their conversational data on its servers and uses it to train its speech-recognition and machine-learning models, and that it captured the Illinois plaintiffs' voiceprints; Otter's policy, as reported by NPR, says it trains on transcripts with users' permission and de-identifies audio.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'felt frustrated, embarrassed, and stressed to learn that his'; 'conversation was recorded without his consent, and his information, voice, and'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One California plaintiff alleges that he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn that his conversation had been recorded without his consent.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs as a consequence of Otter's recording."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ ECPA claim is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ BIPA claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'The motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend as to Count 2'; 'The motion is DENIED in all other respects.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 13 August 2026 the court denied Otter's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, holding that the alleged interception and retention of private conversations was a concrete injury, let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, and dismissed some other claims.","causal_attribution":"Procedural ruling on the pleadings; no finding that Otter recorded anyone unlawfully."}],"effects":[{"label":"the plaintiffs say Otter's notetaker recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations on calls they joined, without their consent, including a medical call and calls with a financial professional","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the plaintiffs say their conversations stay on Otter's servers for training its models and that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"one plaintiff says he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn he had been recorded","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.35.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 35, filed 5 December 2025; RECAP PDF (68 pages) read on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200), plaintiffs' experience sections read in full. Plaintiffs' allegations, not findings.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part, ECF 68, 13 August 2026 (Judge Eumi K. Lee); RECAP PDF read in full on 2026-09-29. Rules on the pleadings and accepts the allegations as true for that purpose; it makes no finding of fact.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.80.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Otter.ai's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 80, 17 September 2026; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29, plaintiff-experience paragraphs and responses read.","independence_group":"otter-answer"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Brewer v. Otter.ai, Inc., original Class Action Complaint, ECF 1, filed 15 August 2025; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.npr.org/2025/08/15/g-s1-83087/otter-ai-transcription-class-action-lawsuit","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"NPR, 15 August 2025, read live on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200). Reports the original complaint and summarises Otter's privacy policy; says neither side responded to requests for comment.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.79.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order, ECF 79, 16 September 2026; read on 2026-09-29. Procedural facts only.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","work","health","finance"],"unknowns":["Whether Otter's product notified the plaintiffs on their calls that the notetaker was present, and what the other participants' Otter settings were.","Whether the plaintiffs' conversations were in fact used to train Otter's models, and in what form.","The exact date of one Illinois plaintiff's meetings, which the complaint places only within the limitations period."],"geography":{"basis":"The consolidated complaint places the plaintiffs' calls in California, in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois, and in Washington state; the order describes the plaintiffs as individuals from California, Illinois and Washington state. The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a bounded series of concrete privacy harms reported by identified people in a pending federal suit: each named plaintiff describes a call on which another participant's AI notetaker recorded and transcribed them without consent. The account rests on the plaintiffs' pleadings and the court's ruling on them; Otter denies the allegations. Plaintiff names are omitted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Each plaintiff alleges that another participant's Otter account joined the Otter Notetaker, an AI transcription assistant, to a Zoom or Microsoft Teams call the plaintiff was on, and that the notetaker recorded, transcribed and stored the plaintiff's conversation on Otter's servers without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent (ECF 35, the consolidated complaint; the court's 13 August 2026 order summarises the same allegation). That alleged capture of the plaintiffs' conversations by an AI service is the reported harm. The complaint also alleges that Otter used the recordings to train its speech-recognition models and took voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs. Otter admits it offers an AI meeting assistant called Otter Notetaker but says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' calls and denies the allegations. The capture is alleged, not established, so the status is reported.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"United States: seven people who say they had no Otter account allege its AI Notetaker recorded calls without consent; a judge let core privacy claims proceed","summary":"Seven people in California, Illinois and Washington state are suing Otter.ai in a consolidated class action in the Northern District of California. Each says another meeting participant used Otter's AI Notetaker on a Zoom or Microsoft Teams call they joined, and that Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversation without their consent; six of them date their calls between March 2024 and May 2025. They say they were not Otter account holders. The calls they describe include a medical consultation, meetings with a financial professional and work discussions. They allege that Otter keeps the recordings and uses them to train its speech-recognition models, that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs, and one of them says learning of the recording left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed. On 13 August 2026 the court found that the alleged interception of private conversations was a concrete injury and let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, while dismissing some claims. Otter's answer to the consolidated complaint, filed on 17 September 2026, says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' experiences and denies the allegations.","incidentDate":"2024-03-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-19","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-08-15","aiSystem":"Otter Notetaker, Otter.ai's AI meeting assistant, joined to Zoom and Microsoft Teams calls by another participant's Otter account","aiProduct":"Otter Notetaker","aiCompany":"Otter.ai, Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter recorded, transcribed and kept their private conversations on calls they joined without their consent, including medical and financial discussions, used them to train its models and took voiceprints, and one plaintiff says learning this left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed (plaintiffs' allegations in a pending suit; Otter denies them).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":7,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The court order says 'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state' who participated in meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their consent; each describes their own call in the consolidated complaint. They were not Otter account holders (one says only that to her knowledge she did not create an account), so they are counted as other people. The proposed class members are not counted. Documented minimum 7.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Order granting motion to dismiss in part, In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, No. 5:25-cv-06911-EKL (N.D. Cal.), 13 August 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:04:08.493618+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:43.76525+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["otter-ai","ai-notetaker","meeting-transcription","privacy","wiretap","bipa","voiceprint","training-data","class-action","non-user"]},{"id":"2025-tsuda-v-tiktok-ai-voice-imitation-tokyo","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'生成AI（人工知能）によって自身の声を無断で模倣した動画が公開されているとして、人気声優の津田健次郎さんが、TikTok（ティックトック）の運営会社に動画の削除を求めて東京地裁に提訴していたことが23日分かった。'; '2024年7月〜25年9月、津田さんの声質を模したナレーションを付け、都市伝説やオカルト、雑学をテーマとした動画を188本投稿したとされる。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'訴状などによると、２０２４年７月～２５年９月、都市伝説や陰謀論を扱う画像に津田さんの声質を模したナレーションを付けた動画１８８件が投稿された。'; '動画には「ツダケンの声がする」「声が似ている」などのコメントが相次いだ。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'訴状によると、問題の動画アカウントは2024年7月以降、津田さんの声を模したナレーションで都市伝説や心霊現象を語る内容で、少なくとも188件投稿した。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"According to Mr Tsuda's complaint, an account run by an unidentified person posted at least 188 videos between July 2024 and September 2025 narrated by a generative-AI imitation of his voice, without his permission, and viewers commented that the voice sounded like him.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegations as reported from the complaint and his lawyer (one chain); the court has not ruled."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'ティックトックには再生回数に応じて金銭が支払われる仕組みがあり、月50万〜75万円の収益を上げたとしている。'; '提訴は25年11月。この時点で投稿者は21万人以上のフォロワーを有し、動画の平均再生回数は147万回に上るという。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'動画の再生数に応じて投稿者は月50万～75万円の収益を上げていた、と津田さん側は主張している。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"His side says the account had about 210,000 followers when he sued in November 2025, videos averaged 1.47 million views, and the poster earned 500,000 to 750,000 yen a month from TikTok's view-based payments.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's figures; not independently verified."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'これに対して運営会社側は「投稿者は『友人の声を生成ＡＩに学習させた』と述べており、普遍的な男性の声にすぎない」などと反論。提訴後に動画データがアカウントごと削除されたとし、「訴えの利益はない」として請求却下も求めている。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'一方、ティックトック側は答弁書で、問題の音声が「津田さんと『同一の声』かどうかは客観的に明らかではない」などと反論。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'25年8月、東京地裁がティックトック側に投稿者の情報の開示を命じたが、開示された情報が古く、投稿者の特定に至らなかったという。'","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"TikTok's operator disputes the claim, saying it is not objectively clear the voice is the same as his and that it is a generic male voice, that the poster said they had trained AI on a friend's voice, and that the account and videos were deleted after the suit was filed; it asks for the claim to be dismissed.","causal_attribution":"Defendant's position as reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'高橋裁判長は判決理由で、一般論として人の声は「肖像と同様に個人の人格の象徴と言える」と指摘。実演家の声を無断で使用する行為は、もっぱらその声がもつ顧客吸引力の利用が目的と認められる場合にはパブリシティー権の侵害に当たるとの考え方を示した。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'判決は、人の声は容姿と同じように「個人の人格の象徴といえる」と指摘。'; '人の声が法的な保護の対象になると認めた司法判断は初めて。'; '声優らの声を無断で使う行為について、その声に商品の販売などを促す顧客吸引力があり、もっぱらその声の顧客吸引力を利用する目的で使っている場合は「パブリシティー権の侵害にあたると解するのが相当だ」と述べた。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"'30日の判決で東京地裁は「人の声は肖像と同様に個人の人格の象徴」と指摘しました。'; 'そのうえで実演家の声を無断で使用することについて、顧客吸引力の利用する目的があれば「パブリシティー権」の侵害に当たるとする初めての判断を示しました。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"'模倣された声が入った動画の削除を求めた訴訟の判決が３０日、東京地裁で言い渡される。生成ＡＩによる声の権利侵害を巡る初の訴訟で'","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'ベテラン声優らは「声の権利を認めてほしい」と訴え、津田健次郎さんが起こした訴訟の判決を見守っている。'","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"On 30 September 2026 the Tokyo District Court held, as a general principle, that a person's voice is a symbol of individual personality like a likeness, and that using a performer's voice without permission solely to exploit its power to attract customers infringes the right of publicity; it was described as the first such judicial finding in Japan.","causal_attribution":"Court's general holding as reported by three outlets that each reported the judgment; the judgment text itself was not read."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'ただ今回の動画はすでに運営会社のサーバーからも削除されているとし、これ以上削除する義務を負っておらず原告の請求は理由がないと結論付けた。問題の動画がパブリシティー権を侵害しているかは判断を示さなかった。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'一方で判決は、今回の裁判で津田さん側が問題とした動画は削除済みだと認定。津田さんの声の権利が侵害されたかについては判断しなかった。'; 'ただ、今回の事例では動画がすでに消えており、ティックトックの運営会社に削除義務はないと判断。津田さん側の請求は退けた。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"'一方で、動画の削除についてはアカウントがすでに削除されているため、削除義務がないとし、津田さん側の請求を退けました。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The court dismissed Mr Tsuda's claim because the videos had already been deleted, so TikTok's operator had no duty to delete them, and it did not decide whether the videos infringed his publicity right.","causal_attribution":"Court's disposition as reported; no finding that the videos imitate or infringe his voice."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'原告側は津田さんの声と混同させて月50万〜75万円の収益を得ていたなどとして、不正競争防止法違反にも当たると主張したが、この点については判決は言及しなかった。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"According to Nikkei, the judgment did not address his separate argument that the videos breached the Unfair Competition Prevention Act by passing them off as his voice.","causal_attribution":"Single report (Nikkei)."},{"id":"c7","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'今年5月には投稿者がアカウントを削除した。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'提訴後の今年5月、投稿者がアカウントを削除し、問題の動画は表示されなくなっていた。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The poster deleted the account in May 2026, after the suit was filed.","causal_attribution":"Reported by Nikkei and the Asahi Shimbun from the proceedings."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'判決後、津田さんの代理人弁護士は控訴しない方針を示した。'; 'ティックトックの運営会社は「今後も、テクノロジーの発展と権利保護のバランスのとれた在り方について、誠実に取り組んでいく」とコメントした。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"After the judgment his lawyer said they did not plan to appeal, and TikTok's operator said it would keep working on a balance between technological development and rights protection.","causal_attribution":"Statements reported by the Asahi Shimbun."}],"effects":[{"label":"voice allegedly imitated by generative AI without permission in at least 188 monetised TikTok videos that viewers associated with him","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.jiji.com/jc/article?k=2026092600287&g=soc","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-09-28; summarised in English by the researcher (no human translation). Reports the complaint and TikTok's filings. Re-read on 2026-10-01.","independence_group":"tsuda-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUD231K30T20C26A5000000/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-09-28 (23 May 2026); sourced to the plaintiff's lawyer and the complaint. Researcher translation. Re-read on 2026-10-01.","independence_group":"tsuda-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASV5T2J1LV5TUTIL00FM.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-09-28 (May 2026); the visible article text was read and quotes the complaint and TikTok's answer. Researcher translation. Re-read on 2026-10-01.","independence_group":"tsuda-complaint"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.jiji.com/jc/article?k=2026092600297&g=soc","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-09-28 (26 September 2026). Industry context; does not add facts about the Tsuda videos. Researcher translation. Re-read on 2026-10-01.","independence_group":"jiji-industry-feature"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUD262B00W6A920C2000000/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-10-01 (30 September 2026 judgment report by Nikkei; photo credited to Kyodo). Researcher translation.","independence_group":"nikkei-judgment-report"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASV9Z11V1V9ZUTIL02SM.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-10-01; the visible text before the paywall was read (about 1,000 characters remain unread). Bylined by the Asahi Tokyo city news court reporter. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"asahi-judgment-report"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://news.tv-asahi.co.jp/news_society/articles/900200797.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-10-01 (TV Asahi running summary of the 30 September 2026 judgment). Researcher translation.","independence_group":"tv-asahi-judgment-report"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Who ran the account and which AI tool produced the voice (a court-ordered disclosure in August 2025 did not identify the poster, according to the Asahi Shimbun).","Whether the voice was modelled on Mr Tsuda's voice and whether the videos infringed his publicity right; the court dismissed the claim because the videos had already been deleted, without deciding either.","Mr Tsuda's own account of personal or financial effects; no statement from him was read.","The full judgment text; it was not read, and the court's reasoning is taken from news reports."],"geography":{"basis":"Mr Tsuda is a Japanese voice actor working in Japan and the suit is in the Tokyo District Court (Nikkei; Jiji). The poster is unidentified and the place where the videos were made is not reported, so no event country is recorded.","court_countries":["JP"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["JP"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a core case (a generative-AI voice alleged to impersonate a real, named performer in monetised videos). Updated after the 30 September 2026 judgment: the facts of the videos come from his complaint as reported by Nikkei, the Asahi Shimbun and Jiji Press, with TikTok's rebuttal; the ruling is taken from Nikkei, Asahi and TV Asahi reports. Imitation and infringement remain undecided because the court dismissed the claim on the ground that the videos had already been deleted. Mr Tsuda is a public figure suing in his own name; the poster is unidentified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-01"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges generative-AI imitation of his voice (Nikkei; Asahi; Jiji). TikTok's side and the poster reportedly say the voice was generated by AI trained on a friend's voice, so AI generation is asserted by both sides; whether it imitates Tsuda was not decided by the court, which dismissed the claim because the videos had been deleted.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Tokyo: voice actor Kenjiro Tsuda sued TikTok's operator over at least 188 monetised videos he says were narrated by a generative-AI imitation of his voice; on 30 September 2026 the Tokyo District Court held that a voice can be protected by publicity rights but dismissed his deletion claim because the videos had already been deleted","summary":"Kenjiro Tsuda, a Japanese voice actor known for roles in Jujutsu Kaisen, sued the operator of TikTok in the Tokyo District Court in November 2025, seeking removal of videos he says use a generative-AI imitation of his voice without permission. According to his complaint, as reported by Jiji Press, Nikkei and the Asahi Shimbun, an account run by an unidentified person posted at least 188 short videos on urban legends, the occult and trivia between July 2024 and September 2025, narrated in a voice modelled on his; the account had about 210,000 followers, videos averaged 1.47 million views, and his side says the poster earned 500,000 to 750,000 yen a month from TikTok's view-based payments. TikTok's operator said the voice was a generic male voice that the poster said came from AI trained on a friend's voice. The poster deleted the account in May 2026. On 30 September 2026 the court held, as a general principle, that a person's voice is a symbol of personality like a likeness and that using a performer's voice without permission solely to exploit its power to attract customers infringes the right of publicity, the first such ruling in Japan. It dismissed the claim because the videos were already gone and TikTok's operator had no remaining duty to delete them, and it did not decide whether these videos infringed his rights (Nikkei; Asahi Shimbun; TV Asahi). His lawyer said they did not plan to appeal.","incidentDate":"2024-07-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-09-30","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-05-23","aiSystem":"An unidentified generative-AI voice tool used by an anonymous TikTok account to produce narration (the plaintiff alleges the voice imitates his; the poster reportedly said the model was trained on a friend's voice); videos distributed on TikTok","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Mr Tsuda alleges that an anonymous poster used a generative-AI imitation of his voice, without permission, to narrate at least 188 monetised TikTok videos that viewers took to be his, infringing his rights over his voice; TikTok disputes that the voice is his, and the court dismissed his deletion claim without deciding infringement because the videos had been deleted (Nikkei, Asahi and Jiji Press).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the plaintiff Kenjiro Tsuda, whose voice is alleged to have been imitated (Nikkei; Asahi; Jiji Press). Followers and viewers are not counted. Other voice actors described in the Jiji industry feature are separate accounts and are not counted. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"JP","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUD262B00W6A920C2000000/","primarySourceLabel":"Nikkei, 30 September 2026: 声にもパブリシティー権、初の司法判断　津田健次郎さんの請求は棄却","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-28T03:31:37.82387+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T03:20:05.706932+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["voice-cloning","voice-actor","publicity-rights","tiktok","japan","tokyo-district-court","lawsuit","depicted-or-impersonated","court-ruling"]},{"id":"2024-york-county-sc-flock-alpr-misread-plate-gunpoint-stop-melvin-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'was stopped by a York County sheriff’s deputy on Feb. 14, 2024, while pulling into his apartment complex near Lake Wylie.'; 'received an alert from a Flock license plate reader that a stolen, dark-colored BMW sedan was traveling in the area, according to the filing.'; 'ordering him to kneel on the ground with his hands over his head for over five minutes, the filing said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'approached Melvin with his firearm drawn and ordered him out of the car, according to the lawsuit.'; 'remained there for roughly five minutes while deputies checked his information.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'ordered him out of his car at gunpoint.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the lawsuit, on 14 February 2024 a York County deputy who had received a Flock license-plate-reader alert for a stolen dark-coloured BMW approached Melvin's black BMW with his gun drawn as Melvin pulled into his apartment complex near Lake Wylie, and made him kneel with his hands over his head for more than five minutes until deputies established that the car was not stolen.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's lawsuit as reported; the Post and Courier says he was handcuffed, the Herald and Military.com describe him kneeling. The complaint itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Flock camera incorrectly identified the first letter of the license plate.'; 'tinted license plate cover was illegal, and obscured the camera, according to the filing.'; 'correctly identified Melvin’s plate 13 times that month prior to the traffic stop, according to the filing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The stop resulted from erroneous information associated with a Flock alert,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Flock camera misread the first letter of Melvin's South Carolina plate; the sheriff's office blamed an illegal tinted plate cover and its internal-affairs report says the stop resulted from erroneous information associated with a Flock alert, while an internal email cited in the filing says the cameras had read his plate correctly 13 times that month.","causal_attribution":"Filing and internal records as reported; the sheriff's office and the plaintiff disagree about why the plate was misread."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'said he suffered trauma and “emotional distress” because of the traffic stop.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'feared for his life and reasonably believed he could be shot.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Melvin says he suffered trauma and emotional distress and feared he could be shot.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's own account in the complaint."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'NOTICE OF REMOVAL from York County Court of Common Pleas, case number 2026CP4602329.'; 'Melvin v. York County Sheriff's Office, 0:26-cv-03474'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The defendants removed Melvin's suit from the York County Court of Common Pleas (case 2026CP4602329) to the US District Court for the District of South Carolina, where it is docketed as Melvin v. York County Sheriff's Office, 0:26-cv-03474.","causal_attribution":"Docket entry."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The York County Sheriff’s Office denies violating Melvin’s rights and has asked a federal judge to dismiss the case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'The sheriff’s office found in November 2024 that'; 'actions were “reasonable” after Melvin filed an internal affairs complaint against them.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The sheriff's office denies violating Melvin's rights and has asked the federal court to dismiss the case; a November 2024 internal-affairs review found the deputy's actions reasonable.","causal_attribution":"Defendants' position as reported; no dismissal motion appears among the docket entries read (through 8 September 2026)."}],"effects":[{"label":"held at gunpoint and made to kneel for more than five minutes after a misread license-plate-reader alert flagged his car as stolen","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"says the stop caused him trauma and emotional distress","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/crime/article316428323.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-28 from the Internet Archive capture of 25 September 2026 (The Herald, Rock Hill, 9 July 2026); the live site timed out. Reports from the lawsuit and attached documents; includes a Flock statement.","independence_group":"melvin-lawsuit-filings"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.postandcourier.com/york-county/news/flock-license-plate-readers-york-county-cameras/article_21d1fac9-69b0-4706-93ab-f0e43c0ede6e.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-28 (Post and Courier, 19 August 2026). Draws on the lawsuit and quotes the internal-affairs report; does not name the plaintiff.","independence_group":"melvin-lawsuit-filings"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.military.com/iraq-war-veteran-says-flock-camera-error-led-to-police-gunpoint-stop","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-28 (Military.com, 16 September 2026). Relays the lawsuit and the Herald's reporting on the dismissal request.","independence_group":"melvin-lawsuit-filings"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74652791/melvin-v-york-county-sheriffs-office/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-28: CourtListener docket for Melvin v. York County Sheriff's Office, 0:26-cv-03474 (D.S.C.); entries through 8 September 2026. No filed documents were available to read.","independence_group":"dsc-docket-0-26-cv-03474"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Whether Melvin was handcuffed as well as held kneeling (the Post and Courier and the Herald differ).","Whether the misread was caused by the tinted plate cover, the camera or both, and why the alert was not visually confirmed before the weapon was drawn.","The outcome of the dismissal request and of the suit."],"geography":{"basis":"The stop took place at Melvin's apartment complex near Lake Wylie, York County, South Carolina (Herald); the suit was filed in the York County Court of Common Pleas and removed to the US District Court for the District of South Carolina (docket).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case consistent with the existing Flock rows: an automated plate reader misread a man's plate and flagged his car as stolen, and deputies held him at gunpoint. The account rests on his lawsuit and the sheriff's own records as reported, with the federal docket confirming the case. He is named as the plaintiff in his own suit.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-28"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"According to the filing reported by the Herald, the deputy acted on a Flock license-plate-reader alert for a stolen BMW; the camera misread the first letter of Melvin's plate, and the sheriff's internal-affairs report says the stop 'resulted from erroneous information associated with a Flock alert' (Post and Courier). The misread plate matched against a hotlist is the automated system's claim about his car. The sheriff's office attributes the misread to an illegal tinted plate cover; an internal email says the cameras had read his plate correctly 13 times that month. The decision to draw a weapon was the deputy's.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"York County, South Carolina: Iraq War veteran Steven Melvin says deputies held him at gunpoint and made him kneel for more than five minutes outside his Lake Wylie apartment complex in February 2024 after a Flock license-plate reader misread his plate and flagged his BMW as stolen; he sued in June 2026","summary":"According to a lawsuit filed on 29 June 2026 and reported by The Herald (Rock Hill), a York County sheriff's deputy stopped Steven Melvin, 42, on 14 February 2024 as he pulled into his apartment complex near Lake Wylie, after receiving a Flock license-plate-reader alert that a stolen dark-coloured BMW sedan was in the area. The deputy approached Melvin's black BMW with his gun drawn and aimed at him and made him kneel with his hands over his head for more than five minutes; after calling for backup and checking his information, the deputy determined the car was not stolen. The camera had read the first letter of his South Carolina tag incorrectly, matching a stolen BMW one letter off. A sheriff's internal-affairs review in November 2024 found the deputy's actions reasonable and blamed an illegally tinted plate cover, for which Melvin received a verbal warning; an email cited in the filing says the cameras had read his plate correctly 13 times that month. Melvin says the stop caused him trauma and emotional distress. The sheriff's office removed the case to federal court in August 2026 and denies violating his rights.","incidentDate":"2024-02-14","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-07-09","aiSystem":"Flock Safety automated license-plate reader (a camera the Herald describes as AI-enabled) that read passing plates, matched Melvin's misread plate against a stolen-vehicle hotlist record and sent an alert to the deputy","aiProduct":"Flock Safety license plate readers","aiCompany":"Flock Safety","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Melvin says he was held at gunpoint and detained kneeling for more than five minutes after a misread Flock alert and suffered trauma and emotional distress (his complaint as reported by the Herald and Military.com); the sheriff's office disputes that the stop was unlawful.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, Steven Melvin, detained at gunpoint (lawsuit via the Herald, Military.com, Post and Courier). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-SC","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/crime/article316428323.html","primarySourceLabel":"The Herald (Rock Hill), 9 July 2026: York man was held at gunpoint over incorrect Flock hit. Sheriff blames illegal tag cover","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-28T03:31:25.729021+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:54.634302+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["flock","alpr","license-plate-reader","wrongful-stop","gunpoint","south-carolina","york-county","justice","made-claim-about","lawsuit"]},{"id":"2026-newby-adelphi-ai-detector-vacated","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'In November 2024, Newby submitted a paper on Christianity and Islam'; 'Oelze gave the paper a grade of zero, according to court filings, in part because he thought it was AI-generated'; 'According to the lawsuit, Adelphi relied in part on AI detection software'; 'Turnitin's AI detector marked the essay as fully AI-written, but Newby ran it through two other detectors that said it was written by a human, court records show'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Adelphi University says an AI detection software flagged 19-year-old Orion Newby's work and claims the paper was \"too advanced\" for the first-year student'; 'That paper earned him a zero'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In November 2024 Newby submitted a paper on Christianity and Islam for the fall 2024 World Civilizations 1 class; the professor graded it zero in part because he thought it was AI-generated, and Adelphi, per the lawsuit, relied in part on AI-detection software — court records show Turnitin's detector marked the essay as fully AI-written while two other detectors scored it human.","causal_attribution":"The detector results and the lawsuit's contents are attributed to court filings as carried by Newsday; the professor's suspicion is attributed to court filings and ABC7."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'University officials ordered Newby to attend a plagiarism workshop — which, while considered a \"nondisciplinary\" punishment, could have resulted in suspension or expulsion if he was found to have committed a second offense'; 'The university's denial of Newby's appeal left the family \"no choice\" but to sue'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Adelphi told him he had to take an anti-plagiarism course, and until he did, he couldn't enroll in other classes. That's when his family sued.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Newby was ordered to attend a plagiarism workshop — a 'nondisciplinary' punishment that could have led to suspension or expulsion on a second offense — was told he could not enroll in other classes until he complied, and his appeal was denied; the family sued in October 2025.","causal_attribution":"Both chains independently carry the workshop order and the enrollment block (Newsday from the ruling stage, ABC7 from the filing stage)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'state Supreme Court Judge Randy Sue Marber in Nassau County wrote on Jan. 28. The school must expunge his record, the judge ruled'; 'were \"without valid basis and devoid of reason\"'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Inside Higher Ed's relay describes a 'federal judge' — erroneous; Judge Marber's state Supreme Court decision controls.","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 28 January 2026, New York State Supreme Court Judge Randy Sue Marber in Nassau County ruled that Adelphi's finding and its denial of his appeal were 'without valid basis and devoid of reason' and ordered the school to expunge his record.","causal_attribution":"The ruling is documented by Newsday's report quoting the decision; the IHE forum error is recorded explicitly. The decision text itself was not fetched (Newsday's account is the inspected record)."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'treated since he was about 2 years old for learning and neurological disabilities that include language and auditory processing disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder'; 'He had worked on it with a tutor from Bridges to Adelphi, the university's $5,000-a-semester program'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Newby has learning differences... issues specifically with language processing. At Adelphi, he's in a special program with extra support'; 'I told him I worked 15 to 20 hours with tutors'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Newby has been treated since about age two for learning and neurological disabilities — language and auditory processing disorders and ADHD — and wrote the paper with a tutor from Bridges to Adelphi, the university's own $5,000-a-semester disability-support program, working 15-20 hours with tutors.","causal_attribution":"The disability and support details come from his mother's and his own accounts, carried by both chains."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The family has spent six figures on legal costs, she said'; Lesko passages ('bellwether example'; 'I can't tell you how many parents have reached out to us with similar issues').","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The family spent six figures on legal costs; attorney Mark Lesko called the ruling a 'bellwether example' and said many parents had contacted him with similar issues.","causal_attribution":"The mother's and the attorney's accounts; the 'many parents' figure is unquantified and no other persons are counted."}],"effects":[{"label":"false AI-plagiarism accusation with academic and financial consequences until a court ordered expungement","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"recovery: court cleared his record; he continues at Adelphi as a second-year history major","claim_id":"c3","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.newsday.com/long-island/education/adelphi-university-ai-plagiarism-lawsuit-oh07enyz","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2026-02-09T10:00Z; 48 paragraphs).","independence_group":"newsday"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://abc7ny.com/post/adelphi-student-long-island-sues-university-allegations-he-used-ai-write-essay/17980409/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2025-10-10T20:54Z).","independence_group":"abc7"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2026/02/11/adelphi-student-wins-ai-plagiarism-lawsuit","kind":"trade_press_relaying_newsday","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (2026-02-11). Relays Newsday; its 'federal judge' phrase is erroneous — Judge Marber sits in the state Supreme Court, and the claim records the discrepancy.","independence_group":"newsday"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education","justice","accessibility"],"unknowns":["The decision text was not fetched; the ruling is recorded through Newsday's account quoting the judge.","The similarity scores Turnitin returned and the university's full decision letter are not public in the inspected sources.","Whether Adelphi changed its AI-detection or appeals policies afterward is not reported.","The first-person Times account (28 Aug 2026) is paywalled and was not inspected; his later reflections are therefore not claimed.","The workshop's completion status after the ruling (moot after expungement) is not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: Adelphi University, Garden City, New York. Affected person: Newby, a student there living in Lido Beach, NY. Court: New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional automated-decision case (made_decision_about / made_claim_about): a detector-driven false accusation with court-vacated sanctions. Newby and his parents spoke publicly; his disability is recorded because it is central to the case's facts (the university's own support program produced the writing process the detector misread), not as a label.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawsuit records that Adelphi relied in part on AI-detection software; court records show Turnitin's detector marked the essay as fully AI-written while two other detectors scored it human (Newsday). The university's process, not the tool alone, produced the sanction — recorded in the harm mechanism.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Adelphi accused Orion Newby of AI plagiarism after a detector flagged his paper; a Nassau County judge ordered the finding expunged","summary":"Orion Newby, an Adelphi University first-year student with language and auditory processing disabilities, received a zero in November 2024 on a World Civilizations paper after the professor suspected it was AI-generated and the university relied in part on AI-detection software; he was ordered to attend a plagiarism workshop and his appeal was denied, leaving him one finding from suspension or expulsion. Newby — who had written the paper with 15-20 hours of tutor support through the university's own disability program — said the detectors flagged his citations, and two other detectors scored the paper as human. After the family sued, New York State Supreme Court Judge Randy Sue Marber in Nassau County ruled on 28 January 2026 that Adelphi's finding and its denial of his appeal were 'without valid basis and devoid of reason' and ordered his record expunged. The family spent six figures on legal costs.","incidentDate":"2024-11-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-01-28","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-10-10","aiSystem":"Turnitin AI-detection software (and the university's reliance on it)","aiProduct":"Turnitin AI-text detector","aiCompany":"Turnitin","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm","financial_loss","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A false AI-plagiarism finding brought a zero, a plagiarism-workshop order one step from suspension, sleepless nights, and a year-plus fight costing six figures to clear his record — despite two other detectors scoring the paper human and the writing help coming from the university's own disability program.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: Newby, the subject of the detector-driven accusation (court ruling and Newsday/ABC7 reporting). Other students mentioned by his attorney ('many parents have reached out') are unquantified and not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.newsday.com/long-island/education/adelphi-university-ai-plagiarism-lawsuit-oh07enyz","primarySourceLabel":"Newsday (9 Feb 2026) — the ruling, the judge's words, the family and attorney accounts, the disability and Bridges program detail","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T09:31:23.493757+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:46.697576+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-decision-about","made-claim-about","ai-detector","turnitin","education","disability","court-win","new-york"]},{"id":"2025-es-v-character-technologies","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'T.S. is a minor and lives in Colorado.'; 'In August 2024, T.S. told E.S. about an AI app that her friend was using called Character AI.'; 'She said no.'; 'T.S. had figured out how to create a new profile on the shared laptop; one that mimicked the administrator profile but had no password protection.'; 'Through this new profile T.S. was able to obtain access to C.AI.'; 'T.S. created her C.AI profile in August 2024 – almost immediately after the first time she asked to be able to download C.AI and was told no.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Her parents used strict controls to block the internet and apps they didn’t approve of, but their daughter was still able to get access to Character.AI.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The girl, who lives in Colorado, asked in August 2024 to use Character.AI and was refused by her mother; she reached the service through a new, password-free user profile she set up on the family's shared laptop, which she was allowed to use for homework, and the complaint says the Character.AI profile dates from August 2024, almost immediately after the first refusal.","causal_attribution":"The parents' complaint; the Denver Post restates it."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'C.AI and the individual Defendants recommended to K.S.’s thirteen-year-old child bots with names like, Your 4 Kidnappers, Funtime Freddy, Femboy Bully Victim, and Foot interrogation (Roblox feet).'; 'These are the bots these defendants recommended, not what T.S. searched for or even wanted to see.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the complaint, Character.AI recommended to the girl bots with names such as Your 4 Kidnappers and Foot interrogation, which she had not searched for.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's allegation, citing two screenshots it reproduces."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'refusing to leave when asked, asking invasive questions and not taking no for an answer, and encouraging 13-year-old T.S. to “beg for it. I’d like you to humiliate yourself a bit before I tell you.”'; 'Defendants via a Two-Gassy Girls bot role played drugging T.S.'; 'Defendants escalated the abuse.'; 'a bot posing as a mother which not only engaged in fart fetish activities, but also, graphic and sexual descriptions and degradation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Bots she interacted with made sexually explicit and implicit comments to her, including telling her to “humiliate yourself a bit.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"According to the complaint and screenshots it reproduces, Character.AI bots engaged the girl in sexualised and degrading roleplay: a flirty bot refused to leave when asked, did not take no for an answer and told her to beg and humiliate herself; fetish-themed bots escalated the content; one bot role-played drugging her; and a bot posing as a mother produced graphic sexual descriptions and degradation.","causal_attribution":"Chat outputs as quoted and pictured in the complaint; the Denver Post relays the complaint."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The evening of Tuesday, August 19, 2025, K.S. went upstairs to find T.S.’s bedroom door locked.'; 'he discovered the family laptop underneath her.'; 'was crying hysterically and began begging him to just let her get onto the laptop.'; 'She was devastated, upset with herself, and fearful for reasons he could not yet understand.'; 'After T.S. went to bed, K.S. checked the laptop and it all began to make sense.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On the evening of 19 August 2025 the girl's father found her sitting on the family laptop behind a locked door; she cried hysterically, begged to be allowed to do one thing on it and was devastated, and after she went to bed he found the open Character.AI conversations in the browser.","causal_attribution":"The parents' account in the complaint."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'T.S. is a minor and suffered serious harms as result of her use of C.AI.'; 'Defendants’ conduct caused severe emotional distress to T.S.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The lawsuit alleges the conversations caused severe emotional distress for the girl.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that the girl suffered severe emotional distress and serious harms from her use of Character.AI; it gives no clinical detail.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's allegation of harm and causation; no medical record or clinician is cited."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Document 1 filed 09/15/25'; 'E.S. and K.S., individually and on behalf of minor T.S.,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'E.S. v. Character Technologies, Inc., 1:25-cv-02906, (D. Colo.)'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'filed the federal lawsuits in the Denver Division of the U.S. District Court on Monday'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The parents, suing for themselves and their daughter under initials, filed the complaint on 15 September 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (case 1:25-cv-02906) against Character Technologies, its founders Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Freitas, Google and Alphabet.","causal_attribution":"The filed complaint and the court docket establish the filing; they do not establish the allegations."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Plaintiffs and Defendants have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the issues raised in this lawsuit.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'For good cause, this case is STAYED pending finalization of the settlement agreement.'; 'the parties shall file a joint status report on or before October 29, 2026. This matter remains STAYED.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'ORDER granting 32 Motion to Stay.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 6 January 2026 the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case, and the court stayed it pending finalisation of the settlement agreement; on 2 August 2026 it ordered a joint status report by 29 October 2026 if no notice of dismissal had been filed, and the case remained stayed. No settlement terms are public.","causal_attribution":"The joint motion and the court's orders on the docket."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Character.AI invests “tremendous resources” in a safety program and has self-harm resources and features “focused on the safety or our minor users,” said Kathryn Kelly, a spokesperson for Character.AI'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"A Character.AI spokesperson told the Denver Post that the company invests tremendous resources in its safety program and has features focused on the safety of minor users; the statement did not address this family's allegations specifically.","causal_attribution":"The company's emailed statement as reported by the Denver Post."}],"effects":[{"label":"sexualised, degrading and non-consensual roleplay from Character.AI bots delivered to a girl aged 12 to 13, as the complaint alleges","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"acute distress when her father found her on the laptop, and alleged severe emotional distress","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.247437/gov.uscourts.cod.247437.1.0_1.pdf","kind":"civil_complaint","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-13: the complaint (ECF 1, filed 15 September 2025, 103 pages, with Exhibit A) from the CourtListener RECAP copy (HTTP 200). The plaintiffs' counsel's copy at techjusticelaw.org, cited before, returned HTTP 429 to the fetcher today. Plaintiff-specific allegations (paragraphs 15-20, 42-94) and the emotional-distress count (paragraphs 413-415) read in full; the exhibit and the general product allegations were skimmed only. The complaint documents what the parents allege; its allegations are not findings.","independence_group":"es-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.247437/gov.uscourts.cod.247437.32.0_1.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-13 from the CourtListener RECAP copy (HTTP 200): ECF 32, the parties' unopposed joint motion of 6 January 2026 to stay the case pending finalisation of a settlement agreement.","independence_group":"es-docket"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71354739/es-v-character-technologies-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200). CourtListener docket for 1:25-cv-02906 (D. Colo.) with entries from the complaint through the 2 August 2026 order.","independence_group":"es-docket"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/60160699/ES_et_al_v_CHARACTER_TECHNOLOGIES,_INC_et_al","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200; docket last updated 10/11/2026). PacerMonitor copy of the same docket; it shows the stay order of 6 January 2026 and the status orders of 3 April and 2 August 2026.","independence_group":"es-docket"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.denverpost.com/2025/09/18/character-ai-bots-teens-suicide/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200), Denver Post, Elliott Wenzler, published 18 September 2025. Reports the lawsuit's allegations and a Character.AI spokesperson's emailed statement; for the girl's account it relays the complaint and the counsel's news release, so it shares the complaint's independence group.","independence_group":"es-complaint"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["relationships","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["When the girl's use ended: the complaint says in paragraph 20 that she has not used Character.AI since August 2024, but its own narrative places her father's discovery of the open account on 19 August 2025 and calls her thirteen at the time of the quoted messages; incident_end_date is therefore left unset.","How long or how often she used the service: the parents say they first found 15 days of history and do not have all of her Character.AI data.","Any clinical consequence: the complaint alleges severe emotional distress but names no diagnosis or treatment.","Which of the bots were created by other users and whether Character.AI knew her age: the complaint alleges on information and belief that she identified as a minor.","The settlement terms and whether the case has been dismissed: the court ordered a joint status report by 29 October 2026.","Character.AI has not responded to these allegations on the merits in any inspected filing; the stay came before any answer."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint states that the girl lives in Colorado, that she used Character.AI on the family's shared laptop at home, and, in its venue allegation, that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of Colorado. The suit is in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (docket 1:25-cv-02906). The event country rests on the complaint's own account of where the use took place.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with). The parents' complaint quotes and reproduces Character.AI output addressed to their daughter from age 12 and describes her distress when the chats were found; the docket documents the filing and the settlement stay. One origin carries the account (the complaint, relayed by the Denver Post), so the allegations are reported and causation is alleged. The family appears only under the initials used in the caption; the county, the girl's medical condition and the explicit content of the messages beyond one quoted line are left out.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint quotes and reproduces Character.AI output addressed to the girl: a bot that refused to leave when asked, did not take no for an answer and told her to beg and to humiliate herself; fetish-themed bots whose messages it quotes; a bot that role-played drugging her; a bot posing as a mother that produced graphic sexual descriptions; and recommendations of bots such as Your 4 Kidnappers. It connects those exchanges to her harm: her father found the conversations open after she became hysterical and devastated at being discovered, and the complaint alleges severe emotional distress from her use of the service. The output and its effect are the parents' allegations, supported in the filing by screenshots; no court has made findings, and the case is stayed for settlement.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Colorado parents' lawsuit alleges Character.AI bots sent sexualised, degrading roleplay to their daughter from age 12; case stayed for settlement","summary":"Parents in Colorado allege in a federal lawsuit filed on 15 September 2025 that their daughter, refused permission to use Character.AI in August 2024, created a Character.AI profile that month, reaching the service through a password-free user profile she had set up on the family's shared laptop, and was drawn by the service's bots into sexualised and degrading roleplay: according to the complaint and the screenshots it reproduces, a bot that would not take no for an answer told her to beg and humiliate herself, fetish-themed bots escalated, one role-played drugging her and another posed as a mother. Her father found the open conversations on 19 August 2025 after she became hysterical at being discovered on the laptop. The complaint alleges severe emotional distress. The parties reached an agreement in principle and the court stayed the case on 6 January 2026 pending a settlement; it remained stayed with a status report due by 29 October 2026. The allegations have not been tested in court.","incidentDate":"2024-08-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2025-09-15","aiSystem":"Character.AI","aiProduct":"Character.AI","aiCompany":"Character Technologies, Inc.","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":["minor_exploitation"],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","exploitation_or_abuse"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The parents allege in a federal complaint that Character.AI bots drew their daughter, beginning when she was 12, into sexualised, degrading and non-consensual roleplay, which her father found in August 2025, and that she suffered severe emotional distress.","frameworkFacets":["P1d","P2b","P2c","P5a","P5d"],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the girl whose conversations the complaint quotes and whose distress it alleges. Her parents sue on their own behalf as well, but no source describes a distinct AI action toward them, so they are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"US-CO","platformType":"companion","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.247437/gov.uscourts.cod.247437.1.0_1.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"E.S. v. Character Technologies, complaint (D. Colo. 1:25-cv-02906, ECF 1), 15 September 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-08-03T06:22:00.136927+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:06:49.692894+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["lawsuit","minor","character-ai","sexual-content","us"]}]}