{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-15T07:04:55.716Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"court","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2024","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":3,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":3,"minors":1,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2024-florida-judicial-candidate-shared-likely-ai-fake-call-of-justices-suspended","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'She referenced a former court employee’s book — which she hadn’t read — and sent the paper a link to the author’s website with a deepfake recording of a conversation between Florida Supreme Court justices and the Ninth Judicial Circuit chief judge.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'referenced the book when trying to obtain an endorsement from the South Florida Sun Sentinel during her 2024 judicial election campaign, according to a May 9 notice of ethics charges' and 'She supplied the fake recording, purportedly of a conversation involving two Florida Supreme Court justices, when the newspaper’s editorial board questioned the book’s claims.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"During her 2024 judicial campaign, while seeking the South Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board's endorsement, the candidate supplied a recording purportedly of a conversation between Florida Supreme Court justices and the Ninth Judicial Circuit's chief judge when the board questioned her claims.","causal_attribution":"Bloomberg Law's account of the case and the ABA Journal's report of the commission's notice both derive from the record of the same disciplinary proceeding, so the claim is recorded as reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'“The recording is fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative-AI,” the notice of charges says. “While the voices resemble those of the purported participants, the manner of speech, tone, and much of the content are objectively unrealistic.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'“The recording is fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative-AI. While the voices resemble those of the purported participants, the manner of speech, tone, and much of the content are objectively unrealistic,” the notice said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Judicial Qualifications Commission's notice of charges said the recording was fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative AI, and that while the voices resemble those of the purported participants, the manner of speech, tone and much of the content are objectively unrealistic.","causal_attribution":"Both outlets quote the same notice, so this is one origin. The commission states AI generation as likely, alongside computer manipulation; no forensic analysis or creator is reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'she provided a link to a “fabricated phone call” between two justices — Chief Justice Carlos Muniz and Justice Renatha Francis — and the 9th Circuit’s chief judge, Lisa Munyon, Friday’s notice said' and 'your actions eroded public confidence by perpetuating a false perception of illegal, unethical, or immoral conduct by justices of the Florida Supreme Court, a chief judge, and others working within the judicial branch,” the notice said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The notice named Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, Justice Renatha Francis and Chief Judge Lisa Munyon as the purported participants and said the candidate's actions perpetuated a false perception of illegal, unethical or immoral conduct by justices of the Florida Supreme Court, a chief judge and others in the judicial branch.","causal_attribution":"The notice's own characterisation of the harm to the depicted judges, reported by one outlet."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Peffer admitted to listening to a portion of the recording and sharing it publicly “despite clear evidence of its inauthenticity,” according to the notice.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'testifies during her ethics violation hearing at the Broward County Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale on Dec. 16, 2025' and '\"I cannot justify or explain why now listening to it I thought it was a valid piece of content at the time, but I did,\" she said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'Peffer gave this statement to Law.com:' and 'my reference to content created by a third party—to whom I have absolutely no ties—was a violation of the Judicial Canons' and 'I take responsibility for my actions and apologize for the unfortunate effects the reference may have caused my fellow judiciary members.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the notice, the candidate listened to only a portion of the recording and shared it publicly despite clear evidence of its inauthenticity. In a statement reported in May 2025 she apologised and said the content was created by a third party with whom she had no ties, and at the December 2025 hearing she testified that she could not explain why she had thought it was valid content.","causal_attribution":"The notice's findings and the candidate's own statements; each part rests on a single report of its origin."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A Florida trial judge has been suspended for 30 days and fined $10,000' and 'her conduct undermined public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary by promoting false accusations against the judiciary of the Ninth Judicial Circuit and by implicating sitting Florida Supreme Court justices,” the opinion said.' and 'Justices Carlos G. Muñiz and Renatha S. Francis, who had their voices spoofed in the call, recused from the decision.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Florida Supreme Court, in an unauthored opinion issued on 9 October 2026, suspended the judge for 30 days and fined her $10,000, saying her conduct undermined public confidence in the judiciary by implicating sitting Florida Supreme Court justices; Justices Muñiz and Francis, whose voices were spoofed in the call, recused.","causal_attribution":"Reported by Bloomberg Law from the opinion, which was not inspected; the sanction concerns the candidate's own conduct in sharing the recording."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Florida's courts watchdog agency has recommended a 30-day suspension, a public reprimand and a $10,000 fine' and 'perpetuated a false and undignified perception of the judiciary that ensnared not only those justices and judges who were specifically named in the Book and the Recording'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The commission's hearing panel recommended a 30-day suspension, a public reprimand and a $10,000 fine, writing that the judge had perpetuated a false and undignified perception of the judiciary that ensnared the justices and judges named in the book and the recording.","causal_attribution":"The hearing panel's filing as reported in one outlet."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Francis, Muñiz, and Munyon all said the recording was fake.' and 'The Sentinel reported last year that it and several other alleged fakes were referred to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office for a criminal investigation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Florida Politics reported that Chief Justice Muñiz, Justice Francis and Chief Judge Munyon all said the recording was fake, and that the Sun Sentinel had reported the previous year that it and several other alleged fakes were referred to the Orange County Sheriff's Office for a criminal investigation.","causal_attribution":"The depicted judges' statements as reported by one outlet; who made the criminal referral and its outcome are not reported."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Disposition (SC) - Suspended/Public Reprimand (JQC - Before FSC)' and '2026-10-09T14:35:48.780Z' and 'the Court hereby approves the hearing panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations to this Court.' and 'Respondent, Lauren Nichole Peffer, is hereby fined $10,000.00 and is suspended for 30 days from her duties as a judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit.' and 'We order Respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings' and 'Respondent shall also receive a public reprimand, which will be accomplished by publication of this order.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 9 October 2026 the Florida Supreme Court approved the hearing panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations, fined the judge $10,000, suspended her for 30 days, ordered her to pay the costs of the proceedings and imposed a public reprimand to be accomplished by publication of the order.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's docket entry for the disposition; the sanction concerns the judge's own conduct in sharing the recording."}],"effects":[{"label":"a fabricated recording imitating the voices of two Supreme Court justices and a chief judge was presented to a newspaper editorial board in a judicial campaign","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the judicial watchdog said it perpetuated a false perception of misconduct by the judges it depicted","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the candidate who shared it was later suspended for 30 days and fined","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/florida-judge-suspended-over-deepfake-call-mimicking-justices","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 on news.bloomberglaw.com (HTTP 200). The page shows the article text through the case citation and then a login prompt; any later text was not inspected. No translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"bloomberg-law-peffer"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/florida-judge-is-accused-of-sharing-objectively-unrealistic-fake-recording-with-editorial-board","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 on abajournal.com (HTTP 200). No translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"aba-journal-peffer"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://flaglerlive.com/lauren-peffer-fake/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 on flaglerlive.com, which carries the News Service of Florida report (HTTP 200). No translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"news-service-of-florida-peffer"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/florida-judge-cited-deepfake-call-180000031.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 on the Yahoo News syndicated copy (provider Tampa Bay Times), HTTP 200. Yahoo and the Tampa Bay Times canonical URL date the copy 10 October 2026, while its text describes the hearing panel recommendation filed \"Friday\" (the Florida Supreme Court docket lists the findings and recommendations on 27 February 2026), so the text appears to republish earlier reporting. No translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"tampa-bay-times-peffer"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://floridapolitics.com/archives/737787-broward-judge-faces-charges-for-sharing-deepfake-recording-unread-e-book-during-campaign/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the verification agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 from an Internet Archive capture of 12 May 2025 (the live page returned HTTP 403). It reports the commission's notice of charges and earlier Sun Sentinel reporting. No translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"florida-politics-peffer"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://acis.flcourts.gov/portal/court/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/case/ac1415dc-cff8-4197-9e1f-db5cd39262a3","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket entry texts read in English by the verification agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 through the public data interface behind this docket page. The documents attached to the entries (the notices of charges, the hearing panel findings and the disposition order) sit behind an automated challenge and were not opened. No human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"florida-supreme-court-docket-sc2025-0647"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","elections","public_life"],"unknowns":["Who created the recording and with what tool or method; the commission says computer manipulation or generative AI.","The date in 2024 when the recording was supplied to the editorial board; Florida Politics says the Sun Sentinel reported on the recording in July 2024.","Whether the hearing panel's findings, which the Florida Supreme Court approved, or the court's order attribute the recording to AI; neither document was opened.","How widely the recording circulated, who referred it for criminal investigation and with what result, and whether the depicted judges reported any consequence beyond saying it was fake."],"geography":{"basis":"The recording was supplied to the South Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board during a campaign for a Broward County court seat in Florida, and the depicted judges sit on the Florida Supreme Court and Florida's Ninth Judicial Circuit, per all inspected reports. The disciplinary proceeding was decided by the Florida Supreme Court.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"News reports of the disciplinary proceeding (Bloomberg Law on the Supreme Court decision; the ABA Journal, the News Service of Florida and Florida Politics on the commission's notice of charges) describe a recording imitating the voices of two justices and a chief judge, presented to an editorial board in a judicial campaign. The commission, which examined the recording, said it was fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative AI, and said it created a false perception of misconduct by the depicted judges. AI involvement is recorded as suspected.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, which examined the recording in bringing charges, stated in its notice that the recording \"is fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative-AI\", and that the voices resemble those of the purported participants while the manner of speech, tone and content are objectively unrealistic. Bloomberg Law reports that the two justices \"had their voices spoofed in the call\". The recording's imitation of the judges' voices is what presented them as discussing the book and is the basis of the commission's finding of a false perception of misconduct. The commission's attribution is hedged between computer manipulation and generative AI, its technical basis beyond listening to the recording is not disclosed, and no creator or tool is identified.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Florida: judge suspended for sharing, as a 2024 candidate, a fabricated call of justices the judicial watchdog says was likely computer-manipulated or AI-made","summary":"While campaigning in 2024 for a Broward County court seat, Lauren Peffer, now a county judge, sought the endorsement of the South Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board. Asked to back her claim of an image crisis in Florida's judiciary, she cited a self-published book by a fired employee of the Ninth Judicial Circuit and supplied a recording purportedly of a phone call about the book between Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, Justice Renatha Francis and the circuit's chief judge, Lisa Munyon. The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission's notice of formal charges, filed in May 2025, said the recording was fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative AI, and that while the voices resembled those of the participants, the manner of speech, tone and much of the content were objectively unrealistic. The notice said she had shared it despite clear evidence of its inauthenticity and had perpetuated a false perception of illegal, unethical or immoral conduct by the justices, a chief judge and others in the judicial branch. Peffer apologised, said the content was created by a third party with whom she had no ties, and testified that she could not explain why she had thought it valid. According to Bloomberg Law, the Florida Supreme Court on 9 October 2026 suspended her for 30 days and fined her $10,000, saying her conduct undermined public confidence in the judiciary by implicating sitting justices; the two justices whose voices were faked recused. Who made the recording, and with what tool, is not reported.","incidentDate":"2024-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-05-11","aiSystem":"An audio recording, posted on a website associated with a former court employee, that faked the voices of two Florida Supreme Court justices and a circuit chief judge. The Judicial Qualifications Commission's notice of charges said it was fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative AI. No tool or creator is identified in the inspected reports.","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Judicial Qualifications Commission's notice of charges and the Florida Supreme Court opinion as reported, a fabricated recording that imitated the voices of two Supreme Court justices and a circuit chief judge was presented to a newspaper editorial board during a judicial campaign, and the notice said it perpetuated a false perception of illegal, unethical or immoral conduct by those judges. The candidate who shared it was later suspended and fined. All three judges said the recording was fake, according to Florida Politics; no further consequence for them is reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Three people: the two Florida Supreme Court justices and the circuit chief judge whom the recording purported to capture, named in the FlaglerLive report of the notice of charges; Florida Politics reports that all three said the recording was fake. The candidate who shared the recording is not counted as harmed by it; newspaper staff and the public are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-FL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/florida-judge-suspended-over-deepfake-call-mimicking-justices","primarySourceLabel":"Bloomberg Law, 9 October 2026: FL Judge Suspended Over Deepfake Call Mimicking Justices","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:18:31.150274+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:18:31.150274+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepfake","voice-impersonation","judiciary","election","florida","public-figure","judicial-discipline"]},{"id":"2024-tasmania-parole-board-ai-hallucinated-case-law-media-condition-quashed","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"In December 2024, the Parole Board of Tasmania added a condition that she not speak \"directly or indirectly with any media outlet to claim (her) alleged innocence and/or wrongful conviction\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was replaced by a new parole condition in May 2025","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The condition was tweaked in 2025 to prevent her from communicating directly or indirectly - including through third parties and written statements - with media about her alleged innocence","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The Supreme Court declared that conditions imposed by the Parole Board of Tasmania in December 2024 and May 2025 were invalid and unlawful.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In December 2024 the Parole Board of Tasmania added a parole condition barring the parolee from communicating with media to claim her innocence or wrongful conviction, and a broader condition replaced it in May 2025.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"used artificial intelligence to prepare a rationale justifying the parole condition, citing case law that was \"fictitious\" and likely \"AI hallucinations\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"relied upon by the board in creating the conditions, included erroneous AI information, the court was told.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"\"As we now know, those cases didn't exist,\" he said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Her counsel told the Supreme Court that the board's secretary used artificial intelligence to prepare a rationale document justifying the condition and that the case law it cited did not exist.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's statement in court is reported by ABC and AAP. These accounts do not independently verify the generation history or identify the tool. The document itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"the Board’s decision-making was affected by a document containing legal authorities that were likely AI-generated hallucinations and did not in fact exist","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Justice Estcourt also found that when the parole board made the decision to impose this condition, it had relied on a document that cited case law that was \"fictitious\" and likely \"AI hallucinations\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Human Rights Law Centre says the State conceded the board's decision-making was affected by a document containing nonexistent authorities likely generated by AI. ABC's 19 September report says the court found the board had relied on the document when imposing the condition.","causal_attribution":"The State's concession as reported by the applicant's representative, and the ABC's report of the court's finding. The ABC's 15 September report says the judge heard this; its 19 September report says the judge found it. The AI origin is stated as likely."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Today in the Supreme Court in Hobart, Justice Stephen Estcourt ruled the condition was invalid because it denied her procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable, and created uncertainty.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Justice Stephen Estcourt found the condition was made without procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable and was filled with uncertainty.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"ABC and AAP report that on 15 September 2026 Justice Stephen Estcourt of the Supreme Court of Tasmania ruled the condition invalid because it denied procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable and created uncertainty.","causal_attribution":"The reported grounds of invalidity are procedural fairness, unreasonableness and uncertainty; the AI document is not reported as a separate ground."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"The parole board decided to withdraw the condition in August and did not contest it being set aside on Tuesday.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Mr Coleridge said the parole board met and withdrew the condition that same month","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The board withdrew the condition in August 2026 and did not contest it being set aside.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The court heard that in August","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"brought to the court's attention that the case law referred to in the document did not exist.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Her lawyers raised in August 2026 that the case law in the document did not exist, and the board withdrew the condition that month.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's sequence of events; the board refused to explain the withdrawal."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"For almost two years, the conditions imposed by the Parole Board of Tasmania prevented Ms Neill-Fraser from speaking publicly about her claimed innocence","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"she had been unable to speak publicly after Tasmania's parole board placed a condition on her release in 2024.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Any breach of parole could result in the remainder of the sentence having to be served","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The Human Rights Law Centre says the conditions prevented the parolee from speaking publicly about her claimed innocence for almost two years. The Guardian reports that a parole breach could have meant serving the remaining sentence.","causal_attribution":"The restriction is the effect of the condition; the AI document is one input to the decision that imposed it."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"The Parole Board's professional standards will be independently investigated following its use of unverified artificial intelligence in a rationale document which formed part of the materials before the board to impose conditions,\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Tasmania's Attorney-General announced an independent investigation of the Parole Board's professional standards following its use of unverified artificial intelligence in the rationale document.","causal_attribution":"The Attorney-General's statement acknowledges the AI use; it does not quantify its effect on the decision."},{"id":"c9","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"\"The Department will undertake a review to determine the extent to which Artificial Intelligence (AI) may have been used to inform past Tasmanian Parole Board decisions,\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"“The department will undertake a review to determine the extent to which artificial intelligence may have been used to inform past Tasmanian Parole Board decisions,” a justice department spokesperson said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Tasmania's Justice Department said it would review the extent to which AI may have been used to inform past Parole Board decisions.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim."}],"effects":[{"label":"a restriction on public speech about claimed innocence from December 2024 until withdrawal in August 2026","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"},{"label":"adverse parole decision affected by a rationale document citing likely AI-generated, non-existent case law","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-15/susan-neill-fraser-media-ban-parole-board-ai-hallucinations/106302950","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from abc.net.au (HTTP 200). Court reporting of the 15 September 2026 hearing; the judgment and orders were not inspected. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"abc-au"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9350990/murderers-gag-order-lifted-after-troubling-ai-error/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from canberratimes.com.au (HTTP 200); Australian Associated Press copy of the same hearing, reported independently of the ABC. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"aap"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/susan-neill-fraser-gag-order-unlawful/","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from hrlc.org.au (HTTP 200). Release by the organisation that represented the parolee; its account of the State's concessions is a party-side account. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"hrlc"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-19/parole-board-ai-use-review-after-neill-fraser-case/107172064","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from abc.net.au (HTTP 200). Same outlet as s1, so the same independence group; carries the Attorney-General's and Justice Department's statements. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"abc-au"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/19/tasmania-justice-department-review-ai-artificial-intelligence-fake-citation-murderer-parole-decision-ntwnfb","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from theguardian.com (HTTP 200); credited to a staff reporter with Australian Associated Press, so grouped with s2. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"aap"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/26/sue-neill-fraser-yacht-murder-ai-court-case-media-ban-tasmania-ntwnfb","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from theguardian.com (HTTP 200); Guardian Australia feature by its own reporter. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"guardian-au"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used and the extent of its contribution to the rationale. Counsel identified the secretary as its preparer, but the document and generation history were not inspected.","Whether the rationale document informed the December 2024 decision, the May 2025 decision or both.","The text of the judgment or orders, which could not be read (AustLII HTTP 403).","The findings of the independent investigation and of the Justice Department's review of past parole decisions."],"geography":{"basis":"The Parole Board of Tasmania imposed the condition and the Supreme Court of Tasmania in Hobart set it aside (ABC, AAP). The parolee's country of residence is not stated as such in the sources read.","court_countries":["AU"],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"This is a concrete restriction of a person's speech through a human parole-board decision. Court reporting and the representative's account describe likely AI-generated false authorities used as an input to that decision. The relation is informed_decision_about and does not require the AI text to mention the parolee. The AI origin remains qualified, and the document's precise role in each of the two successive conditions is unknown. The court's reported grounds concern procedural fairness, unreasonableness and uncertainty.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Human Rights Law Centre reports the State's concession that the board's decision-making was affected by a rationale document containing nonexistent authorities likely generated by AI. ABC and AAP court reports describe the document's use in imposing the media condition, and the Attorney-General's statement reported by ABC acknowledges unverified AI in material used by the board. These sources connect the AI-supplied legal material to a human decision restricting the parolee's speech. The relation is informed_decision_about. The sources do not establish that AI made claims about the parolee herself, wrote the whole rationale or made the final parole decision. The judgment and the rationale document have not been inspected.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Tasmania parole media ban quashed after state conceded reliance on likely AI-hallucinated case law","summary":"In December 2024 the Parole Board of Tasmania added a condition to the parole of Susan Neill-Fraser, released in 2022 after serving 13 years for murder and who maintains her innocence, barring her from communicating with media to claim innocence or wrongful conviction; a broader condition replaced it in May 2025. On 15 September 2026 the Supreme Court of Tasmania declared the conditions invalid. Her counsel told the court that the board's secretary had used artificial intelligence to prepare a rationale document justifying the condition and that it cited case law that did not exist. The Human Rights Law Centre, which represented her, says the State conceded that the board's decision-making was affected by a document containing legal authorities that were likely AI-generated hallucinations, and the ABC reports the court found the board relied on that document. The board had withdrawn the condition in August 2026. Tasmania's Attorney-General announced an independent investigation of the board's professional standards over its use of unverified AI, and the Justice Department announced a review of AI use in past parole decisions.","incidentDate":"2024-12-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-15","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-15","aiSystem":"An unidentified artificial-intelligence tool that, according to counsel and the Attorney-General, was used to prepare a Parole Board rationale document citing case law that did not exist","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","loss_of_autonomy"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The conditions restricted a parolee's public speech from December 2024 until their withdrawal in August 2026. They were declared invalid in September. The Human Rights Law Centre says the State conceded the board's decision-making had been affected by nonexistent legal authorities likely generated by AI. The judgment was not directly inspected, and the sources do not establish whether that document informed the original condition, the replacement or both.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One parolee is counted for the reported restriction of her speech. The reviewed sources describe no other identified person harmed by AI use in a parole decision; an announced review of past decisions does not establish additional victims.","victimAgeRange":"elderly","jurisdiction":"AU","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-15/susan-neill-fraser-media-ban-parole-board-ai-hallucinations/106302950","primarySourceLabel":"ABC News, 15 September 2026: AI hallucinations in parole board submission scuttle media ban on Susan Neill-Fraser","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:51.9027+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:51.9027+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["parole","hallucinated-case-law","freedom-of-speech","judicial-review","government-ai-use"]},{"id":"2025-valencia-spain-deepfake-school","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'began investigating in December last year after a female student reported the creation of a social media account in her name that featured an AI-generated video'; '\"All these photos had been modified from the originals, which had been manipulated so that the people in them appeared completely naked\"'; 'a webpage devoted to advertising the images for commercial purposes'; 'After 15 other minors came forward with similar complaints'; 'a 17-year-old boy was being investigated on suspicion of corrupting minors'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"From December 2024 a girl in the Ribera Alta area reported fake accounts in her name with an AI-generated video and AI-manipulated nude photos of minors, plus a webpage advertising the images commercially; 15 other minors complained; the Guardia Civil traced the accounts to a 17-year-old schoolmate, now investigated for corrupting minors under a Valencia youth court.","causal_attribution":"Guardia Civil statement as reported by the Guardian; single chain."}],"effects":[{"label":"16 minors depicted in AI-generated nude images and videos on fake accounts, one impersonated by name, images advertised for sale","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/27/spanish-teenager-investigated-ai-generated-nude-videos","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-18 (The Guardian, 27 July 2025). Reports and quotes the Guardia Civil's statement of 27 July 2025; the Spanish original of the statement was not read.","independence_group":"guardian"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["education","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["The outcome of the youth-court proceeding is not known.","The AI tools and the platforms hosting the accounts are not named.","Whether any images were actually sold is not stated."],"geography":{"basis":"Guardia Civil officers in the Ribera Alta area of Valencia province investigated; the victims are the suspect's schoolmates there; a youth court in Valencia oversees the case (Guardian).","court_countries":["ES"],"event_countries":["ES"],"affected_person_countries":["ES"]},"publication":{"basis":"Restored under the 2026-09-15 charter as a harmful-artifact case involving identified (unnamed) depicted minors, an impersonation and a police investigation under a youth court. One chain read; claims recorded as reported. Original ID and first-publication timestamp preserved; incident date corrected to the first complaint.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-18"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Guardia Civil statement, as quoted by the Guardian, describes AI-generated videos and AI-modified photos and a website advertising AI image-modification services; no forensic detail is published. The artifacts depicted the minors and impersonated one girl by name.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Ribera Alta, Valencia: a 17-year-old was investigated for making AI-generated nude images and videos of 16 schoolmates, impersonating a girl on fake accounts and advertising the images for sale","summary":"In December 2024 a female student in the Ribera Alta area of Valencia province reported to the Guardia Civil that a social-media account had been created in her name featuring an AI-generated video, and later a second account in her name, other accounts showing AI-generated nude videos, and a webpage advertising the images for commercial purposes; the Guardia Civil said the photos, all of minors, had been manipulated so that the people in them appeared completely naked. After 15 other minors came forward with similar complaints, officers traced IP addresses and account emails to the home of a 17-year-old schoolmate, who is being investigated on suspicion of corrupting minors under a Valencia youth court. The Guardia Civil announced the investigation on 27 July 2025.","incidentDate":"2024-12-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2025-07-27","aiSystem":"AI image and video manipulation tools (not named; police examined a website advertising AI image-modification services)","aiProduct":"Unidentified image and video tool","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse","psychological_distress","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Sixteen minors were depicted in AI-generated nude images and videos published on fake accounts, with one girl also impersonated by name, and the images were advertised for sale; a schoolmate is under youth-court investigation.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":16,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One complainant plus 15 other minors who came forward with similar complaints (Guardian, quoting the Guardia Civil): exact count of 16 depicted minors.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"ES","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/27/spanish-teenager-investigated-ai-generated-nude-videos","primarySourceLabel":"The Guardian, 27 July 2025: Spanish teenager investigated over AI-generated nude videos of 16 schoolmates (Guardia Civil statement)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-03-09T05:45:25.741735+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:20.032625+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepfake","ai-generated-imagery","minors","school","impersonation","spain","valencia","guardia-civil","youth-court","depicted"]}]}