{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-15T07:02:30.959Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"court","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":11,"coverage":{"cases":11,"countries":3,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":4,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":11,"minors":1,"coreRelations":10,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-alabama-federal-court-disqualifies-three-butler-snow-lawyers-over-chatgpt-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'On May 7, 2025, Defendant Dunn filed a motion for leave to take the'; 'Then, at 4:21 p.m. on May 12, 2025, Defendant'; 'In total, there were five problematic citations across two motions'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'filed two motions with five'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Two motions filed for the defendant, a former Alabama corrections commissioner, on 7 and 12 May 2025 contained five citations that did not exist or did not support the propositions for which they were cited.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's own review recorded in the sanctions order."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'possibly through the use of generative artificial intelligence.'; 'The next day, Plaintiff'; 'On May 14, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part'; 'conducted independent searches for each allegedly fabricated citation, to no avail'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'the court has conducted independent searches for each allegedly fabricated citation, to no avail'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff's response of 15 May 2025 objected that defence counsel appeared to have fabricated citations, possibly through generative AI; the court searched for each citation without result and ordered the signatories and the firm to show cause.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history documented by the order; the Guardian quotes the same show-cause order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'In short, attorney Matt Reeves used ChatGPT to obtain'; 'case citations returned by ChatGPT through independent review in Westlaw or'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'failed to verify the case citations returned by ChatGPT through independent review in Westlaw or Pacer before including them'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyers' response stated that partner Matthew Reeves used ChatGPT to obtain case citations for two arguments without verifying them, and Reeves declared that he did not verify the citations ChatGPT returned in Westlaw or PACER.","causal_attribution":"The statements are documented by the order; the AI's role in the citations rests on the lawyers' admission, which the court accepted."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'the court PUBLICLY REPRIMANDS Mr.'; 'them from further participation in this case; and REFERS this matter to the Alabama'; 'the court exercises its discretion not to suspend them from'; 'SANCTION attorneys Daniel J. Chism and Lynette E. Potter, and the law firm'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Manasco also publicly reprimanded the lawyers; referred them to the Alabama State Bar'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 23 July 2025 the court publicly reprimanded three lawyers, disqualified them from the case, referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar and other licensing authorities, declined to suspend them, and released two other lawyers and the firm without sanction.","causal_attribution":"Established by the operative passages of the sanctions order; the ABA Journal relays it."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'reviewed more than 2,400 separate legal'; 'citations across 330 filings.”'; 'revealed no additional “legal citations that were fabricated,”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'No other instances of incorrect case references were found.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Butler Snow commissioned an independent review by Morgan Lewis of more than 2,400 citations across 330 filings. A Morgan Lewis partner declared that the review revealed no additional fabricated citations, and the ABA Journal reports that no other incorrect case references were found.","causal_attribution":"The scope of the review and the Morgan Lewis partner's declaration are documented by the order; the ABA Journal relays the finding."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'and in these two instances I did not comply with policy'; 'I would hope your honor would not punish my colleagues'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"At the 21 May 2025 hearing, according to The Guardian, Reeves said he was aware of the limitations on AI use and had not complied with the firm's policy in these two instances, and asked the court not to punish his colleagues.","causal_attribution":"Statements at the hearing as reported by The Guardian."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'knowledge that Matt Reeves utilized generative artificial intelligence to generate'; 'Mr. Cranford is of counsel at Butler Snow'; 'or substantive review of the legal authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The of-counsel lawyer who drafted the motions declared that he had no knowledge that Reeves had used generative AI, and the practice group leader declared that he did not conduct a detailed or substantive review of the legal authorities in the second motion.","causal_attribution":"Declarations summarised and quoted in the sanctions order."}],"effects":[{"label":"three lawyers were publicly reprimanded, disqualified and referred to the state bar over ChatGPT-fabricated citations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677.204.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from the RECAP copy of the 51-page order (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext). The declarations, the hearing transcript (Doc. 200) and the Morgan Lewis report it cites were not read separately.","independence_group":"johnson-v-dunn-nd-ala-sanctions-order"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/24/alabama-prison-lawyers-chatgpt-butler-snow","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 (HTTP 200). The Guardian reports the 21 May 2025 show-cause hearing and quotes the court's order and Reeves's declaration.","independence_group":"guardian-butler-snow-may-2025"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/5-fabricated-cases-lead-federal-judge-to-kick-3-butler-snow-lawyers-off-case","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 (HTTP 200). The ABA Journal relays the 23 July 2025 order and Butler Snow's 19 May filing.","independence_group":"johnson-v-dunn-nd-ala-sanctions-order"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The outcome of the referral to the Alabama State Bar and other licensing authorities.","Which version of ChatGPT was used and what prompts produced the citations; the order records the partner's description of a search only.","Whether the disqualification delayed the plaintiff's case beyond the 30-day stay the order mentions."],"geography":{"basis":"The motions were filed in, and the sanctions imposed by, the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (sanctions order). Where the partner ran the ChatGPT search is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court seat.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the federal sanctions order of 23 July 2025 documents that three defence lawyers were publicly reprimanded, disqualified and referred to the state bar over five fabricated or unsupported citations that the lawyers confirmed were hallucinations of ChatGPT, which one partner had used without verifying.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions order records that three defence lawyers confirmed in writing and at a hearing that the citations were hallucinations of ChatGPT, and quotes their joint response that partner Matthew Reeves used ChatGPT to obtain case citations for two arguments without verifying them; Reeves declared that he searched ChatGPT for supporting case law and did not verify the citations it returned. The court found five citations across the two motions that do not exist or do not support the propositions cited, and sanctioned three lawyers for those false statements. The AI output therefore reached the sanctioned filings through the partner's own exchange with ChatGPT (communicated_with). The drafting lawyer declared that he did not know generative AI had been used, and the practice group leader that he did not substantively review the legal authorities.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Alabama federal judge reprimands and disqualifies three Butler Snow lawyers and refers them to the state bar over ChatGPT-fabricated citations (2025)","summary":"In an incarcerated man's lawsuit against Alabama prison officials in the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, two motions filed in May 2025 for the defence of a former Alabama corrections commissioner contained five citations that did not exist or did not support the propositions cited. Lawyers of the Butler Snow firm, which the state retains to defend its prisons, told the court that a partner had obtained the citations from ChatGPT and had not verified them. On 23 July 2025 Judge Anna M. Manasco publicly reprimanded three of the firm's lawyers, disqualified them from the case and referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar, and ordered them to give the order to clients, opposing counsel and judges in all their pending cases. She declined to suspend them and released the firm and two other lawyers without sanction.","incidentDate":"2025-05-07","incidentEndDate":"2025-07-23","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-05-24","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which a Butler Snow partner told the court he used to search for supporting case law; the order records the citations as hallucinations of ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's sanctions order of 23 July 2025, three Butler Snow lawyers were publicly reprimanded, disqualified from the case and referred to the Alabama State Bar after two motions contained citations that the lawyers confirmed were hallucinations of ChatGPT, which one of them had used and not verified.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Three lawyers sanctioned in the 23 July 2025 order: the partner who declared that he used ChatGPT (counted as the AI user) and the drafting lawyer and the practice group leader, whose own use of ChatGPT is not established (counted as other people harmed). The firm and the two lawyers released without sanction are not counted; the plaintiff and the defendant are not counted as harmed by the AI use.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677.204.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Johnson v. Dunn, No. 2:21-cv-01701, Sanctions Order (Doc. 204), 23 July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:01:17.679643+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:01:17.679643+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["alabama","federal-court","prison-litigation","lawyers","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","disqualification","bar-referral"]},{"id":"2025-johannesburg-high-court-refers-applicant-lawyers-to-legal-practice-council-over-ai-tool-fictitious-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'two cases cited in Northbound Processing'; 'were fictitious'; 'the revised version contained two additional incorrect citations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'heads of argument contained fictitious case citations that appeared to have been generated by artificial intelligence'; 'contained two additional incorrect citations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"While preparing judgment in Northbound Processing's urgent application against the South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator, the acting judge found that two cases cited in the applicant's heads of argument did not exist, and a corrected version supplied by junior counsel contained two further incorrect citations.","causal_attribution":"The judgment as described by ITWeb and by a law-firm alert; both rest on the same judgment, which was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'acknowledged that the non-existent citations likely originated from an AI tool'; 'he had used a tool called'; 'which claimed to be trained solely on South African legal sources'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'counsel acknowledged the use of AI, accepted full responsibility'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On the court's direct inquiry, junior counsel acknowledged that the non-existent citations likely originated from an AI tool and said a tool called Legal Genius had been used under deadline pressure.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's statement to the court as relayed by ITWeb; the law-firm alert relays the acknowledgment without naming the tool."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'found no intent to deceive the court'; 'be referred to the Legal Practice Council for investigation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'a referral to the Legal Practice Council for investigation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judge accepted the legal team's apologies and found no intent to deceive the court, but ordered that the conduct of Northbound's legal practitioners be referred to the Legal Practice Council for investigation.","causal_attribution":"The court's order as described by both accounts of the judgment."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'While Northbound ultimately succeeded in obtaining the relief sought'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Northbound nevertheless obtained the relief it sought in the application.","causal_attribution":"The law-firm alert's account of the judgment."}],"effects":[{"label":"the applicant's legal practitioners were referred to the Legal Practice Council for investigation over fictitious citations","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.itweb.co.za/article/lawyers-face-probe-for-using-hallucinating-genai-in-court/Pero3MZ3221qQb6m","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200). ITWeb reports from court documents it saw; the judgment itself was not available to the agent.","independence_group":"northbound-processing-judgment-zagpjhc"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com/en/news/publications/2025/Practice/Employment-Law/combined-employment-and-knowledge-management-alert-4-july-Another-episode-of-fabricated-citations-real-repercussions-South-African-courts-show-no-tolerance-for-AI-hallucinated-cases","kind":"other","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from a 2025 Internet Archive capture (the live page returned HTTP 403). A law-firm client alert analysing the same judgment; same origin as ITWeb.","independence_group":"northbound-processing-judgment-zagpjhc"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The exact date of the judgment and of the referral order.","How many practitioners were referred and the outcome of any Legal Practice Council investigation.","Which citations Legal Genius produced and whether the tool provider responded."],"geography":{"basis":"The heads were filed in, and the referral ordered by, the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg (ITWeb, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). Where counsel prepared the heads is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court seat.","court_countries":["ZA"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because two accounts of the judgment report that the court referred the applicant's lawyers to the Legal Practice Council after heads of argument cited non-existent cases, and that junior counsel told the court the citations likely came from the AI tool Legal Genius.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"ITWeb, which saw the court documents, reports that on the court's direct inquiry junior counsel acknowledged that the non-existent citations in the heads of argument likely originated from an AI tool and said a tool called Legal Genius had been used under deadline pressure; Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr's analysis of the judgment says counsel acknowledged the use of AI. The tool's output (citations of cases that do not exist) was filed in the heads, and the court referred the practitioners to the Legal Practice Council because fictitious authorities were placed before it. The attribution rests on counsel's acknowledgment as relayed by these two accounts of the judgment; the judgment itself was not read.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Johannesburg High Court refers a company's lawyers to the Legal Practice Council over fictitious citations that junior counsel said likely came from an AI tool","summary":"In an urgent application by Northbound Processing against the South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator, Acting Judge DJ Smit of the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, found while preparing judgment that two cases cited in the applicant's heads of argument did not exist. According to ITWeb, which saw the court documents, junior counsel first said a wrong version had been filed, a corrected version was found to contain two further incorrect citations, and on the court's direct inquiry junior counsel acknowledged that the citations likely originated from an AI tool called Legal Genius, used under deadline pressure. The judge accepted the legal team's apologies and found no intent to deceive, but referred the conduct of the applicant's legal practitioners to the Legal Practice Council for investigation (June 2025). The applicant obtained the relief it sought.","incidentDate":"2025-06-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-07-02","aiSystem":"Legal Genius, an AI legal research tool that junior counsel told the court had been used and which, junior counsel said, claimed to be trained solely on South African legal sources","aiProduct":"Legal Genius (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to ITWeb and a law-firm alert on the judgment, the court referred the applicant's legal practitioners to the Legal Practice Council for investigation after heads of argument cited non-existent cases that junior counsel said likely came from the AI tool Legal Genius.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the junior counsel who told the court the tool had been used, among the legal practitioners whose conduct was referred. The order refers the practitioners as a group and the sources read do not state how many were referred, so others are unquantified. The applicant company is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"ZA","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.itweb.co.za/article/lawyers-face-probe-for-using-hallucinating-genai-in-court/Pero3MZ3221qQb6m","primarySourceLabel":"ITWeb, 2 July 2025: Lawyers face probe for using hallucinating GenAI in court","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:33.803607+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:33.803607+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["south-africa","johannesburg","high-court","fictitious-citations","legal-practice-council","legal-research-tool"]},{"id":"2025-colorado-federal-court-fines-mypillow-defence-lawyers-over-brief-with-fabricated-citations-after-ai-admission","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Defendants filed their Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff'; 'the Court identified nearly thirty defective citations in the Opposition'; 'and most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'and most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The defendants' opposition to the plaintiff's motion in limine, filed on 25 February 2025 and signed by Kachouroff and DeMaster, contained nearly thirty defective citations, including misquotes and citations of cases that do not exist.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court orders, which record the court's own review of the filed brief."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Was this motion generated by generative'; 'Initially, I did an outline for myself, and I'; 'drafted a motion, and then we ran it through AI'; 'I personally did not check it'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Final Pretrial/Trial Preparation Conference held on April 21, 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"At the final pretrial conference on 21 April 2025, asked whether the motion was generated by generative artificial intelligence, Kachouroff said he had drafted it and then ran it through AI, and that he personally did not check the citations.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's statement to the court, quoted from the transcript in the 7 July order; it establishes what counsel said, and the AI's role in the defective citations rests on that statement and the co-counsel declaration."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'believed some of these citations were likely from AI drafts'; 'I do not rely on AI to do legal research or find cases'; 'the use of generative artificial intelligence or gross carelessness by counsel'; 'Nor is this Court persuaded by counsel'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Co-counsel's declaration said Kachouroff had told her he believed some of the citations were likely from AI drafts; counsel also said a wrong draft had been filed by mistake and Kachouroff declared he does not rely on AI to do legal research or find cases. The court was not persuaded by the wrong-draft explanation and found no explanation of how the citations appeared absent generative AI or gross carelessness.","causal_attribution":"The declarations' content and the court's findings are documented by the order; the order does not itself find which tool produced the citations."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Court hereby SANCTIONS Christopher I. Kachouroff and the law firm'; 'The Court hereby SANCTIONS Jennifer T. DeMaster in the amount of'; 'this Court does not extend the sanctions to Defendants'; 'no later than August 4, 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A federal judge ordered two attorneys representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in a Colorado defamation case to pay $3,000 each'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 7 July 2025 the court held that Kachouroff and DeMaster violated Rule 11 and sanctioned Kachouroff and his law firm jointly $3,000 and DeMaster $3,000, payable by 4 August 2025, and did not extend the sanctions to Lindell or his companies.","causal_attribution":"Established by the operative part of the 7 July order; NPR relays it."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Kachouroff and DeMaster didn'; 'request for comment'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"NPR reported that Kachouroff and DeMaster did not respond to its request for comment.","causal_attribution":"NPR's own report of its request."}],"effects":[{"label":"two defence lawyers were fined $3,000 each for a brief with fabricated citations that lead counsel said had been run through AI","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129-10.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200). Order of 7 July 2025 (Doc. 383, 20 pages) read in full; the hearing transcript, the declarations and the draft exhibits it cites were not read separately.","independence_group":"coomer-v-lindell-d-colo-sanctions-orders"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129-8.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200). Order to show cause of 23 April 2025 (Doc. 309) read in full.","independence_group":"coomer-v-lindell-d-colo-sanctions-orders"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.npr.org/2025/07/10/nx-s1-5463512/ai-courts-lawyers-mypillow-fines","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200). NPR reports the 7 July order and quotes it; it adds that the lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.","independence_group":"coomer-v-lindell-d-colo-sanctions-orders"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used on the brief and which citations it introduced.","Whether either lawyer has faced bar disciplinary proceedings over the brief; the final order imposes fines only."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in, and the sanctions imposed by, the US District Court for the District of Colorado (both orders). Where the lawyers drafted the brief is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court seat.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's 7 July 2025 order documents that two defence lawyers were fined $3,000 each for a brief with nearly thirty defective citations, including non-existent cases, and quotes lead counsel's statement in court that the draft was run through AI and not checked.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's 7 July 2025 order quotes lead counsel's answer at the 21 April 2025 conference that after drafting the motion 'we ran it through AI' and that he did not check the citations, and quotes co-counsel's declaration that he believed some of the citations were likely from AI drafts. The filed brief contained citations of cases that do not exist, and the court found counsel gave no explanation of how those citations appeared absent the use of generative artificial intelligence or gross carelessness; it fined both lawyers for the brief. The AI output is thus connected to the sanctioned filing by counsel's own statements in the court record. Counsel later declared that he does not rely on AI to do legal research or find cases, and the court did not identify the tool.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Colorado federal court fines two MyPillow defence lawyers $3,000 each over a brief with fabricated citations; lead counsel had admitted running it through AI","summary":"In the defamation case Coomer v. Lindell in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, a brief that lawyers for Mike Lindell and MyPillow filed on 25 February 2025 contained nearly thirty defective citations, including citations of cases that do not exist. At a conference on 21 April 2025 lead counsel Christopher Kachouroff told Judge Nina Y. Wang that he had drafted the motion and then 'ran it through AI' and had not personally checked the citations. Counsel later said a wrong draft had been filed by mistake; the court was not persuaded. On 7 July 2025 the court found that he and co-counsel Jennifer DeMaster had violated Rule 11 and fined each $3,000 (Kachouroff jointly with his law firm). The court did not sanction Lindell or his companies.","incidentDate":"2025-02-25","incidentEndDate":"2025-07-07","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-04-23","aiSystem":"A generative AI tool that lead counsel said the draft brief was run through; the court record does not identify which tool was used for this brief","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's 7 July 2025 order, two defence lawyers were found to have violated Rule 11 and were each fined $3,000 after filing a brief with nearly thirty defective citations, including non-existent cases, which lead counsel had said was run through AI.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people sanctioned in the 7 July 2025 order: lead counsel, who told the court the draft was run through AI (counted as the AI user), and co-counsel who signed the brief, whose own use of AI is not established (counted as another person harmed). The law firm is an organisation and is not counted; the defendants were not sanctioned.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129-10.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court for the District of Colorado, Coomer v. Lindell, order on the order to show cause (Doc. 383), 7 July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:29.9489+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:29.9489+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["colorado","federal-court","defamation-case","lawyers","fabricated-citations","rule-11-sanction","generative-ai"]},{"id":"2025-quebec-appeal-court-costs-self-represented-appellant-ai-drafted-filings-nonexistent-judgments","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Elle réclame aussi 10 000 $ en dommages-intérêts'; 'références juridiques inexistantes générées par l’intelligence artificielle dans ses actes de procédure'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The respondent asked the Court of Appeal for $10,000 in damages, alleging that the appellant had included non-existent legal references generated by artificial intelligence in his filings.","causal_attribution":"The decision documents that the respondent made this request; the allegation is hers."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'parce qu’il a utilisé l’intelligence artificielle pour la rédaction'; 'déclaration d’appel et de son exposé, qui comportent deux références à des arrêts inexistants et une référence inexacte quant à un paragraphe cité'; 'L’appelant a contrevenu à cet Avis de la Juge en chef'; 'une forme de négligence plutôt que de la mauvaise foi'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Ruling on the respondent's request, the court described the appellant's notice of appeal and brief as written with artificial intelligence and as containing two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph, and found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use through negligence rather than bad faith.","causal_attribution":"Finding stated in the Court of Appeal decision of 1 October 2026; the decision does not name the tool."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'une telle connaissance de la part de l’appelant n’a pas été démontrée'; 'il y a lieu de le condamner aux frais de justice en vertu de l’article 340 C.p.c.'; 'en matière familiale, de chacune'; 'REJETTE la demande visant à sanctionner un manquement au déroulement'; 'LE TOUT, avec les frais de justice en faveur de l’intimée.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Because knowledge of the invented references was not shown, the court rejected the separate monetary sanction but ordered court costs against the appellant under article 340 C.p.c. to sanction the conduct.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the decision; the costs are the court's response to the AI-drafted filings."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'ACCUEILLE en partie l’appel'; 'peine de 100 heures de travail d’utilité sociale'; 'une mesure coercitive d’emprisonnement de 30 jours'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On the merits the court partly allowed the appeal for reasons unrelated to AI and reduced the contempt penalty to 100 hours of community work and 30 days of coercive imprisonment.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the decision; the contempt arose from non-compliance with family-court orders, not from AI use."}],"effects":[{"label":"a self-represented appellant was ordered to pay court costs because his AI-drafted appeal filings cited non-existent judgments","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3266/Droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-QCCA-1300.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read in full in French by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 from the copy of the decision hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database (PDF, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator or reviewer was involved. The locators quote the French original.","independence_group":"qcca-2026-qcca-1300-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the appellant used and what it produced beyond the two non-existent judgments and the inaccurate paragraph reference.","The amount of the court costs ordered against the appellant.","Whether the appellant has complied with the underlying orders or served the coercive imprisonment."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was heard and decided by the Quebec Court of Appeal from a Quebec Superior Court judgment (decision caption and paragraph 1), and the filings were made in that court. The decision states no residence for the appellant, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["CA"],"event_countries":["CA"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the court's own decision: the Quebec Court of Appeal described a self-represented appellant's appeal filings as written with AI and as citing non-existent judgments, held that he had breached its AI notice and ordered costs against him. The facts are documented by the decision; the appellant is a private party in a family matter and is not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Ruling on the respondent's request (paragraph 28), the Quebec Court of Appeal decision describes the appellant's notice of appeal and brief as written with artificial intelligence and as containing two references to non-existent judgments and an inaccurate paragraph reference. The court treated that AI drafting and those references as established: it held that he had breached its AI notice (paragraph 30), contrasted his lack of shown knowledge of the hallucinations with an earlier case (paragraphs 31-32) and ordered costs against him for that reason. The AI output reached him as drafted text he filed (communicated_with) and informed the court's costs decision about him (informed_decision_about). The decision does not identify the tool or quote its output.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Quebec Court of Appeal orders costs against a self-represented appellant whose AI-drafted filings cited two non-existent judgments (1 Oct 2026)","summary":"On 1 October 2026 the Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against a self-represented appellant in a family-law contempt appeal as a sanction for appeal filings that, in the court's description, he had written with artificial intelligence and that contained two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph. The court held that AI may be used to draft appeal filings only if the litigant verifies the authorities, found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use, and described his conduct as negligence rather than bad faith. It rejected the respondent's request for a separate $10,000 sanction and, for reasons unrelated to AI, reduced the contempt penalty imposed at first instance. The decision does not name the AI tool.","incidentDate":"2025-12-15","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-01","aiSystem":"Artificial intelligence, not identified in the decision, which the self-represented appellant used to draft his notice of appeal and brief","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against the self-represented appellant as a sanction for filings he drafted with AI that cited non-existent judgments, holding that he breached the court's AI notice through negligence (2026 QCCA 1300, 1 October 2026). The amount of the costs is not stated.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used AI to draft the filings and against whom costs were ordered. The respondent and other family members are not counted as harmed by the AI-related sanction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3266/Droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-QCCA-1300.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Quebec Court of Appeal, Droit de la famille — 261553, 2026 QCCA 1300, 1 October 2026 (copy hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:20.356128+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:20.356128+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","self_represented_litigant","costs_order","family_law","canada","quebec"]},{"id":"2025-ontario-lawyer-chatgpt-factum-invented-cases-contempt-referral-licence-suspension","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On May 1, the applicant’s counsel presented a motion seeking relief in this application. During oral submissions, she delivered a factum and cited cases to support the applicant’s arguments.'; 'The judge asked the lawyer if AI like ChatGPT supported the preparation of the factum. She said she would have to ask her clerk.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'After the hearing, the judge again reviewed the factum and found two more incorrect citations — one to a non-existent case and another to a case that stood for the opposite proposition than that for which it had been cited.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'When Justice Myers confronted her in open court about whether she had used ChatGPT, she categorically denied it, stating, “I did not.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'whether she had used ChatGPT to write her factum'; 'said she had not.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"At a motion hearing on 1 May 2025 in an Ontario Superior Court of Justice estate and family-law application, the applicant’s lawyer relied in writing and orally on a factum citing cases that the judge could not find or that did not support the propositions cited; asked whether AI such as ChatGPT had been used, the lawyer said, according to Canadian Lawyer and LawSites, that she would have to ask her clerk, while Law360 Canada and the tribunal reasons as reported by Law Times say she denied using ChatGPT.","causal_attribution":"Account of the court’s first endorsement (2025 ONSC 2766) as relayed by two legal-press outlets, with the lawyer’s answer in court given differently by Law360 Canada and by the tribunal reasons as reported by Law Times; the endorsement itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'factum may have been created by AI and that before filing the factum and relying on it in court, she might not have checked to make sure the cases were real'; 'the judge ordered the attorney to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'counsel was ordered to return for a show cause hearing to argue why she should not be cited for contempt of court'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The judge found that the factum appeared to have been created by AI and not checked, and ordered the lawyer to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt of court.","causal_attribution":"The court’s own statement, as quoted by LawSites and summarised by Cassels."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'At an informal scheduling conference on May 16, 2025, counsel was forthright in admitting her error and provided an explanation.'; 'In a written decision released on May 20, 2025, the Court found it unnecessary to continue with contempt proceedings'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'explaining that her staff had used ChatGPT to prepare the factum without her knowledge. She apologized for the mistake and promised to complete at least six hours of continuing professional education in legal ethics and technology.'; 'suffered a public shaming near the end of an unblemished career,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"After telling the court that her staff had used ChatGPT to prepare the factum without her knowledge, apologising and undertaking continuing professional education, the lawyer had the show-cause order withdrawn in a decision released on 20 May 2025, which noted that she had suffered a public shaming near the end of an unblemished career.","causal_attribution":"The court’s second decision (2025 ONSC 2965) as summarised by Cassels and recited in the tribunal reasons reported by Law Times."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'admitting the truth: there was no student.'; 'The new disclosure raises issues of deception of the court in a contempt of court proceeding. The procedural context and the quality of the acts are very different.'; 'the court appointed amicus curiae Dean Embry to ensure'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'revealing that she alone prepared the AI-assisted factum, reversing her prior claim that others were involved. The court treated this as a fresh act of potential contempt and referred the matter to the Attorney General.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"On 30 September 2025 the lawyer wrote to the court that she alone had prepared the factum using ChatGPT and that her earlier account blaming staff was untrue; on 4 December 2025 the court referred the matter to the Attorney General of Ontario for criminal contempt proceedings and appointed an amicus curiae.","causal_attribution":"The court’s third decision (2025 ONSC 6785) as described by Law360 Canada and WeirFoulds; both relay the same decision."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'will have her license to practise law suspended for six months starting July 17. The tribunal'; 'to pay $10,000 to the Law Society of Ontario'; 'containing only non-existent or irrelevant case law generated by an artificial intelligence tool” and later lying to the court about not using the tool.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 16 July 2026 the Law Society Tribunal suspended the lawyer’s licence for six months from 17 July and ordered her to pay $10,000 to the Law Society of Ontario, finding that she relied on a factum containing only non-existent or irrelevant case law generated by an AI tool and later lied to the court about not using the tool.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal’s order as reported by Law Times; the order itself was not read."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the lawyer failed to serve her client in a family law matter by using ChatGPT to prepare a factum containing AI-hallucinated case citations and arguments.'; 'Later, she admitted that she had prepared the factum herself and did not know hallucinations existed until Myers confronted her about her submissions.'; 'we are extremely troubled by the lawyer’s subsequent repeated lies to the court and to the law society'; 'had little to no prior experience with ChatGPT'; 'That case remains ongoing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The tribunal’s reasons, as reported, say the lawyer failed to serve her client by using ChatGPT to prepare a factum containing hallucinated citations and arguments, that she had prepared the factum herself with little or no prior experience of ChatGPT, that her repeated lies to the court and the Law Society troubled the tribunal more than the reliance, and that the criminal contempt case remained ongoing.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal’s reasons as reported by Law Times; the reasons themselves were not read."}],"effects":[{"label":"show-cause order for contempt, referral for criminal contempt and a six-month licence suspension after relying on ChatGPT-generated nonexistent case law","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/family/superior-court-says-family-law-case-factum-may-have-fake-legal-citations-due-to-ai-hallucinations/392433","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Canadian Lawyer, 13 May 2025, reporting the first endorsement (2025 ONSC 2766); HTTP 200. The endorsement itself (CanLII) returned 403 live and from the Internet Archive.","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/2025/05/ai-hallucinations-strike-again-two-more-cases-where-lawyers-face-judicial-wrath-for-fake-citations.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. LawSites (LawNext), 14 May 2025, summarising the same endorsement; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://cassels.com/insights/fantasies-in-the-footnotes-ontario-court-rebukes-counsel-for-fake-and-misleading-ai-generated-case-citations/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Cassels law-firm commentary, 23 May 2025, summarising 2025 ONSC 2766 and 2025 ONSC 2965; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.law360.ca/ca/articles/2419185","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Law360 Canada analysis, 8 Dec 2025, describing 2025 ONSC 6785 and quoting it; HTTP 200 (full text served).","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.weirfoulds.com/pdf-article?id=36828","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. WeirFoulds law-firm article PDF, 23 Dec 2025, on 2025 ONSC 6785; HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext.","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/law-society-tribunal-temporarily-suspends-lawyers-license-after-finding-she-lied-about-chatgpt-use/393450","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Law Times, 16 Jul 2026, on the Law Society Tribunal order; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"law-society-tribunal-order-and-reasons-2026"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/out-of-character-tribunal-explains-six-month-suspension-of-lawyer-who-lied-about-chatgpt-use/393453","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Law Times, 21 Jul 2026, on the tribunal reasons; HTTP 200. The tribunal order and reasons themselves were not read.","independence_group":"law-society-tribunal-order-and-reasons-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The outcome of the criminal contempt proceeding referred to the Attorney General; the latest source read (21 July 2026) says it remained ongoing.","Whether the client suffered any concrete consequence in the estate application; the tribunal found the lawyer failed to serve her client but no source read describes an effect on the case.","Which ChatGPT version was used and what prompts produced the citations.","The court endorsements and the tribunal order and reasons were not read directly (CanLII returned 403); all claims rest on legal-press and law-firm accounts of them."],"geography":{"basis":"The factum was filed and argued at a hearing of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and the lawyer is described as a Toronto lawyer licensed by the Law Society of Ontario, whose tribunal suspended her.","court_countries":["CA"],"event_countries":["CA"],"affected_person_countries":["CA"]},"publication":{"basis":"Legal-press and law-firm accounts of three Ontario Superior Court decisions and a Law Society Tribunal order describe a lawyer who relied on ChatGPT-generated nonexistent case law in a factum, was ordered to show cause for contempt, later admitted she alone had used ChatGPT and had misled the court, was referred for criminal contempt and was suspended for six months.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawyer told the court in September 2025 that she alone prepared the factum using ChatGPT, and the Law Society Tribunal, as reported by Law Times, found that she relied on a factum containing only non-existent or irrelevant case law generated by an AI tool and that she used ChatGPT to prepare it. ChatGPT’s output (citations to cases that do not exist or do not support the propositions) reached the lawyer, who filed it and relied on it orally at the 1 May 2025 hearing; the court’s contempt proceedings and the tribunal’s suspension followed from that reliance and from her later false account of it. The tribunal’s main concern was her dishonesty, which is a separate act by the lawyer.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Ontario: lawyer who relied on ChatGPT-invented case law in a factum was referred for criminal contempt and suspended for six months, legal press reports","summary":"An Ontario lawyer relied, at a 1 May 2025 Superior Court hearing in an estate and family-law matter, on a factum citing cases that do not exist or do not support the propositions cited. The judge ordered her to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt, then withdrew the order on 20 May 2025 after she said her staff had used ChatGPT without her knowledge. On 30 September 2025 she told the court that she alone had prepared the factum with ChatGPT and that her earlier account was untrue; the court referred the matter to Ontario’s Attorney General for criminal contempt proceedings in December 2025. In July 2026 the Law Society Tribunal suspended her licence for six months, finding she relied on AI-generated non-existent case law and lied about it. The account comes from legal-press and law-firm reports of the decisions; the criminal contempt case was still ongoing at the last report read.","incidentDate":"2025-05-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-05-13","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which the lawyer admitted using to prepare the factum and which the Law Society Tribunal found generated the non-existent or irrelevant case law","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to legal-press reports of the court and tribunal decisions, the lawyer faced a contempt show-cause order and a referral for criminal contempt, and the Law Society Tribunal suspended her licence for six months and ordered her to pay $10,000 to the Law Society of Ontario; the court noted she had suffered a public shaming near the end of an unblemished career.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the lawyer who used ChatGPT, is reported to have suffered the contempt proceedings and the suspension. The tribunal found she failed to serve her client, but no source read describes a concrete consequence for the client, who is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/out-of-character-tribunal-explains-six-month-suspension-of-lawyer-who-lied-about-chatgpt-use/393453","primarySourceLabel":"Law Times, 21 Jul 2026: tribunal explains six-month suspension of lawyer who lied about ChatGPT use","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:13:48.661937+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:13:48.661937+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","lawyer_sanction","contempt_of_court","professional_discipline","canada","ontario"]},{"id":"2025-north-carolina-federal-prosecutor-ai-drafted-brief-fabricated-quotations-reprimand","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"This filing misquoted a Fourth Circuit case, falsely attributed quotes to other cases and incorrectly described the court’s decision in several cases that he relied upon to support his argument, Numbers said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Numbers' list of problematic conduct includes fabricated quotes, misrepresentations of previous cases","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"filed a response with the court including “fabricated quotations and misstatements of case holdings”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"A response brief filed in December 2025 by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rudy Renfer for the Department of Defense in Fivehouse v. U.S. Department of Defense misquoted a Fourth Circuit case, attributed quotes to cases that did not contain them and misdescribed the holdings of several cases, according to Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II's orders as reported by the News & Observer and Courthouse News.","causal_attribution":"The court attributed the false quotations to the brief Renfer signed; the fabricated authority is the AI-related artifact in this case."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"flagged fabricated quotes and inaccurate descriptions of court cases in a brief Renfer filed earlier that month.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"In a January court filing, Renfer attributed the errors to an \"inadvertent filing of an unfinalized draft.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Fivehouse pointed out the errors in his reply.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The self-represented plaintiff, a retired Air Force colonel, identified the fabricated quotes and inaccurate case descriptions in his reply at the end of December 2025, and Renfer then attributed the errors to the inadvertent filing of an unfinalized draft.","causal_attribution":"none asserted"},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"the court orders Assistant United States Attorney Rudy E. Renfer to appear and show cause why he should not be sanctioned. The show cause hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 10, 2026","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"must appear at a show-cause hearing this week","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"On 2 March 2026 the court ordered Renfer to appear on 10 March 2026 and show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(b)(2) and the court's inherent authority, and asked leadership of the U.S. Attorney's Office to attend.","causal_attribution":"none asserted"},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Renfer then admitted to using AI to draft the brief","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"he thought he had edited and fact-checked the brief that AI helped draft. In reality, he sent an unfinished draft to his assistant, directing her to file it","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"He told the court that he accidentally saved a new file over the original draft of the brief, “panicked,” and used artificial intelligence to catch up.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"At the 10 March 2026 hearing Renfer said under oath that, after accidentally saving over his draft of the brief, he panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft it, believed he had edited and fact-checked the AI-assisted draft, and in fact sent an unfinished draft to be filed.","causal_attribution":"Renfer connected the fabricated authority to his use of AI; the court later wrote that an attorney who outsources research and writing to generative AI assumes the risk of fictitious authority."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Renfer lost his job after resigning from the position he had held for 17 years, he said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Renfer also told Numbers, who presided over that hearing, that he had submitted his resignation.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Renfer was reportedly terminated the next day.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"has asked the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Renfer left the U.S. Attorney's Office, where he had worked for 17 years: he told the court on 10 March 2026 that he had submitted his resignation, and Courthouse News reported that he was terminated the next day; the U.S. Attorney referred him to the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility.","causal_attribution":"The job loss followed the hearing on the AI-drafted brief; the sources do not state the employer's formal grounds."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Numbers II signed an order reprimanding Rudy Renfer","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Numbers limited the punishment to a public reprimand.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Numbers said Renfer “intentionally submitted a brief containing false materials to the court.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"His loss of employment imposes a financial burden well beyond the types of fines courts typically","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 28 April 2026 Magistrate Judge Numbers signed an order publicly reprimanding Renfer, writing that he intentionally submitted a brief containing false materials, that his professional reputation was in tatters, and that his loss of employment was a financial burden beyond the fines courts typically impose, so no fine was imposed.","causal_attribution":"The court tied the reprimand to the submission of fabricated authority produced with generative AI."}],"effects":[{"label":"a federal prosecutor lost his 17-year position and received a public judicial reprimand after filing an AI-drafted brief with fabricated quotations","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"},{"label":"a self-represented litigant had to identify fabricated quotations and misdescribed cases in the government's brief against him","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/judge-weighs-next-steps-us-121054156.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. The News & Observer report of 11 March 2026 on the 10 March show-cause hearing, read in its Yahoo News syndication; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"news-and-observer"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/federal-judge-punishes-ex-us-173015519.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. The News & Observer report of 28 April 2026 on the reprimand order, read in its Yahoo News syndication; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"news-and-observer"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rebukes-ex-doj-attorney-for-ai-generated-brief/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. Courthouse News Service report of 28 April 2026; the publisher host returned HTTP 403 to the fetcher, so the body was read from an Internet Archive capture of the same URL.","independence_group":"courthouse-news"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/doj-leaders-must-explain-why-attorney-used-fabricated-quotes-in-court-filing","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. ABA Journal, 9 March 2026, relaying Bloomberg Law reporting of the 2 March 2026 show-cause order; it does not mention AI; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"bloomberg-law"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71231282/fivehouse-v-us-department-of-defense/?page=2","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. CourtListener RECAP docket for Fivehouse v. U.S. Department of Defense, No. 2:25-cv-00041 (E.D.N.C.), page 2, entries of February to March 2026; HTTP 200. The 28 April 2026 order itself was not available as a free document.","independence_group":"court-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool Renfer used, and whether the whole brief or only parts of it were generated; the inspected accounts say only that he used artificial intelligence to draft the brief after losing his own draft.","Whether Renfer resigned or was terminated: he told the court he had resigned, and Courthouse News reported that he was terminated the next day.","The outcome of the Office of Professional Responsibility referral, and whether the court found similar fabricated quotations in other filings he signed (the News & Observer mentions errors in some of his other briefs without detail).","Any consequence for the self-represented plaintiff beyond the work of identifying the errors; the inspected sources describe none."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina and the hearing took place at the federal courthouse in Raleigh (docket entry of 2 March 2026; News & Observer). Renfer worked in that district's U.S. Attorney's Office. No other country is involved.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case on two independent reporting chains that both quote the court's orders and both report the attorney's statements at the 10 March 2026 hearing: a federal prosecutor said under oath that he used artificial intelligence to draft a brief that the court found contained fabricated quotations and misdescribed holdings, and the court responded with a show-cause order (documented on the docket), after which he lost his position and received a public reprimand on 28 April 2026. The affected person is a named public actor in a public court record. The AI tool is not identified and the resignation-or-termination question is recorded as unknown.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Renfer stated under oath at the 10 March 2026 show-cause hearing that he used artificial intelligence to draft the response brief after overwriting his own draft, and that he had not verified the cases it cited (News & Observer, 11 March; Courthouse News, 28 April). The court's 28 April order, as quoted by Courthouse News, treated the fabricated quotations and misdescribed holdings in that brief as the output of generative AI that Renfer failed to check ('An attorney who outsources core research and writing obligations to generative AI assumes the risk that its output will contain fictitious authority'); the News & Observer quotes the same order's statement that 'the submission of fabricated authority will not be tolerated in this Court'. The fabricated authority in the filed brief led to the show-cause order, the hearing, his departure from the office and the public reprimand. The tool is not identified in any inspected source.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Former federal prosecutor in North Carolina publicly reprimanded after admitting that a brief with fabricated quotations was drafted with AI; he lost his post","summary":"In December 2025 an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina filed a response brief for the Department of Defense in a self-represented veteran's lawsuit over health-insurance coverage. The plaintiff identified fabricated quotations and misdescribed case holdings in it. The attorney first attributed the errors to an unfinalized draft filed by mistake. On 2 March 2026 Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. At the 10 March hearing the attorney, Rudy Renfer, said under oath that he had accidentally overwritten his draft, panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft the brief, and had not verified the cases it cited; he said he had resigned after 17 years in the office, and Courthouse News reported he was terminated the next day. On 28 April 2026 the court issued a public reprimand instead of a fine, writing that his reputation was in tatters and that his job loss already exceeded the usual fines.","incidentDate":"2025-12-23","incidentEndDate":"2026-04-28","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-03-09","aiSystem":"Generative artificial intelligence tool, not identified in the inspected accounts, that the attorney said he used to draft a response brief in federal court","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The attorney lost his position in the U.S. Attorney's Office after 17 years, was referred to the Office of Professional Responsibility and received a public judicial reprimand stating that his professional reputation was in tatters, all following the show-cause proceedings over the AI-drafted brief with fabricated quotations (News & Observer; Courthouse News). The self-represented plaintiff had to identify the fabricated authority in the government's filing; no further consequence for him is reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One AI user harmed: the attorney who said he used AI to draft the brief and who lost his job and was reprimanded. The plaintiff's burden of identifying the errors is described, but no consequence to him is reported, so he is not counted as harmed.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/judge-weighs-next-steps-us-121054156.html","primarySourceLabel":"The News & Observer (via Yahoo News), 11 March 2026: report of the show-cause hearing at which the attorney admitted using AI","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:23:08.421295+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:23:08.421295+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["legal","fabricated_citations","hallucination","court_sanction","professional_harm","government","united_states","north_carolina"]},{"id":"2025-aberdeen-mississippi-fee-suit-ai-hallucinated-citations-four-attorneys-sanctioned","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 2: 'the Court was unable to locate certain legal authorities cited within them. Specifically, the Court determined that the following filings contained hallucinatory citations'; p. 3: 'the attorneys admitted that the hallucinatory citations cited by them, and identified by the Court, resulted from unverified AI use.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In *Withers v. City of Aberdeen*, attorneys for both sides cited no fewer than six entirely fabricated precedents.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"In late 2025, legal memoranda filed for both sides in a fee suit against the City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.) cited cases that do not exist; the court identified one such citation in the City's summary-judgment memorandum, three in its fee-challenge memorandum and two in the plaintiff's opposition, and the attorneys admitted the citations resulted from unverified AI use.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's sanctions order on the attorneys' own admissions."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 3: 'Williams admitted to using an AI tool to conduct legal research, and Wilson admitted to using generative AI to draft her respective filing. Neither of them verified the legal authority output by AI before filing their briefs.'; p. 9: 'She explained that she used “First Drafts,” an AI- powered program for drafting legal documents.'; p. 14: 'it had acquired software that was built for in-house legal research.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff's out-of-state counsel, Kathleen M. Wilson, drafted the opposition using 'First Drafts', an AI-powered drafting program, and the City's out-of-state counsel, Kathryn Y. Williams, used an in-house AI legal research tool; neither verified the AI output before filing.","causal_attribution":"Admissions recorded and findings made in the sanctions order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 21: 'Kathleen M. Wilson’s pro hac vice admission in this case is REVOKED.'; 'Wilson is hereby ORDERED to pay a $2,500 fine to the registry of this Court'; 'Williams is hereby ORDERED to pay a $3,500 fine to the registry of this Court'; 'Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway is DISQUALIFIED from further participation in this case.'; p. 22: 'Mark McClinton is DISQUALIFIED from further participation in this case.'; 'send a copy of this Sanctions Order to the Mississippi Bar, the Louisiana Bar, and the Texas Bar.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"p. 20: 'Wilson and Williams are hereby BARRED from entering an appearance in any case before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi for the period of two (2) years'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 8 June 2026 the court revoked Wilson's and Williams' pro hac vice admissions, barred both from appearing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years, fined Wilson $2,500 and Williams $3,500, ordered Wilson to complete an AI ethics CLE, disqualified the two local counsel (Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway and Mark C. McClinton, who signed without checking the citations) with $1,000 fines each, and sent the order to the Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas bars.","causal_attribution":"The sanctions are the court's response to the AI-generated false citations and the failure to verify them."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Given the pending sanctions issue, this case is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court. The final pretrial conference scheduled on February 19, 2026 and trial scheduled on March 23, 2026 are hereby cancelled'; 'The following pending motions are hereby TERMINATED'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"p. 20: 'The Court is cognizant that upon disqualifying the resident attorneys the litigants are effectively left without representation in this case, and that this can cause hardship for them.'; p. 22: 'the Court will dismiss this case without further notice.'; p. 12: 'The Court was unable to resolve that dispositive motion given the tainted filings, and it effectively inhibited the case from proceeding further.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Because of the sanctions issue the court stayed the case, cancelled the pretrial conference and the 23 March 2026 trial, and terminated the pending summary-judgment and fee motions; after disqualifying all four attorneys it gave both litigants 60 days to find new counsel, acknowledging this could cause them hardship, and warned the plaintiff that the case would be dismissed if no counsel appeared or he did not elect to proceed pro se by 7 August 2026.","causal_attribution":"The stay and loss of counsel follow directly from the sanctions proceeding over the AI-generated citations, per the court's orders."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'directing attorney Kathleen M. Wilson to show cause as to why this Court should not hold her in contempt for her failure to pay the fine'; 'Wilson shall have until September 16, 2026 to (1) pay the monetary fine'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 17 August 2026, after a show-cause order over Wilson's failure to pay the fine, the court extended her deadline to pay it and to complete the CLE to 16 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"Follow-on enforcement of the sanctions order."}],"effects":[{"label":"two attorneys who used AI tools without verifying the output lost their pro hac vice admissions, were barred from the district for two years and fined","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"two local counsel were disqualified and fined for signing the AI-drafted filings without checking the citations","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the case was stayed, the trial cancelled and both litigants left without counsel, with the plaintiff's case facing dismissal if no new counsel appeared","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.123.0_1.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Sanctions Order, ECF 123, filed 8 June 2026 (Senior Judge Sharion Aycock), 23 pages; full text read via pdftotext on 2026-09-29 (RECAP copy on CourtListener).","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.120.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order staying the case, ECF 120, filed 4 February 2026; one page, read in full on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.133.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order of 17 August 2026, ECF 133, extending one attorney's deadline to pay the fine and complete the CLE; one page, read in full on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/technology-science/artc-courtroom-hallucinations-lawyers-cite-precedents-dreamt-up-by-ai-as-clients-sabotage-their-own-cases","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"i24NEWS aggregate piece (Sep 2026) read on 2026-09-29 from the Internet Archive capture of 10 Sep 2026 (the live page is a JavaScript shell). It mentions the case in two sentences; its count of 'no fewer than six' fabricated precedents matches the order's list and is not an independent check.","independence_group":"i24news"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which underlying model the 'First Drafts' program and Williams' research tool used; the order names neither vendor's model.","Whether the Mississippi, Louisiana or Texas bars opened disciplinary proceedings, and whether Wilson paid by 16 September 2026.","Whether the litigants retained new counsel by 7 August 2026 and what became of the case.","The dates of the other tainted filings Wilson drafted in this case (ECF 123 p.11); they may predate 5 November 2025."],"geography":{"basis":"Federal case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi (Aberdeen Division); the order describes the attorneys as licensed in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published from the court's own sanctions order and related docket orders, which record the attorneys' admissions of unverified AI use and the resulting sanctions, stay and loss of counsel. Attorneys are named as they are in the public order; the plaintiff, a private litigant, is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions order records the two drafting attorneys' admissions that their filings were produced with AI tools (Wilson: 'First Drafts', a generative drafting program; Williams: an unnamed in-house AI legal research product) and finds that their unverified reliance on the output produced the fabricated citations.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Fee suit against the City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.): four attorneys on both sides sanctioned after AI tools produced fabricated case citations; trial cancelled and both litigants left without counsel","summary":"In a fee dispute between a Louisiana attorney and the City of Aberdeen, Mississippi, briefs filed for both sides in late 2025 cited six cases that do not exist. The attorneys admitted the citations came from unverified AI use: the plaintiff's out-of-state counsel, Kathleen M. Wilson, drafted her filing with an AI drafting program called 'First Drafts', and the City's out-of-state counsel, Kathryn Y. Williams, used an in-house AI legal research tool. Senior Judge Sharion Aycock stayed the case and cancelled the March 2026 trial, then on 8 June 2026 revoked both attorneys' pro hac vice admissions, barred them from the district for two years and fined them $2,500 and $3,500, and disqualified and fined the two local counsel who had signed the filings. Both litigants were left without counsel and given 60 days to find new representation.","incidentDate":"2025-11-05","incidentEndDate":"2026-06-08","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-06-08","aiSystem":"'First Drafts', an AI-powered legal drafting program (plaintiff's counsel), and an unnamed in-house AI legal research software product (City's counsel); underlying models not stated","aiProduct":"First Drafts and unidentified legal research tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Per the court's orders, two attorneys who filed AI-generated fabricated citations lost their pro hac vice admissions, were barred from the district for two years and fined $2,500 and $3,500; two local counsel who signed the filings were disqualified and fined $1,000 each; the case was stayed with its trial cancelled, and the plaintiff was left without counsel under threat of dismissal.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":2,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Sanctions Order (ECF 123). Participant users: Wilson and Williams, the two attorneys who used the AI tools and were sanctioned (2). Others harmed through their use: the two local counsel disqualified and fined (Ridgeway, McClinton) and the plaintiff, an individual whose case was stayed, whose trial was cancelled and who was left without counsel (3). The City of Aberdeen is an organisation and is not counted; no other person's harm is stated.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MS","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.123.0_1.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Withers v. City of Aberdeen, No. 1:24-cv-218-SA-RP (N.D. Miss.), Sanctions Order, ECF 123, 8 June 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:31.680119+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:55.045067+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","justice","legal-profession","sanction","fabricated-citations","pro-hac-vice","own-use","mississippi"]},{"id":"2025-stephens-county-oklahoma-judge-chatgpt-fake-citations-paternity-order","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Wheeler denied a request from one of the parents' attorneys to have the other parent undergo a psychological test—and in his order denying the request, he pointed to multiple previous Oklahoma cases he said backed him up.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The 2025 order in a child paternity case'; 'He came under scrutiny after he reprimanded attorney [the attorney] last November in an order in the paternity case for asking for a psychological evaluation of the child’s father.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The issue came to light after a request for a mental evaluation was denied and a subsequent court order was filed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In November 2025, in a child paternity and custody case, Judge Wheeler issued an order denying a request by one parent's attorney for a psychological evaluation of the other parent, citing Oklahoma cases he said supported the decision.","causal_attribution":"Court history as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR and described by the mother; the order itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge told the OSBI he only used ChatGPT for research and created the order himself, DA Jason Hicks wrote. The judge, however, also “indicated that at least two of the case citations included in his order and produced by ChatGPT do not exist.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Stephens County District Attorney Jason Hicks says Wheeler admitted to OSBI agents he cited \"at least two\" cases ChatGPT fed him that \"do not exist.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Hicks wrote that Wheeler acknowledged using case citations generated by ChatGPT and that at least two citations included in the order did not exist.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler used OpenAI's ChatGPT for research while drafting the order, which cited two cases that do not exist, according to state records.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"According to the district attorney's 17 August 2026 letter, the judge told the OSBI that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and indicated that at least two case citations in the order, produced by ChatGPT, do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The judge's own statement to investigators as relayed in the district attorney's letter; all four reports rely on that letter, which was not read. The judge's attorney declined to comment."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge issued the reprimand “for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics” and cautioned that future similar filings may be subject to further sanctions.'; '[The attorney] challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February. He told justices that Wheeler based his order on two cases, Cummings v. Cimarron Elevator Co. and Hawkins v. Linhart, that do not exist.'; '[The attorney] dismissed his challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. Wheeler is no longer involved in the paternity case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'She said her attorney at the time challenged the ruling and began reviewing the legal authorities cited in the order.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The order reprimanded the attorney who had asked for a psychological evaluation of the child's father 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics' and warned of further sanctions; that attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, saying it relied on two nonexistent cases, and dismissed the challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. The mother told News 9 that her attorney at the time challenged the ruling.","causal_attribution":"The Oklahoman's account of the court filings and the mother's account to News 9; the Supreme Court filings were not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'[The mother] said learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child.'; '“Then it became very concerning to me that somebody would do something like that over a child custody case,” she said.'; '“He then turned around and decided to recuse himself from my case,” she said. “He called my attorney that I had at the time and apologized to him.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The mother told News 9 that learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child, and that the judge later recused himself from her case and apologised to her attorney.","causal_attribution":"The mother's first-person account in a broadcast interview."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints.'; 'The OSBI also looked into allegations “that Judge Wheeler offered to amend the order in exchange for a dismissal of a writ seeking relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court” and that he “eavesdropped on jury deliberations,” the DA disclosed in the letter.'; 'Prosecutors in the AG’s office “thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution,” the AG’s press secretary, Leslie Berger, said on Sept. 2.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The Criminal Justice Division of the Attorney General’s Office thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary possess ultimate jurisdiction over disciplinary actions for allegations of inappropriate behavior by judges regardless of whether the behavior constitutes a violation of a criminal statute.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Council on Judicial Complaints, including allegations that he offered to amend the order in exchange for dismissal of the writ and that he eavesdropped on jury deliberations; the attorney general's office said the evidence did not support criminal prosecution and that judicial discipline rests with the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary.","causal_attribution":"District attorney's letter and attorney general's statement as reported; no disciplinary finding has been made."}],"effects":[{"label":"the mother faced an order denying a psychological-evaluation request, with the judge citing authorities reported to have been generated by ChatGPT","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the attorney who requested the evaluation was reprimanded in the order and sought relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court before the order was vacated","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the mother describes learning of the fabricated citations in her child custody case as alarming","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Oklahoman's report (USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect) as republished by Minnesota Lawyer; read in full from the Wayback capture of 10 September 2026 because the live page returned 403. Its ChatGPT-admission passages relay the district attorney's letter; its account of the reprimand, the Supreme Court challenge and the vacatur draws on court filings and the attorney. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/oklahoma-judge-admitted-citing-fake-030000000.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"KFOR (Oklahoma City) report syndicated on AOL, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its account of the ChatGPT admission relays the same district attorney letter. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.news9.com/oklahoma-city-news/stephens-county-mother-speaks-out-after-judge-accused-of-using-chatgpt-in-custody-case","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"News 9 (Griffin Media) interview with the mother, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its description of the ChatGPT admission also relays the district attorney's letter; the mother's own account is independent of it. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/09/stephens-county-judge-faces-discipline-over-chatgpt-written-court-order/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Hoodline rewrite of the Reuters report, read in full on 2026-09-29. Reuters relays the same district attorney letter. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["The text of the order and whether the nonexistent citations were decisive for denying the evaluation and for the reprimand.","Whether any disciplinary proceeding follows from the Council on Judicial Complaints referral.","The current state of the custody case after the vacatur and the judge's departure from it.","The exact day in November 2025 on which the order was issued."],"geography":{"basis":"The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9 locate the order and proceedings in Stephens County, Oklahoma, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court. These establish the event and court countries as US. News 9 calls the interviewee a Stephens County mother but gives no explicit residence evidence for either counted person, so affected_person_countries is unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"This reported event connects specific ChatGPT-generated citations to an adverse order issued by a human judge. The Oklahoman and KFOR describe their use in the order, The Oklahoman reports the attorney's reprimand and successful challenge, and News 9 carries the mother's account. The AI admission is reported through one district attorney's letter, not independently verified model output. The family and attorney remain unnamed. No broader custody consequence or disciplinary finding is inferred.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9 relay a district attorney's letter saying the judge acknowledged using ChatGPT for research and incorporating at least two nonexistent citations it produced into his order. The cited authorities were presented in support of the human judge's denial of a requested evaluation and his reprimand of the attorney. This supports informed_decision_about for the affected mother and attorney. It does not establish that ChatGPT itself decided custody or communicated with either of them. The underlying letter and order were not inspected, and whether the citations determined the outcome is unknown.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Prosecutor: judge used ChatGPT citations in Oklahoma custody order later vacated","summary":"In November 2025 Stephens County Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler issued an order in a child paternity and custody case that denied one parent's request for a psychological evaluation of the other parent and reprimanded the requesting parent's attorney 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics'. The attorney challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, telling the justices that it relied on two cases that do not exist; the challenge was dismissed in March after Wheeler vacated the order, and he is no longer on the case. According to a 17 August 2026 letter from the Stephens County district attorney, Wheeler told the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and that at least two citations in it produced by ChatGPT do not exist. The mother in the case told News 9 that learning the order's citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because it concerned the custody of a child. The attorney general's office declined criminal prosecution; judicial discipline remains possible.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-09","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used by the judge for legal research while preparing the order","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the district attorney's letter as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR, a judge acknowledged that his custody-case order contained at least two nonexistent citations supplied by ChatGPT. The order denied a request for a psychological evaluation and reprimanded the requesting attorney. The attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court before it was vacated. The mother described the discovery as alarming in a News 9 interview. The order and letter have not been inspected directly.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people affected through the judge's use of ChatGPT: the mother, whose request for a psychological evaluation was denied by the order and who describes the discovery as alarming (News 9), and the attorney who requested the evaluation and was reprimanded in the order and challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court (The Oklahoman). The child and the other parent are not counted because no harm to them is reported. The judge, the AI user, is not counted: he faces a possible disciplinary process but no sanction has been reported and the complaint bundled other allegations.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OK","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","primarySourceLabel":"The Oklahoman via Minnesota Lawyer, 9 September 2026: judge used ChatGPT citations in custody order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:18.787549+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:44.069668+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["justice","family-court","judge","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","institutional-use","oklahoma"]},{"id":"2025-chiranjeevi-ai-deepfake-porn-videos-hyderabad-cybercrime-complaint","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'అక్టోబర్‌ 25న ఇచ్చిన లిఖిత పూర్వక ఫిర్యాదులో, కొందరు వెబ్‌సైట్లు తన రూపంలో కృత్రిమ మేధ (AI) సహాయంతో అసభ్య దృశ్యాలు సృష్టించి వ్యాప్తి చేస్తున్నట్లు తెలిపారు.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'ఆర్టిఫిషియల్ ఇంటెలిజెన్స్ (ఏఐ) టెక్నాలజీని ఉపయోగించి, తన ముఖాన్ని మార్ఫింగ్ చేసి అశ్లీల (పోర్న్) వీడియోలను సృష్టిస్తున్నారని ఆయన తన ఫిర్యాదులో పేర్కొన్నారు.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 25 October 2025 the actor and former Union minister Chiranjeevi gave Hyderabad cybercrime police a written complaint that pornographic websites were publishing obscene videos made with AI that morphed his face and likeness.","causal_attribution":"The complainant's account; the videos' creators were not identified in the read sources."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Based on the complaint, the police have registered a case under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act, Sections 79, 294, 296 and 336(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Sections 2(c), 3 and 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'చిరంజీవి ఫిర్యాదు మేరకు పోలీసులు ఐటీ చట్టంలోని సెక్షన్లు 67, 67ఏ, భారతీయ న్యాయ సంహిత (BNS)లోని సెక్షన్లు 79, 294, 296, 336(4)తో పాటు పలు ఇతర చట్టాల కింద కేసు నమోదు చేశారు.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Police registered a case under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act, Sections 79, 294, 296 and 336(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act.","causal_attribution":"Police registration of the case as reported; no arrest is reported in the read sources."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In his complaint, Chiranjeevi condemned the videos as “malicious” and said they have caused “severe and irreparable harm” to his reputation. “These fabricated clips distort public perception, undermine decades of goodwill, and inflict personal and emotional distress on me and my family,” he stated.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'వీడియోల కొనసాగుతున్న ప్రచారం తన మానసిక ఆరోగ్యానికీ, గౌరవానికీ నష్టం కలిగిస్తోందని పేర్కొన్నారు.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In his complaint he said the videos caused severe and irreparable harm to his reputation and personal and emotional distress to him and his family.","causal_attribution":"His own statement of the effects in the complaint."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'ఇలాంటి కంటెంట్‌ ప్రచారం నిరోధించేందుకు ఇప్పటికే హైదరాబాద్‌ సిటీ సివిల్‌ కోర్టు ప్రధాన న్యాయమూర్తి నుంచి తాత్కాలిక నిషేధాజ్ఞ కూడా పొందినట్లు తెలిపారు.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'వాటిని తొలగించాలని సిటీ సివిల్కోర్టును సెప్టెంబరులో ఆశ్రయించారు. దీంతో కోర్టు అదే నెల 26న ఆయా వెబ్సైట్లలో కంటెంట్తొలగించాలని ఆదేశాలు జారీ చేసింది.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Before the police complaint he had obtained an interim injunction from the Hyderabad City Civil Court; V6 Velugu reports that he approached that court in September 2025 over deepfake obscene videos on porn sites and that on 26 September it ordered the content removed from those websites.","causal_attribution":"Court order as reported; the order itself was not inspected. Locator for s5 is quoted with zero-width characters removed."}],"effects":[{"label":"AI-made obscene videos using his likeness published on pornographic sites; he reported reputational harm and emotional distress to himself and his family","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.telugupost.com/top-stories/chiranjeevi-deepfake-cybercrime-complaint-hyderabad-1595809","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"te","translation_note":"Read live in Telugu on 2026-09-29 (published 27 October 2025); summarises the written complaint. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"chiranjeevi-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.ap7am.com/tn/846021/chiranjeevi-lodges-police-complaint-over-deepfake-pornographic-content","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"te","translation_note":"Read live in Telugu on 2026-09-29 (published 27 October 2025); quotes the complaint and the sections registered. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"chiranjeevi-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://gulfnews.com/entertainment/chiranjeevi-files-complaint-over-ai-deepfake-vulgar-videos-on-adult-sites-says-it-distressed-his-family-1.500324422","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-09-29 (published 28 October 2025); quotes the complaint as reported by ANI.","independence_group":"chiranjeevi-complaint"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.newsx.com/offbeat/chiranjeevi-deepfake-mms-case-actor-approaches-police-over-ai-generated-obscene-videos-276933/","kind":"news_relay","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-09-29 (published 28 September 2026). A recap of the October 2025 complaints that gives no event dates; its only unique content is the Hyderabad police commissioner's statement. Not used for dates.","independence_group":"chiranjeevi-complaint"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.v6velugu.com/megastar-chiranjeevi-complaint-on-social-media-trolls-against-hyderbad-cyber-crimes-police-station","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"te","translation_note":"Read live in Telugu on 2026-09-29 (29 October 2025); reports a second complaint about abusive posts and recaps the civil suit and the deepfake complaint. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"chiranjeevi-complaint"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Who made and uploaded the videos, and whether anyone has been arrested.","When the videos first appeared online; V6 Velugu reports a civil suit over them in September 2025, so they circulated by then.","Whether the videos were removed from the websites.","The exact complaint date: Telugupost says the written complaint was given on 25 October 2025; V6 Velugu dates it to 27 October 2025."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint was filed with Hyderabad cybercrime police in Telangana, India (Telugupost; Gulf News). Before the complaint he had obtained an interim injunction from the Hyderabad City Civil Court, which Telugupost says was aimed at stopping the spread of such content and which V6 Velugu says ordered the content removed from the websites on 26 September 2025. Where the websites are hosted is not stated.","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":["IN"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a core case (AI-generated sexual videos depicting a named public figure without consent, with a registered police case). The account rests on his complaint as reported by Telugu and English outlets. No imagery is described beyond the complaint's terms. The lead arrived through a September 2026 recap; the event dates come from October 2025 reporting.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint, as reported, says the videos were made with AI technology that morphed his face into obscene content (Telugupost; ap7am; Gulf News via ANI). No forensic finding is reported and the tool is not named.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Hyderabad, India: actor Chiranjeevi files a cybercrime complaint over AI-generated obscene videos using his face on pornographic websites; police register a case under the IT Act and BNS","summary":"On 25 October 2025 the Telugu actor and former Union minister Konidela Chiranjeevi gave Hyderabad cybercrime police a written complaint that several pornographic websites were publishing obscene videos made with AI that morphed his face and likeness, and asked for a criminal and technical investigation and removal of the content, including from mirror sites. Police registered a case under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act, several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act. In the complaint he said the videos caused severe and irreparable harm to his reputation and personal and emotional distress to him and his family. He had already obtained an ad-interim injunction from the Hyderabad City Civil Court protecting his name, image and likeness (Gulf News); V6 Velugu reports that he had gone to that court in September 2025 over the same kind of deepfake videos and that on 26 September it ordered their removal. A September 2026 NewsX recap reports that Hyderabad Police Commissioner V C Sajjanar said the cybercrime team was working to trace those responsible.","incidentDate":"2025-10-25","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-10-27","aiSystem":"Unnamed AI tools used to morph his face into obscene videos (per his complaint)","aiProduct":"Unidentified video tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"AI-generated obscene videos using his likeness were published on pornographic websites; he reported severe harm to his reputation and emotional distress to himself and his family (his complaint via Telugupost, ap7am and Gulf News/ANI).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One depicted person, Chiranjeevi (his complaint). His family's reported distress is his statement and is not counted separately. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN-TG","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.telugupost.com/top-stories/chiranjeevi-deepfake-cybercrime-complaint-hyderabad-1595809","primarySourceLabel":"Telugupost, 27 October 2025: డీప్‌ఫేక్‌ అసభ్య వీడియోలపై చిరంజీవి సైబర్‌ క్రైమ్ కు ఫిర్యాదు","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T03:22:09.016588+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:59.537311+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepfakes","deepfake-pornography","non-consensual-intimate-imagery","tollywood","hyderabad","telangana","india","police-complaint","depicted-or-impersonated"]},{"id":"2026-aarons-chatgpt-fabricated-testimony-sanction","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1a","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Order passages quoted by Ars: contempt, $5,000 to the Client Protection Fund in 30 days, referral.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Reuters wire: 'on Sept 9' — fine, contempt, referral, and the Sandoval caption.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"ABA Journal, 24 Aug: the $5,000 contempt anticipated from the 21 Aug show-cause hearing (pre-order; advance reporting, context only).","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"By written order of 9 September 2026, the New Mexico Supreme Court held Stephen Aarons in direct contempt, fined him $5,000 payable to the State Bar Client Protection Fund within 30 days, and referred him to the disciplinary board.","causal_attribution":"The contempt, fine and referral are quoted by Ars Technica and confirmed by the Reuters wire; the ABA Journal's hearing-day account anticipated but could not confirm the later written order. The order PDF itself was not retrieved in this review."},{"id":"c1b","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Ars: removal, bar pending referral, briefs struck, reassignment (Kim Chavez Cook appointed 2 Sep).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order also removed Aarons from the case, barred him from appearing before the court pending the disciplinary-board referral, struck the filed briefs and reassigned the appeal to the public defender (Kim Chavez Cook, appointed 2 September 2026).","causal_attribution":"Single-chain detail from Ars Technica's account of the order; the Reuters wire does not carry these elements."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Ars passages: Rev.com transcript plus record into ChatGPT (o3); the named fabricated witnesses and false attributions; the admission of non-verification.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"ABA Journal: 'admits stupidity over AI errors' at the show-cause hearing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Reuters headline account: 'ChatGPT invented fake police testimony in murder appeal, New Mexico high court says'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Aarons used ChatGPT (OpenAI o3) on a Rev.com transcript and the case record to draft the brief, which contained fabricated witnesses and testimony — officers 'Michelle Amarillo' and 'Sanchez', Manal Al-Jibury, Teresa Marquez, and false testimony attributed to Danny and Linda Stanton and Mariah Chavez — and misdescribed real precedents; he admitted at the hearing that he had not verified the output.","causal_attribution":"The fabrication and the admission are established by the attorney's own statements at the hearing and the court's findings as reported; no source reports a denial."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Ars: substitution of the public defender (Kim Chavez Cook, appointed 2 Sep); the court's remark about the client.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The client, Oscar Renee Sandoval, suffers a delayed appeal: the briefs were struck, Aarons was removed, and the public defender was substituted (appointed 2 September 2026); the court told Aarons 'your client is the one suffering'.","causal_attribution":"Single-chain detail from Ars Technica's account of the order; the delay's length is not stated."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Reuters wire via Straits Times: Sandoval caption, life sentence February 2025, Doña Ana County.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Ars: brief filed ~Aug 2025; State's motion to strike weeks later.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The underlying case is the murder appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval, sentenced to life in February 2025 in Doña Ana County for killing his partner Shiereen Al-Jibury; the brief was filed around August 2025 and the State moved to strike weeks later.","causal_attribution":"Background context, attributed to the wire and Ars; the docket number was not confirmed in this review."}],"effects":[{"label":"attorney sanctioned for ChatGPT-fabricated testimony; client's appeal delayed","claim_id":"c1a","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/09/chatgpt-using-lawyer-punished-for-citing-fake-testimony-from-made-up-witnesses/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (11 Sep 2026, Brodkin). Quotes the 9 September order and the 21 August hearing; names the fabricated witnesses.","independence_group":"ars"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/chatgpt-invented-fake-police-testimony-in-murder-appeal-new-mexico-high-court-says","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (11 Sep 2026); Straits Times carrying the Reuters wire.","independence_group":"reuters"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/criminal-defense-attorney-admits-stupidity-over-ai-errors-but-still-receives-sharp-rebuke-from-his-states-high-court","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (24 Aug 2026). Post-hearing report citing the Santa Fe New Mexican; the fine and contempt were anticipated from the hearing, not yet the written order.","independence_group":"aba-journal"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The 9 September 2026 order PDF was not directly inspected (nmcourts.gov search empty; form-based case lookup); the claims about it rest on two chains quoting it.","The underlying docket number is unconfirmed.","The disciplinary-board process and its outcome are pending.","The full set of fabricated or misdescribed citations beyond the named examples is not reported.","The ChatGPT product tier and whether the firm had verification policies are not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"Events: Santa Fe, New Mexico practice and the Doña Ana County murder case. Affected persons: the attorney and his client, both in New Mexico. Court: New Mexico Supreme Court.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an own-use, work-context adverse consequence with a dated, quantified sanction and an admitted, judicially found AI link. This applies the charter's individual-review rule to the AI-sanction class; the retired ordinary_task_failure gate and a class-level ruling are not required. Aarons is a public officer of the court sanctioned by a public order and is named; his client's name appears in the public caption of the appeal. In a 2026-09-15 second pass the original compound first claim was split: the corroborated contempt/fine/referral stand as c1a, and the Ars-only order elements (removal, bar, struck briefs, reassignment) stand as reported c1b. person_relations recorded in the same pass.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The AI link is admitted and judicially found: Aarons fed a Rev.com transcript and the record into ChatGPT (OpenAI o3), and the court's order addresses the fabricated content in the filed brief; he admitted at the show-cause hearing that he had not verified the output.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"New Mexico Supreme Court fines attorney Stephen Aarons $5,000 and removes him from a murder appeal over ChatGPT-fabricated testimony","summary":"Santa Fe defense attorney Stephen Aarons used ChatGPT (OpenAI's o3) on a Rev.com transcript and the record to draft briefing in the murder appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval; the brief contained fabricated witnesses and testimony (including police officers 'Michelle Amarillo' and 'Sanchez' and invented testimony attributed to real people) and misdescribed real precedents. After a 21 August 2026 show-cause hearing at which Aarons admitted he had not verified the output, the New Mexico Supreme Court's written order of 9 September 2026 held him in direct contempt, fined him $5,000 payable to the State Bar Client Protection Fund within 30 days, removed him from the case, barred him from appearing before the court pending a disciplinary-board referral, struck the filed briefs and reassigned the appeal to the public defender.","incidentDate":"2025-08-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-09","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-08-24","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI o3)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A dated, quantified professional sanction for the attorney who relied on ChatGPT's output: $5,000 fine, direct-contempt finding, removal from the case, a bar on appearing before the court pending a disciplinary-board referral, and struck briefs; his client's appeal is delayed as a result.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two documented harmed people. The user: Aarons, sanctioned (court order reported by Ars Technica and Reuters). Another person's use consequence: his client Sandoval, whose appeal is delayed by the struck briefs and the substitution of counsel (Ars quotes the court's 'your client is the one suffering'). No further harmed persons are reported; the victim's family is not counted (no harm to them is reported).","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/09/chatgpt-using-lawyer-punished-for-citing-fake-testimony-from-made-up-witnesses/","primarySourceLabel":"Ars Technica (11 Sep 2026) — quotes the 9 Sep order and the 21 Aug show-cause hearing","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T06:16:05.506355+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:22.660417+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","justice","legal-profession","sanction","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","own-use","new-mexico"]},{"id":"2025-grok-non-consensual-image-generation","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'image generation and editing are currently limited to paying subscribers'; the standalone app/X tab complied with undress requests including NBC's consenting test subject.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"AP: Grok let users 'undress people, putting females in transparent bikinis or revealing clothing'; some images appeared to include children.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"'Over the past several weeks, Grok allowed users to create and publicly post sexually altered images of real people at the click of a button.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"From late December 2025, Grok's image generation and editing on X and the standalone app let users generate sexualized images of real people at scale; xAI limited generation to paying subscribers on 9 January 2026, but NBC's own consenting test found the standalone app and X tab still complied with 'undress' requests.","causal_attribution":"The conduct is established by NBC's direct test plus official accounts; the paywall change's limited effect is NBC's finding."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Genevieve Oh's analysis: 7,751 sexualized images in one hour Wednesday, up 16.4% from 6,659/hr Monday.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"NYT via NC DOJ: 'generated and posted 4.4 million images, of which at least 41 percent were sexualized images of women' over nine days.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"CCDH via Engadget: 'an estimated 3 million sexualized images over 11 days, including 23,000 of minors'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"}],"assertion":"Scale analyses: Genevieve Oh's analysis found 7,751 sexualized images generated in one hour on a Wednesday (up 16.4% from 6,659/hour on Monday); the New York Times reported 4.4 million images over nine days, at least 41% sexualized images of women; an AP analysis of 20,000 images from 25 December-1 January found 2% appeared to be 18 or younger; CCDH estimated about 3 million sexualized images over 11 days including roughly 23,000 of minors.","causal_attribution":"Each figure belongs to its own analysis (Oh; NYT; AP via Fortune; CCDH); none is platform-confirmed and they are not merged. The AP 20,000-image analysis is carried via Fortune. The Bloomberg ~6,700/hour, 84-85x figure is recorded as unavailable."},{"id":"c3a","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I felt horrified, I felt violated, especially seeing my toddler's backpack in the back of it'; image of her at 14 undressed, up ~12 hrs, removed after the Guardian sought comment.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Ashley St. Clair said users sexualized images of her, including one of her at 14 that stayed up about 12 hours and was removed after the Guardian sought comment: 'I felt horrified, I felt violated.'","causal_attribution":"Her account to the Guardian; her own lawsuit is a separate held row and is not merged here."},{"id":"c3b","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'dehumanised and reduced into a sexual stereotype'; 'others asked Grok to generate more of her'; 'While it wasn't me that was in states of undress, it looked like me and it felt like me and it felt as violating.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Samantha Smith told the BBC she felt 'dehumanised and reduced into a sexual stereotype', and after she posted about it, others asked Grok to generate more of her.","causal_attribution":"Her account to the BBC."},{"id":"c3c","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'had seen an increase in people using Grok to undress her'; the 'sticking plaster' quote.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Dr Daisy Dixon, a Cardiff University lecturer, told the BBC she had seen an increase in people using Grok to undress her and called the paywall change 'a sticking plaster'.","causal_attribution":"Her account to the BBC."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"IWF analysts found 'criminal imagery' of girls aged 11-13 apparently made with Grok.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"AI Forensics' review: ~800 archived URLs, <10% apparent CSAM ('photorealistic people, very young'), ~70 URLs reported to EU regulators.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The Internet Watch Foundation told the BBC its analysts found 'criminal imagery' of girls aged 11-13 apparently made with Grok; Wired and AI Forensics reviewed about 800 archived Grok Imagine URLs with under 10% apparent CSAM and reported about 70 URLs to EU regulators.","causal_attribution":"Two independent expert bodies' findings (IWF; AI Forensics); the minors are unnamed and uncounted per the counting rules."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"NBC: Ofcom 'urgent contact'; Starmer 'disgraceful... X has got to get a grip'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"ICO announcement: formal investigations into XIUC and X.AI; follows the 7 January contact.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"AP via PBS: the EU's formal DSA investigation; 'materialized' risks; 'serious harm'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"NC DOJ release: the 35-AG letter and its demands.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"Engadget: the Baltimore suit; City Solicitor Thompson's statement.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"TechPolicy.Press: the Amsterdam order of 26 March.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s13"},{"locator":"Reuters headline (body unavailable): Ireland DPC inquiry of 17 February.","relation":"context","source_id":"s11"}],"assertion":"Formal regulatory and legal actions followed: Ofcom's urgent contact (5 Jan; response by 9 Jan; investigation announced 12 Jan); the UK ICO's formal investigations into XIUC and X.AI LLC (3 Feb); the European Commission's formal DSA investigation (26 Jan, risks 'materialized' into 'serious harm'); Ireland's DPC GDPR inquiry (17 Feb); 35 US state attorneys general's demand letter (23 Jan); Baltimore's consumer-protection suit (24 Mar; D. Md. 1:26-cv-02103); and an Amsterdam court order to stop generating or distributing non-consensual sexualized images in the Netherlands (26 Mar, Offlimits suit, penalty up to €10 million).","causal_attribution":"Each action is carried by an inspected official or news source; the California AG probe (NBC) and the Indonesia/Malaysia/Philippines blocks (Reuters bodies unavailable) are recorded in the outcome and reported in the narrative."},{"id":"c6","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"AP: the X statement of 14 January ('bikinis, underwear or other revealing attire', where illegal).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"BBC (16 Mar): Musk's 'Literally zero' post of 14 January.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"}],"assertion":"xAI's 14 January statement said it would stop allowing users to depict people in 'bikinis, underwear or other revealing attire' where illegal; Musk posted on 14 January that he was 'not aware of any naked underage images... Literally zero'.","causal_attribution":"The company's and Musk's statements are recorded as their positions; the IWF and AI Forensics findings stand in tension with 'Literally zero' and are preserved as contrary evidence."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"BBC (20 Apr 2026): the 3 Feb raid, the summons, Musk's non-appearance, the DOJ refusal, and the probe's scope.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"}],"assertion":"Paris police raided X's offices on 3 February and summoned Musk and Yaccarino for 20 April; Musk did not appear, and the US DOJ declined to assist France; the French probe includes complicity in possession or organised distribution of child sexual abuse material.","causal_attribution":"Single inspected chain (BBC); attributed accordingly."}],"effects":[{"label":"industrial-scale non-consensual sexualized imagery of real people, including apparent minors, generated by Grok","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98p1r4e6m8o","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (2 Jan 2026). Samantha Smith's account.","independence_group":"bbc"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/x-paywall-ai-image-grok-app-bikini-allows-sexual-deepfakes-rcna252647","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (8 Jan 2026). Paywall change; NBC's own consenting test; Genevieve Oh's analysis; Starmer and Ofcom accounts.","independence_group":"nbc"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/05/elon-musk-ashley-st-clair-grok-fake-sexualised-images","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (5 Jan 2026). Ashley St. Clair's account.","independence_group":"guardian"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c99kn52nx9do","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (9 Jan 2026, McMahon/Cress). Dr Daisy Dixon; the IWF finding.","independence_group":"bbc"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.wired.com/story/grok-is-generating-sexual-content-far-more-graphic-than-whats-on-x/","kind":"news_investigation","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (7 Jan 2026, Burgess/Varner). AI Forensics' review of ~800 archived Grok Imagine URLs.","independence_group":"wired"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs/2026/02/ico-announces-investigation-into-grok/","kind":"regulator_announcement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (formal investigations into XIUC and X.AI LLC; follows the 7 January urgent-information contact).","independence_group":"ico"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/eu-investigates-musks-ai-chatbot-grok-over-sexual-deepfakes","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (AP, Kelvin Chan; 26 Jan 2026). EU DSA investigation; X's 14 January statement.","independence_group":"ap"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://ncdoj.gov/attorney-general-jeff-jackson-leads-bipartisan-coalition-demanding-xai-stop-creating-and-remove-groks-nonconsensual-sexual-images/","kind":"regulator_press_release","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (23 Jan 2026). The 35-AG letter; quotes the New York Times' 4.4M/41% figure.","independence_group":"nc-doj"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://www.engadget.com/ai/baltimore-sues-xai-over-grok-deepfakes-214135922.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (24 Mar 2026). Baltimore suit; the CCDH estimate.","independence_group":"engadget"},{"id":"s10","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crk151nn7j3o","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (20 Apr 2026). Paris raid; Musk's non-appearance; DOJ refusal to assist France.","independence_group":"bbc"},{"id":"s11","url":"https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/ireland-opens-probe-into-musks-grok-ai-over-sexualised-images-2026-02-17/","kind":"wire_report","access":"unavailable","language":null,"translation_note":"HTTP 401 on 2026-09-15; headline and date verified from the URL and snapshot; body not read.","independence_group":"reuters"},{"id":"s12","url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-07/","kind":"news_report","access":"unavailable","language":null,"translation_note":"HTTP 403 on 2026-09-15; the ~6,700/hour, 84-85x analysis is attributed from the historical record and secondary references; body not read.","independence_group":"bloomberg"},{"id":"s13","url":"https://www.techpolicy.press/dutch-court-orders-x-grok-to-stop-aigenerated-sexual-abuse-content/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (27 Mar 2026). Amsterdam court order in the Offlimits case.","independence_group":"techpolicy-press"},{"id":"s14","url":"https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ashley-st-clair-sues-xai-grok-sexual-images-rcna254302","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-15 (15 Jan 2026). St. Clair's suit; cross-reference to the related held row.","independence_group":"nbc"},{"id":"s15","url":"https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/64870891/MAYOR_AND_CITY_COUNCIL_OF_BALTIMORE_v_X_Corp_et_al","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket page read on 2026-09-15 (D. Md. 1:26-cv-02103; SpaceX dismissed without prejudice 17 Jul; MTD briefing under way as of 29 Jul).","independence_group":"court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","justice"],"unknowns":["The Bloomberg analysis (~6,700 images/hour, 84-85x leading deepfake sites) could not be read (403) and is recorded without its body.","Whether the images remain hosted and downloadable (Wired's June 2026 follow-up, cited but not read) is unverified.","The N.D. Cal. class action's pseudonymity ruling of 30 July is known only through a blocked summary (internetcases 403).","The outcome of the Amsterdam order's penalty mechanism and xAI's compliance are not reported in the inspected sources.","The Indonesia/Malaysia/Philippines blocks and lifts are recorded from the historical record and headlines (Reuters/CNN bodies unavailable); dates may shift one day across carriers.","The historical claim of 'five countries acting within two weeks' is not precisely verified and is not claimed."],"geography":{"basis":"The generation and consumption were global and not tied to an inspected event location, so event and affected-person countries remain unknown rather than inferred from regulators or the company's seats. Court countries are limited to the documented proceedings: the US (Baltimore D. Md. suit; the related US suits) and the NL (Amsterdam court order). Regulatory actions by Ofcom, the ICO, the EU, the DPC, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines are not courts.","court_countries":["US","NL"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Restored under the 2026-09-15 charter as a harmful-artifact crisis (depicted_or_impersonated). Named victims are adults who spoke publicly; minors are never named and never counted from image statistics. Each scale figure is attributed to its own analysis; the victims' accounts are single-chain and recorded as reported. Related xAI suits (St. Clair, Tennessee minors, others) are separate held rows and are not merged.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"NBC's own consenting test confirmed the standalone Grok app and X tab complied with 'undress' requests after the 9 January paywall change; the victims' accounts, the IWF and AI Forensics reviews, and xAI's own 14 January restriction all establish the AI generation. The scale figures are attributed analyses, not platform-confirmed numbers.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Grok non-consensual sexual image generation wave (December 2025 - January 2026)","summary":"From late December 2025, xAI's Grok image editing on X let users generate sexualized images of real people at industrial scale, including images of named women and apparent minors. Analyses attributed to Genevieve Oh (7,751 sexualized images in one hour, via NBC), the New York Times (4.4 million images in nine days, at least 41% sexualized images of women, via the NC AG), the AP (2% of a 20,000-image sample appearing to be minors, via Fortune) and CCDH (about 3 million sexualized images over 11 days including roughly 23,000 of minors, via Engadget) documented the scale. Named women — Ashley St. Clair, Samantha Smith and Dr Daisy Dixon — described being undressed by Grok and revictimized when they objected. The wave triggered formal actions by Ofcom, the UK ICO, the EU (DSA), Ireland's DPC, 35 US state attorneys general, the California AG, Baltimore (consumer-protection suit), an Amsterdam court order, country blocks in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, and a Paris police raid; xAI restricted generation to paying subscribers on 9 January and narrowed the feature on 14 January 2026.","incidentDate":"2025-12-25","incidentEndDate":"2026-01-14","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-01-02","aiSystem":"Grok (image generation and editing on X and the standalone app)","aiProduct":"Grok","aiCompany":"SpaceXAI (formerly xAI)","severity":"critical","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":["minor_exploitation","third_party_harm_facilitation","barrier_erosion"],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Mass non-consensual sexualized imagery of real people — including apparent minors — generated at industrial scale and amplified when victims objected, with named women describing violation and dehumanization and regulators on three continents opening formal actions.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Three counted depicted persons: Ashley St. Clair (Guardian), Samantha Smith (BBC) and Dr Daisy Dixon (BBC), each named and speaking publicly. Further victims — including the minors in the IWF's apparent criminal imagery (girls 11-13) and the people in the analysis samples — are unquantified: hourly image rates, the 20,000-image sample and the CCDH estimate count images, not people, and are never converted.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"XX","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98p1r4e6m8o","primarySourceLabel":"BBC (2 Jan 2026) — Samantha Smith's account of being undressed by Grok and revictimized when she objected","firstPublishedAt":"2026-01-11T12:19:47.670189+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:03.797947+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["grok","xai","csam","deepfakes","minor","sexual-images","industrial-scale","multi-country","eu-dsa","class-action","35-state-ag","depicted-or-impersonated"]}]}