{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-24T07:34:47.107Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"damages","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":3,"languages":4,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":4,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-beijing-internet-court-short-drama-maker-used-ai-face-swap-resembling-well-known-actress-portrait-infringement","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'2025年4月，有网友质疑一部网络短剧疑似把演员AI换脸成知名女演员' ... '大量网友误认为' ... '参演了该剧，相关话题在多个社交平台引发讨论。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In April 2025 internet users questioned whether an online short drama had used AI face-swapping to make a performer look like a well-known actress, and many believed she had appeared in it.","causal_attribution":"Report drawing on Beijing Daily."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'法院认定，短剧制作方A公司擅自使用深度合成技术生成与某知名演员高度相似的形象，侵害其肖像权；短剧播出方B公司未尽合理审查义务，同样承担相应责任。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'法院认定，短剧制作方擅自使用深度合成技术生成与某演员高度相似的形象，侵害其肖像权；短剧播出方未尽合理审查义务，同样承担相应责任。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 20 March 2026 the Beijing Internet Court announced that the production company had used deep-synthesis technology without permission to generate a likeness highly similar to the actress, infringing her portrait rights, and that the broadcaster had failed its duty of reasonable review.","causal_attribution":"The court's notice as reported; a court finding."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'法庭上，A公司辩称，涉案形象系通过AI生成，未输入与原告相关指令，也难以预见生成形象会与原告产生关联。' ... '法院查明，涉案短剧共44集、总时长约90分钟，其中两个片段使用AI换脸技术，换脸后的演员面部与原告外貌具有一定相似度。' ... 'A公司虽提交创作过程说明，但未能按法庭要求复现换脸过程，其证据未被采信。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that two segments of the 44-episode, roughly 90-minute drama used AI face-swapping; the maker argued the image was AI-generated without any prompt relating to the actress but could not reproduce the face-swap process in court.","causal_attribution":"Court findings and the maker's argument as reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'最终，法院判决A公司、B公司分别在其运营的涉案视频账号向原告发布书面致歉声明并赔偿经济损失。双方均未上诉，一审判决已生效。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'要求其公开致歉并赔偿经济损失。双方均未上诉，判决现已生效。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The court ordered the production company and the broadcaster to post written apologies on their video accounts and pay economic damages; neither appealed and the judgment took effect.","causal_attribution":"The judgment as reported by two outlets relaying the court notice."}],"effects":[{"label":"well-known actress's likeness generated by AI face-swap in a commercial short drama without permission","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://finance.sina.com.cn/wm/2026-03-20/doc-inhrrzus0628987.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-10-24 (HTTP 200); quoted passages are kept in Chinese and the English sense was rendered by the research agent (an AI), not a human translator. Sina Finance report credited to Beijing Daily and earlier reporting, 20 March 2026.","independence_group":"beijing-internet-court-notice-20-mar-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://news.bjd.com.cn/2026/03/20/90079784.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-10-24 (HTTP 200); quoted passages are kept in Chinese and the English sense was rendered by the research agent (an AI), not a human translator. Beijing Daily report of the court's 20 March 2026 notice; the captured page carries only the lead paragraph.","independence_group":"beijing-internet-court-notice-20-mar-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.jiemian.com/article/14185974.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-10-24 (HTTP 200); quoted passages are kept in Chinese and the English sense was rendered by the research agent (an AI), not a human translator. Jiemian page of 31 March 2026 carrying a Yule Ziben Lun column on the case and the companies involved.","independence_group":"beijing-internet-court-notice-20-mar-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used.","The amount of economic damages awarded.","When the drama was released and how many people saw it."],"geography":{"basis":"The drama was distributed on Chinese social and video platforms and the case was decided by the Beijing Internet Court (Sina, BJD). The actress's country is not stated in the sources and is left empty.","court_countries":["CN"],"event_countries":["CN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): the Beijing Internet Court found that a short-drama maker used AI face-swap (deep-synthesis) technology to generate an identifiable likeness of a well-known actress without permission and held it and the broadcaster liable for infringing her portrait rights; the maker itself said the image was AI-generated.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Beijing Internet Court, as reported by Beijing Daily and Sina Finance, found that two segments of the short drama used AI face-swap technology and that the production company used deep-synthesis technology to generate a likeness highly similar to the actress; the company itself told the court the image was AI-generated. The generated face depicts the actress (depicted_or_impersonated) and is the infringement the court found. No tool is named.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Beijing Internet Court finds a short-drama maker used AI face-swapping to give a performer a well-known actress's likeness, infringing her portrait rights","summary":"On 20 March 2026 the Beijing Internet Court announced a portrait-rights judgment over an online short drama in which, it found, the production company used deep-synthesis (AI face-swap) technology to generate an image highly similar to a well-known actress, according to Beijing Daily and a Sina Finance report drawing on it. In April 2025 internet users had questioned whether the drama had face-swapped a performer into the actress, and many believed she had appeared in it. The court found that two segments of the 44-episode, roughly 90-minute drama used AI face-swapping and that the face resembled the actress closely enough for the public to identify her. The maker argued that the image was generated by AI without any prompt relating to her and could not reproduce its process in court. The court held the maker liable for portrait-rights infringement and the broadcaster liable for failing to review the content, and ordered both to post written apologies on their video accounts and pay economic damages; neither appealed. The amount is not reported in the sources read.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-20","aiSystem":"Deep-synthesis (AI face-swap) technology used by the production company in two segments of an online short drama, as found by the court (tool not identified)","aiProduct":"Unidentified video tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Beijing Internet Court found that a short-drama maker used AI face-swapping to generate a well-known actress's identifiable likeness without permission, infringing her portrait rights; many viewers believed she had appeared in the drama.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"outward","causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the actress whose portrait rights the court found infringed. Viewers who believed she appeared are an audience and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://finance.sina.com.cn/wm/2026-03-20/doc-inhrrzus0628987.shtml","primarySourceLabel":"Sina Finance (from Beijing Daily), 20 March 2026: court rules on AI face-swap of a well-known actress in a short drama","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-24T03:17:28.483888+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-24T03:17:28.483888+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-face-swap","deep-synthesis","short-drama","portrait-rights","court-ruling","china","depicted-or-impersonated"]},{"id":"2025-brazil-telegram-group-ai-fake-intimate-images-court-orders-platform-damages","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'O Telegram foi condenado a indenizar em R$ 10 mil uma mulher que teve divulgadas imagens íntimas falsas, criadas com uso de inteligência artificial (IA).'; 'da 32ª Vara Cível de Goiânia'; 'A decisão foi assinada na última terça-feira (06)'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A Justiça condenou a plataforma de mensagens Telegram a pagar R$ 10 mil por danos morais a uma mulher que teve divulgadas imagens íntimas falsas, criadas com uso de inteligência artificial (IA).'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In a judgment signed on Tuesday 6 October 2026, the 32ª Vara Cível de Goiânia ordered Telegram to pay R$10,000 in moral damages to a woman whose fake intimate images, created with artificial intelligence, were disseminated on the platform.","causal_attribution":"The judgment as reported; the judgment itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Usuários do Telegram usavam ferramentas de IA para modificar fotos publicadas pela mulher e pelas irmãs dela nas redes sociais. Eles criavam imagens de nudez e situações sexuais que não existiam, sem o consentimento delas.'; 'compartilhavam essas montagens em um grupo com mais de 120 participantes, tecendo comentários ofensivos e de conteúdo sexual às vítimas.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'produzir montagens de cunho sexual com o uso de inteligência artificial'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the judgment as reported, Telegram users used AI tools to alter photos the woman and her sisters had posted on social media into nude and sexual images without their consent, and shared them in a group of more than 120 participants with offensive sexual comments.","causal_attribution":"The court's account of how the images were made and shared, as reported; no tool is named."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'por meio de formulário de suporte, mensagens eletrônicas e atendimento fornecido dentro do aplicativo.'; 'Em uma notificação enviada em 29 de julho de 2025, por exemplo, informou que a imagem dela estava sendo usada sem autorização.'; 'Contudo, não recebeu resposta nem conseguiu interromper a divulgação.'; 'Naquela época, tinha 98 participantes, mas chegou a ter pelo menos 123 um mês depois, no dia 27 de agosto.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"She reported the group to Telegram through its support form, emails and in-app support, including a notification on 29 July 2025, and received no reply; the group had 98 participants then and at least 123 on 27 August.","causal_attribution":"Facts recorded in the judgment as reported by one outlet."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Ele explicou que o Telegram foi responsabilizado porque não removeu as postagens mesmo depois de notificado.'; 'A empresa também deve usar ferramentas de identificação de arquivos e reconhecimento de imagens para impedir a republicação de cópias idênticas ou semelhantes ao conteúdo ilegal.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'que também determinou a retirada do material da plataforma, a adoção de mecanismos para impedir novas publicações e o fornecimento de dados que permitam identificar os usuários envolvidos'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court held Telegram liable because it did not remove the posts after being notified, and ordered it to remove the material, adopt mechanisms against new publication, and provide data identifying the users involved.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning and orders as reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Não se trata de mero uso indevido de imagem, mas da fabricação de uma intimidade sexual inexistente, que se apropria da identidade visual da vítima para expô-la, de forma degradante, a um número indeterminado de pessoas'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The judge wrote that the case was not mere misuse of an image but the fabrication of a non-existent sexual intimacy that appropriates the victim's visual identity to expose her degradingly to an indeterminate number of people.","causal_attribution":"The judge's words as quoted by one outlet."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'O Telegram foi citado, mas não contestou a ação.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'O POPULAR entrou em contato com a defesa do Telegram sobre a decisão judicial, mas, até a última atualização desta reportagem, não obteve retorno.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Telegram did not contest the action and had not answered O Popular's request for comment.","causal_attribution":"Absence of a response from the platform; no contrary account is reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"fake nude and sexual images of her shared in a Telegram group of more than 120 participants","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://portal6.com.br/2026/10/13/telegram-e-condenado-em-goiania-apos-usuarios-compartilharem-fotos-intimas-de-mulheres-feitas-com-ia/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-19 through an Internet Archive capture (the live page returned HTTP 403; bodies/lat-portal6-telegram-wb.html/.txt). Portal 6's report of the judgment, citing the legal news site Rota Jurídica, which was not read. Read in the original Portuguese; the English renderings in claims and notes are translations by the research agent (an AI), not by a human translator.","independence_group":"goiania-32vc-judgment-2026-10-06"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://opopular.com.br/cidades/telegram-e-condenado-em-goiania-por-compartilhamento-de-imagens-intimas-de-mulheres-criadas-com-ia-1.3468089","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-19 (live, HTTP 200; bodies/lat-opopular-telegram.html/.txt). O Popular's report of the judgment; the page is paywalled (isAccessibleForFree false) and only the standfirst and the first two paragraphs were readable. Read in the original Portuguese; the English renderings in claims and notes are translations by the research agent (an AI), not by a human translator.","independence_group":"goiania-32vc-judgment-2026-10-06"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tools were used and who made the images.","When the images were first made and shared; the reports give a notification on 29 July 2025 and the group's size then and on 27 August.","How many sisters were depicted.","Whether the users responsible have been identified or prosecuted, and whether Telegram has complied or appealed.","Whether the judgment itself finds that AI tools were used or records the plaintiff's uncontested account; the judgment text was not inspected."],"geography":{"basis":"The judgment was given by the 32ª Vara Cível de Goiânia in Goiás, Brazil, which supports court_countries=BR. The reports do not say where the woman lives or where the group's members were; the court's seat is not used to locate the event or the woman.","court_countries":["BR"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Two Goiás outlets report a civil judgment finding that Telegram users altered a woman's photos into fake sexual images with AI tools and shared them in a group, and that Telegram, after ignoring her reports, must pay damages and remove and block the images. The facts rest on the judgment as reported; the judgment itself was not inspected.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The judgment, as reported by Portal 6 and O Popular, says Telegram users used AI tools to alter photos the woman and her sisters had posted into nude and sexual images that did not exist, and the court treated the images as fake intimate images created with AI. The generated images depicting her are the harm. O Popular's standfirst says the court understood that the group used AI to create the fake sexual montages. The tools are not named, the judge's quoted words describe fabricated images without naming AI, Telegram did not contest the action, and the reports do not say how the court established that AI was used.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Brazilian court orders Telegram to pay a woman damages after it ignored her reports of a group sharing AI-made fake intimate images of her","summary":"A civil court in Goiânia, Brazil (32ª Vara Cível) ordered Telegram in a judgment signed on 6 October 2026 to pay R$10,000 in moral damages to a woman whose fake intimate images, created with artificial intelligence, were shared on the platform. According to the judgment as reported by Portal 6 (citing the legal news site Rota Jurídica) and O Popular, Telegram users used AI tools to alter photos that she and her sisters had posted on social media into nude and sexual images, and shared them without consent in a group of more than 120 participants with offensive sexual comments. She reported the group to Telegram through its support channels, including a notification on 29 July 2025, and received no reply; the group had 98 participants then and at least 123 a month later. The court held Telegram liable because it did not remove the posts after notification, ordered removal of the material, measures to block identical or similar copies, and disclosure of data identifying the group's creators and users. Telegram did not contest the case and did not answer O Popular.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-13","aiSystem":"AI tools used by members of a Telegram group to alter the woman's photos into fake nude and sexual images, according to the judgment as reported; no tool is named","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the judgment as reported, fake nude and sexual images of the woman made with AI tools were shared without consent in a Telegram group of more than 120 participants with offensive sexual comments, and kept circulating after she reported them. The court found a violation of her personality rights and awarded R$10,000 in moral damages.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"outward","causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One counted person, the woman who brought the case. Her sisters' photos were also altered and shared, but the reports do not say how many sisters; they are not counted. Group participants are an audience and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"BR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://portal6.com.br/2026/10/13/telegram-e-condenado-em-goiania-apos-usuarios-compartilharem-fotos-intimas-de-mulheres-feitas-com-ia/","primarySourceLabel":"Portal 6, 13 Oct 2026: Telegram é condenado em Goiânia após usuários compartilharem fotos íntimas de mulheres feitas com IA","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-19T03:19:28.722651+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-19T03:19:28.722651+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-generated-images","non-consensual-intimate-imagery","telegram","platform-liability","civil-judgment","brazil"]},{"id":"2025-san-diego-health-system-patient-alleges-ai-scribe-recorded-exam-room-visit-without-consent","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court claims Sharp HealthCare secretly recorded doctor-patient conversations using an artificial intelligence tool'; 'The tool records conversations between patients and clinicians and then generates draft medical notes.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A recent lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court alleges that Sharp HealthCare recorded conversations between doctors and their patients without written consent, using the information to document visits with an artificial intelligence program developed by a private company in Pittsburgh.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'A lawsuit in San Diego claims Sharp Healthcare recorded doctor visits without written consent, while using an A.I. tool called Abridge to take notes.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A proposed class action filed in San Diego Superior Court alleges that Sharp HealthCare used the AI app Abridge, which records patient-clinician conversations and generates draft medical notes, and recorded doctor-patient conversations without patients' consent.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's allegations, relayed by three outlets (one underlying origin: the complaint); not tested in court in the sources read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sharp began using an AI app called Abridge in April of this year, according to the complaint.'; 'sent the audio to the company’s servers, where employees could review it.'; 'Patients were never informed that their appointments were being recorded or given an opportunity to consent or opt-out, the lawsuit alleges.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Recordings, the lawsuit states, were transmitted to Abridge'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the complaint, Sharp began using Abridge in April 2025, and the app captured everything said in the exam room and sent the audio to the company's servers, where employees could review it; patients were never informed or given a chance to consent or opt out.","causal_attribution":"Complaint allegations; the start date and server review detail are in the KPBS relay only, the transmission to Abridge in both."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'said he discovered the recording only after reading his medical notes from a July appointment at a Sharp Rees-Stealy clinic. When he contacted Sharp, the lawsuit said the clinic apologized, acknowledged the recording occurred and told him the file could remain on the vendor’s servers for about a month before being deleted.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff says he discovered that a July appointment at a Sharp clinic had been recorded only after reading his medical notes; according to the lawsuit the clinic apologised, acknowledged the recording and said the file could remain on the vendor's servers for about a month.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's account in the complaint as reported by KPBS; Sharp's acknowledgement is as described in the lawsuit, not a Sharp statement read directly."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It also claims that Abridge automatically inserted incorrect statements into medical charts, documenting that patients “were advised” the visit was being recorded and that they “consented,” even when the patient said it never happened.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that Abridge automatically inserted incorrect statements into medical charts documenting that patients were advised the visit was being recorded and consented, even when the patient said it never happened.","causal_attribution":"Complaint allegation relayed by KPBS only; whether the tool or a clinician produced the entries is not established in the sources."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The lawsuit seeks damages, corrections to medical records, and a court order blocking the use of the AI tool without proper consent. It estimates that more than 100,000 Sharp patients may have been recorded during the rollout.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'seeks class action status and damages that could reach five thousand dollars per violation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The lawsuit seeks class status, damages, corrections to medical records and an order blocking use of the tool without consent, and estimates that more than 100,000 Sharp patients may have been recorded.","causal_attribution":"The relief sought and the estimate are the complaint's; the estimate is of people possibly recorded."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Both Sharp and Counterpoint Legal said they cannot comment on pending litigation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Sharp said that while \"patient safety and privacy are our top priorities at all times,\" it is \"unable to comment on pending litigation.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Sharp said patient safety and privacy are its top priorities and that it could not comment on pending litigation.","causal_attribution":"Sharp's statements to two outlets (one party); no response to the substance of the allegations is reported."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Abridge suggests that doctors could say, \"I will be using a tool that records our conversation to help me write my clinical note, so I can pay more attention to our conversation and less time on the computer. Is that okay with you?\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Other local hospitals say they use similar tech, but with patient permission.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Abridge's support material suggests consent language clinicians could use with patients, and other San Diego providers using similar tools say they require patient consent.","causal_attribution":"Context from the Union-Tribune's review of Abridge's support pages and both outlets' comments from other providers; not a statement about this visit."}],"effects":[{"label":"confidential clinic visit recorded and sent to an AI vendor without the patient’s knowledge (alleged)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"chart entry stating consent the patient says he never gave (alleged)","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/health/2025/12/11/lawsuit-claims-sharp-healthcare-secretly-recorded-exam-room-conversations-without-patient-consent","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; no translation.","independence_group":"kpbs-11-dec-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://medicalxpress.com/news/2026-01-ai-exam-room-lawsuit-alleges.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; no translation.","independence_group":"san-diego-union-tribune-6-jan-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ai-in-the-exam-room-lawsuit-says-not-so-fast/ar-AA1TG8JK","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; no translation.","independence_group":"san-diego-union-tribune-6-jan-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["health","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether a court has ruled on the complaint or certified a class.","Sharp's and Abridge's response to the substance of the allegations.","How many patients were recorded without consent; the 100,000 figure is the complaint's estimate of patients who may have been recorded.","Whether the consent statements in charts were produced by the tool or entered by clinicians, beyond the complaint's allegation.","Whether recordings were used for anything beyond note generation."],"geography":{"basis":"The recorded visit was at a Sharp clinic and the suit was filed in San Diego Superior Court (KPBS; Union-Tribune). The plaintiff's country of residence is not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a privacy-capture case (received_personal_information) under the 2026-10-06 boundary: a reported complaint describes a patient's confidential visit actually being recorded into an AI documentation service and sent to its vendor without his knowledge, with the AI-generated chart allegedly stating he consented (made_claim_about). All facts are attributed to the complaint.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-17"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"According to the complaint as reported by KPBS and the San Diego Union-Tribune, Sharp's AI documentation app Abridge recorded the conversation at the plaintiff's July clinic visit and transmitted the audio to Abridge's servers to generate draft notes, without his knowledge or consent; the lawsuit says the clinic acknowledged the recording. The complaint also alleges that Abridge inserted chart statements that he had been advised and had consented. That capture and disclosure of his confidential visit, and the false consent entry, are the reported harm. These are allegations not yet tested in court.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Class action alleges San Diego health system Sharp's Abridge AI scribe recorded a patient's exam-room visit without consent and charted false consent","summary":"A proposed class action filed in San Diego Superior Court in late 2025 alleges that Sharp HealthCare, which began using the AI documentation app Abridge in April 2025, recorded doctor-patient conversations without telling patients, sent the audio to the vendor's servers and used it to generate draft medical notes. According to the lawsuit as reported by KPBS, the named plaintiff discovered that a July appointment at a Sharp clinic had been recorded only when he read his medical notes; the clinic apologised, acknowledged the recording and told him the file could stay on the vendor's servers for about a month. The complaint also alleges that Abridge inserted statements into charts that patients had been advised of the recording and had consented, when the plaintiff says that never happened. It seeks damages, corrected medical records and an order against using the tool without consent, and estimates that more than 100,000 patients may have been recorded. Sharp told reporters it could not comment on pending litigation. The allegations have not been tested in court in the sources read.","incidentDate":"2025-07-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-12-11","aiSystem":"Abridge, an AI clinical documentation app that, according to the complaint as reported, records patient-clinician conversations and generates draft medical notes; deployed by Sharp HealthCare from April 2025","aiProduct":"Abridge (reported)","aiCompany":"Abridge","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_autonomy","other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to a proposed class action, a patient's confidential clinic visit was recorded by an AI documentation tool and sent to its vendor without his knowledge or consent, and his chart falsely recorded that he had consented.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the named plaintiff whose July visit, the lawsuit says, was recorded (KPBS). The complaint alleges other patients were recorded without consent but gives only an estimate that more than 100,000 'may have been recorded', which is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/health/2025/12/11/lawsuit-claims-sharp-healthcare-secretly-recorded-exam-room-conversations-without-patient-consent","primarySourceLabel":"KPBS, 11 December 2025: lawsuit claims Sharp HealthCare secretly recorded exam room conversations without patient consent","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-17T03:04:33.888418+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-17T03:04:33.888418+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai_scribe","ambient_documentation","recording_without_consent","medical_privacy","class_action"]},{"id":"2025-maastricht-university-ai-fraud-sanction-over-nonexistent-sources-upheld-by-dutch-council-of-state","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Bij beslissing van 11 december 2025 heeft de examencommissie zich op het standpunt gesteld dat'; 'ongeoorloofd gebruik gemaakt van kunstmatige intelligentie (hierna: AI)'; 'houdt in dat er een formele waarschuwing wordt opgenomen in haar studentendossier, dat alle toetsonderdelen van het vak ongeldig worden verklaard'; 'niet mag deelnemen aan de herkansing van het vak'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 11 December 2025 the examination board found that the student had committed fraud in a weekly assignment and had made unauthorised use of AI, and imposed a formal warning in her student file, invalidation of all assessment components of the course and exclusion from the resit.","causal_attribution":"Recorded in the Council of State's ruling."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'de verdenking van fraude ziet op het gebruik van AI in drie van de vier bronnen bij de opdracht'; 'weergegeven bronnen bestaan niet en de manier waarop deze zijn opgenomen in de opdracht duidt op het gebruik van AI'; 'Er is geen technische analyse verricht, er is geen AI-detectietool ingezet'; 'omdat het onderzoek naar de vermeende fraude niet met behulp van technische middelen is verricht'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The examination board based the finding on three of four cited sources that named a different journal or edition, year, incomplete title or page numbers from existing articles; it said the sources did not exist and that the way they were included pointed to the use of AI. The Council of State's ruling records that the investigation was not carried out with technical means; the student argued that no technical analysis or AI-detection tool was used.","causal_attribution":"The board's reasoning and the absence of a detection tool are recorded in the ruling; the AI use itself is the board's inference."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Verder is nooit aan haar gevraagd of zij gebruik heeft gemaakt van AI.'; 'heeft de opdracht afgerond in tijdnood en haar internetverbinding was op dat moment slecht.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student argued that she was never asked whether she had used AI and that she completed the assignment under time pressure with a poor internet connection, relying on memory and notes.","causal_attribution":"The ruling documents that the student made these arguments, not their truth."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'De examencommissie heeft met hoge waarschijnlijkheid aangetoond dat het ingediende werk door kunstmatige intelligentie is gegenereerd.'; 'Bij beslissing van 5 maart 2026 heeft het CBE het door'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 5 March 2026 the university's examination appeals board rejected her appeal, holding that the examination board had shown with high probability that the work was AI-generated.","causal_attribution":"Recorded in the ruling."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Datum uitspraak: 12 augustus 2026'; 'verklaart het beroep ongegrond;'; 'wijst het verzoek om schadevergoeding af.'; 'Door de beschuldiging en de aantekening leidt zij reputatieschade en psychische schade.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 12 August 2026 the Council of State dismissed her appeal and her claim for damages, in which she said the accusation and the note in her file caused her reputational and psychological harm.","causal_attribution":"The dismissal is documented; the reputational and psychological harm is the student's claim as recorded in the ruling."}],"effects":[{"label":"formal fraud warning, invalidation of all course assessments and exclusion from the resit","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"appeal and damages claim dismissed by the Council of State","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in full in Dutch and translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translation.","independence_group":"raad-van-state-ecli-nl-rvs-2026-4720"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["education","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether the student used an AI tool, and which one.","When the assignment was submitted; the ruling dates only the examination board's decision."],"geography":{"basis":"The assignment, sanction and appeals concern Maastricht University and the Council of State in the Netherlands, as the ruling states. The student's own country is not stated; the use of an interpreter at the hearing does not establish it.","court_countries":["NL"],"event_countries":["NL"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as an institution's consequential response to suspected AI use: Maastricht University sanctioned a student for fraud after attributing non-existent sources to AI without a detection tool, and the Dutch Council of State upheld the sanction and rejected her damages claim. The facts rest on the published ruling.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the university's sanction for suspected AI use: its examination board concluded from non-existent and garbled citations in three of four sources that the student had made unauthorised use of AI and imposed a formal warning, invalidated the course's assessments and excluded her from the resit, and the Council of State upheld that decision on 12 August 2026. No detection tool or technical analysis was used and the student offered a different explanation, so AI use is recorded as suspected and the relation as unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Dutch Council of State upholds Maastricht University fraud sanction on a law student whose assignment cited non-existent sources the university attributed to AI","summary":"On 11 December 2025 an examination board at Maastricht University found that a European Law School student had committed fraud in a weekly assignment whose purpose was to find and correctly cite legal sources. The board said three of the four sources contained wrong journals, years, titles and page numbers, that the sources did not exist, and that the way they were included pointed to the use of AI; it concluded the student had made unauthorised use of AI. The sanction was a formal warning in the student's file, invalidation of all assessment components of the course and exclusion from the resit. The student argued that no technical analysis or AI-detection tool had been used, that she was never asked whether she had used AI, and that the errors came from completing the work in a hurry from memory and notes with a poor internet connection. The university's examination appeals board rejected her appeal on 5 March 2026, and on 12 August 2026 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State dismissed her further appeal and her claim for damages for reputational and psychological harm.","incidentDate":"2025-12-11","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-08-12","aiSystem":"No AI tool is named. The examination board inferred from non-existent and garbled source citations that the assignment had been generated with AI; no detection tool or technical analysis was used","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The student received a formal fraud warning in her file, had all assessment components of the course invalidated and was excluded from the resit after the university attributed non-existent sources to AI; the Council of State upheld the sanction and rejected her claim of reputational and psychological harm (ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One sanctioned student (ruling). She is counted under other people harmed because her use of AI is the university's inference and is not established.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"NL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720","primarySourceLabel":"Council of State (Netherlands), ruling ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720, case 202601147/1/A2, 12 August 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:11:28.361182+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:11:28.361182+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-use-accusation","academic-integrity","education","fabricated-sources","sanction-upheld","ai-involvement-suspected"]}]}