{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T16:32:33.721Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"defamation","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":1,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":3,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":4,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":3,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-brasilia-appeals-court-upholds-damages-against-federal-deputy-for-ai-made-image-placing-bolsonaro-in-nonexistent-scene","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ação indenizatória decorrente de publicação, por Deputado Federal, na plataforma X, de imagem realista produzida por inteligência artificial que inseriu o autor em cena inexistente e o vinculou, no contexto da postagem, a Daniel Vorcaro, ao Banco Master e a fatos relacionados a suposto esquema ilícito. A sentença condenou o réu ao pagamento de R$ 20.000,00 por danos morais ... CONHECER DO RECURSO, REJEITAR PRELIMINAR E NEGAR-LHE PROVIMENTO. DECISÃO UNÂNIME.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The TJDFT First Civil Panel unanimously dismissed the deputy's appeal against a judgment ordering him to pay 20,000 reais in moral damages over a realistic AI-produced image posted on X that inserted Bolsonaro into a nonexistent scene and linked him to Vorcaro, Banco Master and an alleged illicit scheme.","causal_attribution":"The court record establishes the judgment and the court's description of the image as AI-produced."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"A associação visual do retratado a contexto relacionado a supostas irregularidades, mediante fotografia artificial com aparência de autenticidade, configura ato ilícito e atinge objetivamente os direitos à honra e à imagem, sendo o dano moral decorrente da própria exposição indevida.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that associating the person depicted with alleged irregularities through an artificial photograph with an appearance of authenticity is unlawful and objectively harms the rights to honour and image.","causal_attribution":"The harm to honour and image is the court's finding about the AI-produced image."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"A posterior exclusão da postagem e o esclarecimento de que a imagem foi produzida por inteligência artificial não afastam a ilicitude já consumada, embora constituam circunstâncias relevantes para a definição da extensão da reparação.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The post was later deleted and it was clarified that the image had been produced by AI; the court said this did not remove the unlawfulness but was relevant to the amount.","causal_attribution":"Court record of the later clarification of the image's AI origin."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"O deputado Rogerio Correia (PT-MG) foi condenado na quarta-feira (27) a indenizar o ex-presidente Jair Bolsonaro (PL) em R$ 20 mil após adulteração de foto com inteligência artificial. Na publicação das redes sociais, feita em fevereiro deste ano","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"According to CNN Brasil, the post was made in February 2026 and the first-instance court ruled on Wednesday 27 May 2026.","causal_attribution":"Dates of the post and first ruling as reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"O apelante suscita cerceamento de defesa e, no mérito, invoca imunidade parlamentar material e liberdade de expressão","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Em sua defesa, Correia pediu a anulação da sentença ou a redução da multa, argumentando que a imagem tinha papel meramente simbólico para ilustrar uma crítica política.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The deputy argued that the image was symbolic, illustrating political criticism, and that parliamentary immunity protected him.","causal_attribution":"The defendant's position, rejected by the court."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"o deputado também foi condenado a publicar no mesmo perfil do X um comunicado oficial informando que a imagem foi criada por IA e que não retrata um encontro real, mantendo o aviso no ar por pelo menos 48 horas.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to Poder360, the deputy was also ordered to publish on the same X profile an official notice that the image was created by AI and does not show a real meeting, kept up for at least 48 hours.","causal_attribution":"Remedy as reported by Poder360."}],"effects":[{"label":"former president's honour and image harmed by an AI-produced image of a nonexistent scene, as the courts found","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://static.poder360.com.br/uploads/2026/10/TJDFT-mantem-condenacao-Rogerio-Correia-21out2026.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-22 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. TJDFT appeal judgment (acórdão) PDF, 8 Oct 2026, signed electronically 20 Oct 2026; HTTP 200; text extracted with pdftotext.","independence_group":"tjdft-appeal-judgment-8-oct-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.poder360.com.br/poder-justica/justica-mantem-condenacao-de-petista-por-montagem-com-jair-e-vorcaro/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-22 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Poder360 report of 21 Oct 2026 based on the judgment it publishes; HTTP 200; same independence group as the judgment.","independence_group":"tjdft-appeal-judgment-8-oct-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/politica/deputado-do-pt-tera-de-indenizar-bolsonaro-em-r-20-mil-por-foto-com-ia/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-22 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. CNN Brasil report of 28 May 2026 on the first-instance ruling; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"first-instance-ruling-may-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","politics"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool produced the image.","The post's reach; the judgment notes no specific evidence of it.","Whether the deputy will appeal further."],"geography":{"basis":"The case was decided by the Federal District and Territories Court of Justice in Brasília, Brazil. The image was posted on X; no source says where it was posted from or where the plaintiff was, so no event or affected-person country is recorded.","court_countries":["BR"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): an appeals court record establishes that a realistic AI-produced image posted on X placed the plaintiff in a nonexistent scene and that this harmed his honour and image, upholding 20,000 reais in damages. The plaintiff and the defendant are named as public figures acting publicly.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The TJDFT judgment describes the image the deputy posted on X as a realistic image produced by artificial intelligence that inserted the plaintiff into a nonexistent scene and linked him to a banker, Banco Master and an alleged illicit scheme, and records the later clarification that the image was AI-produced. The court found that this artificial depiction, presented with an appearance of authenticity, harmed his honour and image and upheld damages. The AI tool is not identified.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Brasília appeals court upholds 20,000-reais damages against a federal deputy for an AI-made image placing Bolsonaro in a nonexistent scene","summary":"In February 2026 federal deputy Rogério Correia posted on X a realistic image produced with artificial intelligence that, according to the Federal District court, inserted former president Jair Bolsonaro into a nonexistent scene and linked him to the banker Daniel Vorcaro, Banco Master and an alleged illicit scheme. Bolsonaro sued; a first-instance court ordered the deputy in May 2026 to pay 20,000 reais in moral damages and publish a retraction. On 8 October 2026 the First Civil Panel of the Federal District and Territories Court of Justice (TJDFT) unanimously dismissed the deputy's appeal, holding that parliamentary immunity does not cover a realistic AI image of a nonexistent event presented without a clear warning, and that the association harmed Bolsonaro's honour and image. The judgment was made public on 20 October 2026.","incidentDate":"2026-02-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-20","aiSystem":"An AI image tool, not identified, used to produce a realistic image that the court found inserted Bolsonaro into a nonexistent scene; posted on X by a federal deputy","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Brazilian courts found that a realistic AI-produced image a federal deputy posted on X placed former president Bolsonaro in a nonexistent scene linked to a banker and an alleged scheme, harming his honour and image, and ordered 20,000 reais in moral damages and a retraction.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the plaintiff, whom the courts found harmed in honour and image. Others shown in the image (the banker, and per Poder360 the central bank president) are not counted because no response or consequence is reported for them.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"BR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://static.poder360.com.br/uploads/2026/10/TJDFT-mantem-condenacao-Rogerio-Correia-21out2026.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"TJDFT 1st Civil Panel, appeal 0706076-19.2026.8.07.0001, judgment of 8 Oct 2026 (copy published by Poder360)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T03:13:08.82808+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T03:13:08.82808+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai_generated_image","politician_depicted","defamation_damages","parliamentary_immunity","brazil"]},{"id":"2026-germany-court-bars-google-ai-mode-answer-falsely-calling-doctor-convicted-sex-offender","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Ende August 2026 wies ihn ein ärztlicher Kollege darauf hin, was passiert, wenn man seinen Namen zusammen mit dem Suchbegriff \"Freistellung\" bei Google eingibt'; 'Der KI-Modus gab eine zusammenhängende Darstellung aus, die wie ein Tatsachenbericht klang.'; 'Ein Gericht hätte ihn wegen sexueller Nötigung zu einer Bewährungsstrafe verurteilt'; 'wäre deshalb freigestellt und gekündigt worden'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At the end of August 2026 a colleague told the physician that searching his name with the word for suspension in Google's AI Mode produced a connected account that read like a factual report: that he had been suspended and dismissed and had received a suspended sentence for sexual coercion.","causal_attribution":"The AI Mode output as described by beck-aktuell from the court decision; the output itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Gegen ihn gab es nie eine Strafanzeige wegen sexueller Nötigung, kein Strafverfahren und keine Verurteilung.'; 'Die KI hatte vielmehr offenbar Informationen über einen anderen früheren leitenden Mitarbeiter derselben Klinik mit seinem Namen verknüpft.'; 'nannten den Namen des beschuldigten Arztes nicht'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"None of the claims concerned him: there was never a criminal complaint, proceeding or conviction against him; the AI apparently linked information about another former senior employee of the same hospital to his name, and the newspaper articles Google linked as sources did not name him.","causal_attribution":"beck-aktuell's account of the case; the court found the statements attributed to him offences that concerned another person (c4)."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Der Mediziner forderte noch Ende August die Löschung dieser Ergebnisse.'; 'Doch Google antwortete, man habe die Beanstandung geprüft und werde keine Maßnahmen einleiten.'; 'die KI-generierten Inhalte blieben abrufbar'; 'Auch eine Abmahnung durch die Kölner Kanzlei Höcker vom selben Tag blieb ohne Ergebnis'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"He asked Google to delete the results at the end of August; Google replied that it had reviewed the complaint and would take no action, and a warning letter from his lawyers the same day had no effect.","causal_attribution":"As reported by beck-aktuell; Google's own statement was not inspected."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Das LG Aachen hat Google Ireland Limited nun per einstweiliger Verfügung untersagt, die falschen Behauptungen weiter über den KI-Modus zu verbreiten (Beschluss vom 24.09.2026 - 8 O 268/26).'; 'indem sie ihm strafrechtliche Vorwürfe und arbeitsrechtliche Konsequenzen zuordneten, die tatsächlich eine andere Person beträfen'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Das Landgericht Aachen untersagte dem Technologiekonzern Google mit Beschluss vom 24. September 2026 (Az. 8 O 268/26), im KI-Modus Falschbehauptungen über einen Arzt zu verbreiten.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"By a decision of 24 September 2026 (8 O 268/26) the Aachen Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction barring Google Ireland Limited from further spreading the false claims through AI Mode, holding that the AI-generated texts violated his personality rights by attributing to him criminal accusations and employment consequences that concerned another person, and that Google is responsible for the answers of its AI search.","causal_attribution":"The court's decision as reported; the decision text itself was not inspected. Both reports relay the same decision."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Die Falschinformationen seien öffentlich sichtbar und für jeden zugänglich.'; 'obwohl sie geeignet seien, den Arzt in seiner beruflichen Ehre und seinem sozialen Ansehen erheblich zu schädigen'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found the false statements publicly visible and capable of seriously damaging his professional honour and social standing, and noted that Google had done nothing to remove them despite his request and the warning letter.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning as reported by beck-aktuell."}],"effects":[{"label":"AI search answer falsely presenting him as convicted of sexual coercion and dismissed","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"false claims left online after Google declined his removal request","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.beck-aktuell.de/heute-im-recht/rechtsprechung/lg-aachen-8o26826-haftung-falsche-ki-aussage-google-stoererin-chefarzt-sexualstraftaeter-2026-10-08","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"Read in German on 2026-10-15 (live page, HTTP 200; beck-aktuell, 8 October 2026, with an editorial note of 12 October 2026 that the description of his former post was slightly changed at his lawyer's request). Legal news report of the court's decision; translated by the research agent (an AI), no human translation.","independence_group":"lg-aachen-8-o-268-26"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.ad-hoc-news.de/wissenschaft/google-ki-im-visier-landgericht-aachen-untersagt-falsche-arztbehauptung/70304380","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"Read in German on 2026-10-15 (live page, HTTP 200; ad-hoc-news.de, 12 October 2026). A round-up article whose Aachen paragraph restates the decision's date, file number and legal basis; it adds no independent reporting. Translated by the research agent (an AI).","independence_group":"lg-aachen-8-o-268-26"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice","privacy"],"unknowns":["The exact wording of the AI Mode answer and how many people saw it.","Whether Google has complied, objected or appealed; the decision is an interim injunction issued without a hearing.","Whether the false answer affected his employment or professional standing in practice; he left the chief-physician post in summer 2026 for reasons not connected in any source to the AI answer.","When AI Mode first produced the answer: the end of August 2026 is when a colleague pointed it out, and incident_date records that month."],"geography":{"basis":"beck-aktuell says he worked as a chief physician at a German hospital (an einem deutschen Klinikum) and that the Aachen Regional Court issued the injunction, so the court country is DE and the affected person's country is DE by his work at a German hospital. No source says where the searches that displayed the answer were made, so the event country stays unknown.","court_countries":["DE"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["DE"]},"publication":{"basis":"A German court issued an injunction against Google after its AI Mode attributed another person's sexual-coercion conviction and dismissal to a physician, searched by name, who had no such record, and Google refused his removal request. Contextual relation made_claim_about; the case adds a court injunction holding the search provider responsible for its AI answer. The physician is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Google's AI Mode itself generated the statements: according to beck-aktuell's report of the decision, a search for his name with the word for suspension produced a connected account attributing a conviction for sexual coercion and a dismissal to him, apparently by linking facts about another former employee of the same hospital to his name, while the linked source articles did not name him. The Aachen Regional Court held that these AI-generated texts violated his personality rights and that Google is responsible for them. The answer was not inspected directly; it is known through the reported decision.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"German court bars Google from repeating an AI Mode answer that falsely called a doctor a convicted sex offender","summary":"In late August 2026 a colleague told a German physician, until that summer a chief physician at a hospital, that searching his name with the word for suspension in Google's AI Mode produced what read like a factual report: that he had been suspended and dismissed and had received a suspended sentence for sexual coercion. According to legal news site beck-aktuell, none of it concerned him; the AI had apparently attached facts about another former senior employee of the same hospital to his name, and the newspaper articles it linked as sources did not name him. Google said it had reviewed his complaint and would take no action, and a lawyer's warning letter also failed. On 24 September 2026 the Aachen Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction (8 O 268/26) barring Google Ireland Limited from spreading the claims through AI Mode, finding that they violated his personality rights and that Google is responsible for its AI search answers.","incidentDate":"2026-08-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-08","aiSystem":"Google Search AI Mode (KI-Modus), which generated an answer about the physician when his name was searched","aiProduct":"Google AI Mode","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Google's AI Mode answered searches for a physician's name with a false account that he had been convicted of sexual coercion and dismissed; Google declined to remove it until a court ordered it to stop.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"outward","causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the physician about whom AI Mode made the false claims and who obtained the injunction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"DE","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.beck-aktuell.de/heute-im-recht/rechtsprechung/lg-aachen-8o26826-haftung-falsche-ki-aussage-google-stoererin-chefarzt-sexualstraftaeter-2026-10-08","primarySourceLabel":"beck-aktuell, 8 October 2026: Google muss KI-Halluzination löschen (German)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:20:24.866709+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:20:24.866709+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["google","ai-mode","defamation","false-accusation","court-injunction","germany"]},{"id":"2026-lorenzano-nunez-facial-recognition-wrongful-arrest","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'investigators ran Rosado's old Arizona MVD photo through facial recognition databases operated by the Arizona Department of Public Safety and the FBI. They received 250 possible matches and zeroed in on Lorenzano Nunez'; the press-release/video passage (victim's son flown in, his handcuffs used).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Javier Lorenzano-Nunez was arrested in October 2024'; the son's account of the arrest period.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Lorenzano Nunez was arrested in October 2024 for the 1998 murder of Sarah Carr after investigators ran the old suspect's MVD photo through facial recognition databases (Arizona DPS and FBI), received 250 possible matches and zeroed in on him; Phoenix police publicized the arrest with a press release and a special video featuring the victim's son.","causal_attribution":"The arrest and the FR role are carried by both chains; the lawsuit's characterization of FR as 'the key evidence' is attributed to the filing and court records."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'who spent nearly a year in jail after being arrested for a 1998 Phoenix murder'; 'All charges were quietly dismissed less than a year later after forensic evidence, including DNA and fingerprints, excluded him, records show.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'charges dropped against him, without prejudice, in August 2025'; MCAO: 'additional evidence that put into question his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"He spent nearly a year in jail; charges were dismissed without prejudice in August 2025 after forensic evidence, including DNA and fingerprints, excluded him, and the county attorney said additional evidence put his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.","causal_attribution":"The dismissal and its stated reason are official-account material carried by both chains; 'without prejudice' leaves refiling open."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The 2007 Puerto Rico passage ('They did not act on it', per attorney Ortega) and the 2017-analysis passage ('The results excluded Lorenzano Nunez on 2 latent prints and were inconclusive on 2 others... seven years before').","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The lawsuit alleges Phoenix police ignored a 2007 Puerto Rico Police lead reporting a man named Gilbert Noel Sanchez Rosado in custody with the same date of birth and social security number as the suspect, and that Phoenix's own 2017 fingerprint analysis had excluded Lorenzano Nunez on two latent prints (inconclusive on two) seven years before his arrest.","causal_attribution":"These are the lawsuit's allegations carried by one chain from court records; the county attorney declined to comment. A court has not ruled on them."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"MCAO statement passages ('pointed toward...', 'valuable investigative tool'); the notice-of-claim critique ('merely identified... as a possible lead').","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Maricopa County Attorney's Office said the evidence police provided when the case was submitted 'pointed toward Javier Lorenzano-Nunez' and called facial recognition software a 'valuable investigative tool'; the notice of claim counters that facial recognition merely identified him as a possible lead.","causal_attribution":"Both institutional positions are quoted directly; the dispute over the weight given to the FR match is the case's core and is preserved."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The arrest-video passage (Miller flown in, his handcuffs used, interviewed for the city's special video).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'It's not the outcome we wanted, but it's not over with'; 'I wholeheartedly believe in the investigators'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The victim's son, Garrett Miller, himself a police officer, was flown in for the arrest and his handcuffs were used; after the dismissal he said the outcome was heart-wrenching but that he believes in the investigators and that 'it's not over with'.","causal_attribution":"Contrary context preserved per the charter: the family's trust in the investigation is recorded alongside the wrongful-arrest account."}],"effects":[{"label":"nearly a year wrongfully jailed on a facial-recognition-driven arrest, publicized by police before forensic exclusion","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/man-falsely-arrested-with-facial-recognition-for-cold-case-murder-sues-phoenix-pd-mcao","kind":"news_report_court_records","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2026-07-02T14:46-07:00; 23 paragraphs).","independence_group":"abc15"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/sarah-jane-carrs-family-vows-keep-believing-justice-after-murder-charges-dismissed","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2026-06-01T21:20-07:00; 20 paragraphs).","independence_group":"fox10"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The specific facial-recognition vendor/system is not named in the inspected reporting.","Details from ABC15's earlier 'About Face' investigation (including any grand-jury or foreign-custody particulars) were not re-verified in this pass and are not claimed.","The federal suit's filing date and docket number are not stated in the inspected sources (reported as filed by 2 July 2026).","Whether he was held continuously from October 2024 to August 2025 ('nearly a year in jail' per ABC15) is reported without a custody breakdown.","The 1998 murder of Sarah Carr remains unsolved; the 2007 Puerto Rico lead's current status is unknown."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: Phoenix, Arizona (arrest, detention, dismissal). Affected person: Lorenzano Nunez. Court: Maricopa County proceedings, then the federal suit; Puerto Rico's 2007 contact was a lead, not a proceeding.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional automated-decision case (made_decision_about / made_claim_about): a facial-recognition hit treated as key arrest evidence, with nearly a year of wrongful detention, documented through court-records reporting by two independent local chains. The county attorney's defense and the victim family's trust are preserved as contrary context.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawsuit and court records, per ABC15, make facial recognition 'the key evidence used to arrest'; the county attorney calls it a 'valuable investigative tool' while the notice of claim says it merely identified a possible lead. The specific vendor system is not named in the inspected reporting.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Phoenix lawsuit alleges a facial-recognition lead contributed to a wrongful arrest","summary":"Javier Lorenzano Nunez was arrested in October 2024 for the 1998 murder of Sarah Carr after investigators ran the old suspect's MVD photo through facial recognition databases, got 250 possible matches and zeroed in on him — with Phoenix police publicizing the arrest in a press release and a special video. Charges were dismissed without prejudice in August 2025 after forensic evidence, including DNA and fingerprints, excluded him. His lawsuit alleges Phoenix police knew from a 2017 fingerprint analysis that his prints did not match, and ignored a 2007 Puerto Rico lead on the original suspect with the same name, date of birth and social security number. He spent nearly a year in jail. The federal suit against the Phoenix Police Department and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office alleges gross negligence, false arrest, false imprisonment and defamation.","incidentDate":"2024-10-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-08-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-06-01","aiSystem":"Facial recognition systems operated by the Arizona Department of Public Safety and the FBI","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","aiCompany":"Arizona DPS / FBI (systems not named in inspected reporting)","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","loss_of_autonomy","reputational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Nearly a year wrongfully jailed on a facial-recognition-driven cold-case arrest that police publicized with a video and the victim's son's handcuffs, ending only when DNA and fingerprint evidence excluded him; he now alleges false arrest, false imprisonment and defamation.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: Lorenzano Nunez, the subject of the wrongful arrest (court records and two news chains). The victim's family, whose hopes were raised and dashed, is recorded in the narrative but not counted as harmed persons under the counting rules.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/man-falsely-arrested-with-facial-recognition-for-cold-case-murder-sues-phoenix-pd-mcao","primarySourceLabel":"ABC15 Arizona (2 Jul 2026) — the federal suit, court records, the 2017 fingerprint exclusion and the 2007 Puerto Rico lead","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T09:35:16.968902+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T11:09:04.547902+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-decision-about","made-claim-about","facial-recognition","wrongful-arrest","justice","arizona"]},{"id":"2025-keene-v-google-ai-overview-defamation","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Opinion page 2 lists Overviews 1–4 separately: 1, 2 and 4 concern life without parole; 2 mentions murders of three women; 3 says he was convicted of drug trafficking. The analysis of Overview 3 and conclusion explain its substantial-truth dismissal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Complaint excerpt: statements that he 'is serving a life sentence without parole for multiple convictions' and 'for the murders of 3 women'.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The court’s opinion recounts four challenged Google AI Overviews between approximately 24 May and 27 June 2025. The complaint alleges that Overviews 1, 2 and 4 falsely said Keene was serving life without parole, with Overview 2 adding murders of three women. Overview 3 instead said he had been convicted of drug trafficking; the court considered that statement substantially true.","causal_attribution":"Allegations of the complaint as recited by the court; accepted as true only for the motion to dismiss."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'Keene complained to Google about the false statements on three occasions ... Google allegedly apologized ... and deemed the statements errors made by its Artificial Intelligence.' and 'AI Overviews 1 and 2 were seen by various family members, friends, and acquaintances.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Complaint excerpt: 27 May 2025 complaint; Google 'privately apologized', attributing the statements to 'an unknown error made by their Artificial Intelligence Platform'.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges he notified Google on 27 May, 31 May and after 27 June 2025, that Google apologised each time and attributed the statements to errors by its AI, and that Overviews 1 and 2 were seen by family members, friends and acquaintances.","causal_attribution":"Allegations as recited by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 1 and 12: 'that motion is granted in part and denied in part' ... 'the Court denies Google's motion to dismiss AI Overviews 1 and 2, and grants Google's motion to dismiss AI Overviews 3 and 4 without prejudice. Keene may file an amended complaint by October 13, 2026.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Docket entry 29, 14 September 2026: 'Memorandum Opinion and Order AND Order on Motion to Dismiss'.","relation":"context","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Post quoting the opinion's actual-malice and disclaimer holdings.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 14 September 2026 Judge Thomas M. Durkin denied Google's motion to dismiss the defamation per se claim as to Overviews 1 and 2, holding that the plaintiff, a public figure, had plausibly pleaded actual malice through his three notifications, and dismissed the claims on Overviews 3 (substantially true) and 4 (publication not alleged) without prejudice, with leave to amend by 13 October 2026.","causal_attribution":"Court ruling on the pleadings; no finding of liability."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'Keene filed his complaint ... on July 30, 2025, in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Google removed the suit to federal court on September 22, 2025.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Docket header: filed 22 September 2025, No. 1:25-cv-11431.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County on 30 July 2025 and removed by Google to federal court on 22 September 2025.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history from the court record."}],"effects":[{"label":"reputational_harm_from_false_ai_statements","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629.29.0.pdf","kind":"court_opinion","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Memorandum Opinion and Order, ECF No. 29, filed 14 September 2026; PDF read in full via CourtListener RECAP on 2026-09-15.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71417738/keene-v-google-llc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Public docket page read on 2026-09-15.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/14/federal-court-allows-libel-by-ai-claim-brought-by-protagonist-of-apple-tvs-black-bird-series-to-go-forward/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-15; quotes the opinion.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/23/from-prison-to-helping-the-fbi-to-an-apple-tv-miniseries-to-google-hallucinated-libel/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-15; quotes the complaint at removal.","independence_group":"court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["The plaintiff's residence and the locations where the Overviews were generated or viewed are not stated in the inspected records.","No damages figure appears in the inspected records.","The complaint exhibits (screenshots of the Overviews) were not inspected.","The case continues; an amended complaint was due by 13 October 2026."],"geography":{"basis":"The AI Overviews were generated online in response to searches; where they were generated or viewed is not stated. The plaintiff's residence is not stated in the inspected records, and the charter does not infer a country from the court. Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, after removal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the strength of the court's own opinion and docket, read in full, with legal commentary as context. The plaintiff is a public figure who sued under his own name; allegations are attributed to the complaint and the ruling is limited to the pleadings.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The statements at issue appeared in Google's AI Overviews, and the court's opinion recites the allegation that Google attributed them to errors by its artificial intelligence. The screenshots are exhibits to the complaint and were not inspected here; the court accepted the allegations as true for the motion to dismiss only.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Keene v. Google: defamation claim over AI Overviews calling an author a convicted murderer survives dismissal","summary":"An author and television producer, the subject of the Apple TV series 'Black Bird', sued Google, alleging that AI Overviews shown for searches about him in May and June 2025 falsely said he was serving a life sentence without parole, in one version for the murders of three women. He says he notified Google three times and received apologies attributing the statements to its AI, yet similar statements kept appearing. On 14 September 2026 the Northern District of Illinois denied Google's motion to dismiss as to two of the four challenged Overviews and dismissed the other two without prejudice. This was a ruling on the pleadings, not a finding that the allegations were proven.","incidentDate":"2025-05-24","incidentEndDate":"2025-06-27","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-09-23","aiSystem":"Google AI Overviews","aiProduct":"Google AI Overviews","aiCompany":"Google LLC","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiff alleges that false AI-generated statements that he was a convicted murderer serving life without parole were shown to searchers, including family, friends and acquaintances, and continued after he notified Google.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person is the subject of the alleged defamatory statements and the plaintiff (court opinion). Family and acquaintances who saw the statements are not counted as harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629.29.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Memorandum Opinion and Order, Keene v. Google LLC, No. 25 C 11431 (N.D. Ill. 14 September 2026), ECF No. 29, via CourtListener RECAP","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T03:23:44.732123+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:07.683768+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["defamation","ai-overviews","google","hallucination","lawsuit","reputational-harm"]}]}