{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T07:00:49.603Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"denied","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"core","evidence":"","year":"","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":2,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":4,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":4,"contextualRelations":1,"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":"2026-brasilia-labour-court-upholds-dismissal-of-manager-it-found-used-chatgpt-to-alter-ifood-delivery-photos","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'alegando que foi admitido em 09/06/2024 na função de Gerente, sendo desligado em 19/03/2026'; 'sustentando que o reclamante foi dispensado por justa causa em 19/03/2026 devido à prática de improbidade, consistente na utilização de inteligência artificial para fraudar fotos de pedidos no aplicativo iFood'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The claimant was hired as a manager on 9 June 2024 and dismissed for cause on 19 March 2026; the employer alleged dishonesty consisting of using artificial intelligence to falsify photos of orders on the iFood app.","causal_attribution":"The judgment records the dates and the employer's ground for dismissal."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'presenciado o reclamante utilizar o \"ChatGPT\" para adulterar uma foto de pedido incompleto'; 'manipulou a imagem por inteligência artificial para simular o envio correto e contestar a reclamação do cliente junto ao suporte do iFood'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Uma testemunha afirmou ter presenciado o gerente utilizar o ChatGPT para adulterar a fotografia de um pedido entregue de forma incompleta.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court found, on a witness's account, that the manager used ChatGPT to alter a photo of an incomplete order in which two of four soft drinks had been sent, to simulate correct delivery and contest the customer's complaint with iFood support.","causal_attribution":"The judgment documents the court's acceptance of the witness's account; the AI use rests on her testimony as weighed by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'configurando flagrante ato de improbidade e mau procedimento (art. 482, \"a\" e \"b\", da CLT)'; 'Reconheço, portanto, a validade da dispensa por justa causa em'; 'julgo IMPROCEDENTES os pedidos'; 'BRASILIA/DF, 30 de julho de 2026.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'julgou improcedentes todos os pedidos formulados pelo ex-gerente e manteve a validade da dispensa por justa causa'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judge held the conduct to be dishonesty and misconduct under art. 482(a) and (b) of the labour code, upheld the dismissal for cause, dismissed all the claimant's claims and ordered him to pay 10% counsel fees with enforcement suspended.","causal_attribution":"Established by the judgment's reasons and operative part."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Refuto a tese do autor de que a justa causa teria sido \"fabricada\"'; 'em represália ao ajuizamento da ação'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court rejected the claimant's argument that the dismissal was fabricated in retaliation for filing his claim.","causal_attribution":"Established by the judgment; it records the claimant's contrary position."}],"effects":[{"label":"dismissal for cause upheld, with severance items denied and suspended counsel fees","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://arq.migalhas.com.br/arquivos/2026/8/4D8C4684057908_GerentequeusavaChatGPTparaburl.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23; the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. The published judgment PDF (parties' names redacted), read in full.","independence_group":"trt10-0000335-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/461530/justa-causa-e-mantida-por-uso-do-chatgpt-para-burlar-suporte-do-ifood","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23; the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. Migalhas reports the judgment and links its PDF; it is a report of the same document.","independence_group":"trt10-0000335-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["How many photos were altered and whether any customer or iFood lost money because of them.","The claimant's own account of the AI use, which the published reasons do not record.","Whether the claimant appealed to the Regional Labour Court."],"geography":{"basis":"The claim was heard by the 2nd Labour Court of Brasília, a Brazilian court, so the court country is BR. Neither the judgment nor Migalhas states where the business or the workplace is, so the event country is left unknown rather than inferred from the court's seat; the claimant's residence is not stated.","court_countries":["BR"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a court-decided case: a labour court found, on witness evidence, that a manager used ChatGPT to alter a delivery photo to contest a customer's complaint and upheld his dismissal for cause on that ground. The case is documented by the judgment.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court accepted a witness's account that the manager used ChatGPT to alter a photo of an incomplete order so that it showed all the items, and that he used the altered image to contest a customer's complaint with iFood support. It held that conduct to be dishonesty and upheld his dismissal for cause on that ground, so the image ChatGPT produced for him is the conduct the sanction rests on. The employer also cited disrespectful conduct; the court's reasons rest on the image manipulation.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Brasília labour court upholds the for-cause dismissal of a manager it found used ChatGPT to alter a delivery photo to contest an iFood customer's complaint","summary":"In a judgment of 30 July 2026, the 2nd Labour Court of Brasília (Regional Labour Court of the 10th Region) upheld the dismissal for cause, on 19 March 2026, of a manager hired in June 2024. The employer said he had used artificial intelligence to falsify photos of orders on the iFood delivery app. A witness told the court she saw him use ChatGPT to alter a photo of an incomplete order, in which two of four soft drinks had been sent, so that it appeared complete, and use it to contest the customer's complaint to iFood support. The judge found this an act of dishonesty and misconduct that broke the trust required of a manager, rejected his claim that the dismissal was fabricated in retaliation for a claim he had filed the day before, dismissed all his claims, denied severance items and ordered him to pay 10% counsel fees, suspended because he was granted free legal aid. The legal news site Migalhas reported the judgment on 3 August 2026. No appeal is reported.","incidentDate":"2026-03-19","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-08-03","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which a witness told the court the manager used to edit a photo of an incomplete order so that it showed all the items; the court accepted her account","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A labour court upheld a manager's dismissal for cause after finding, on a witness's account, that he used ChatGPT to alter a delivery photo to contest a customer's iFood complaint; he lost severance items and his claims, and was ordered to pay suspended counsel fees.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the dismissed manager, whose own ChatGPT use the court found. Customers whose complaints were contested are not counted because the judgment describes no loss to any of them.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"BR","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://arq.migalhas.com.br/arquivos/2026/8/4D8C4684057908_GerentequeusavaChatGPTparaburl.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"2nd Labour Court of Brasília, judgment of 30 Jul 2026, case 0000335-04.2026.5.10.0002 (PDF published by Migalhas)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:22:30.753826+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:22:30.753826+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["brazil","labour-court","dismissal","chatgpt","image-editing","delivery-app"]},{"id":"2025-oregon-federal-court-dismisses-family-plaintiffs-claims-after-briefs-with-ai-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The issue before the Court is the appropriate sanctions for Plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence'; 'Plaintiffs filed three briefs containing citations to fifteen non-existent cases and fabricated quotations falsely attributed to eight legitimate authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs filed three summary-judgment briefs citing fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations attributed to eight real authorities, and the court framed its sanctions as being for the plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'[t]he inclusion of inaccurate citations was inadvertent and the result of reliance on an automated legal citation tool'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs told the court the inaccurate citations were inadvertent and resulted from reliance on an automated legal citation tool.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' filing as quoted by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Court finds that Plaintiffs share responsibility with'; 'for the submission of fifteen non-existent cases and eight fabricated quotations'; 'is a serial self-represented litigator who was likely the person responsible for using artificial intelligence to draft the summary judgment briefs in this case'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that the plaintiffs shared responsibility with their lead lawyer and that one plaintiff, a serial self-represented litigator, was likely the person responsible for using AI to draft the briefs.","causal_attribution":"A court finding of likelihood on unrebutted circumstantial evidence; the drafter's AI use is not otherwise established."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'STRICKEN without leave to refile'; 'to pay the Clerk of the Court $15,500 within 30'; 'Defendants are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney' ; 'Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED with'; 'Local Rules provides an additional basis for terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs' claims.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court struck the briefs without leave to refile, ordered the lead lawyer to pay $15,500 to the Clerk, awarded the defendants reasonable fees and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice; it found the plaintiffs' continual violations of the Local Rules an additional basis for that dismissal.","causal_attribution":"Established by the order."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'finds the requested amount of $94,704.38 reasonable'; 'is ORDERED to pay Defendants 15% of that award, $14,205.66'; 'pay Defendants the remaining 85%'; '$80,498.72 within thirty (30) days'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In March 2026 the court found fees of $94,704.38 reasonable and ordered local counsel to pay 15% ($14,205.66) and the lead lawyer 85% ($80,498.72).","causal_attribution":"Established by the fees order."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Defendants' unopposed Motion for Partial Summary'; 'summary judgment on their eighth counterclaim for breach of contract and ordered specific performance of the inheritance contract'; 'Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 228) is DENIED.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In June 2026 the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its grant of the defendants' unopposed motion for partial summary judgment, which had awarded specific performance of an inheritance contract on a breach-of-contract counterclaim.","causal_attribution":"Established by the reconsideration order; the orders do not say the counterclaim outcome resulted from the AI sanction."}],"effects":[{"label":"family plaintiffs' claims dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for briefs with AI-fabricated citations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"lead lawyer fined $15,500 and two lawyers ordered to pay $94,704.38 in fees","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.215.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.225.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, pdftotext); the background and fee-allocation sections were inspected.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.233.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, pdftotext); five-page order read in full.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used; the orders name none.","Who drafted the briefs: the court's finding is one of likelihood, and the plaintiffs gave no explanation.","Whether the fine and fees were paid, and the outcome of the order sent to the Oregon State Bar and of a later show-cause order to the lead lawyer.","Whether the counterclaim ruling was affected by the striking of the plaintiffs' briefs."],"geography":{"basis":"The briefs were filed in and the sanctions imposed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Where the briefs were drafted and where the parties live are not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's own orders establish that it dismissed the family plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and sanctioned their lawyers for briefs citing nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations, which the court attributes to the plaintiffs' misuse of generative AI and finds one plaintiff likely drafted with AI. The three orders were read.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's 12 December 2025 order describes the sanctions as being for the plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence, finds that three briefs cited fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations, records the plaintiffs' statement that the citations resulted from reliance on an automated legal citation tool, and finds that one plaintiff was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs (communicated_with). The AI output reached the court in those briefs, and the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and sanctioned their lawyers because of it (informed_decision_about). No product is named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Oregon federal court dismisses family plaintiffs' claims and fines their lawyer after briefs cited 15 nonexistent cases it attributes to generative AI misuse","summary":"On 12 December 2025 the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed with prejudice the claims of plaintiffs in a family dispute over their late mother's estate and family property, as a sanction for what the court called their misuse of generative artificial intelligence, and found their continual violations of the court's Local Rules an additional basis for the dismissal. Three of the plaintiffs' summary-judgment briefs cited fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations attributed to eight real authorities. The plaintiffs had said the inaccurate citations came from reliance on an automated legal citation tool. The court found that the plaintiffs shared responsibility with their lead lawyer and that one plaintiff, a frequent self-represented litigant, was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs. It struck the briefs, ordered the lead lawyer to pay $15,500 to the court and awarded the defendants their fees. In March 2026 it set those fees at $94,704.38, ordering the lead lawyer to pay 85% and local counsel 15%. In June 2026 it denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider a later ruling for the defendants on a counterclaim.","incidentDate":"2025-01-31","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-12","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-12-12","aiSystem":"Generative AI used to draft summary-judgment briefs, according to the court; the plaintiffs described it as an automated legal citation tool. No product is named in the orders","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's orders, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice because their briefs cited nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations that the court attributes to misuse of generative AI, which it found one plaintiff likely used to draft them; the lead lawyer was fined $15,500 and the two lawyers were ordered to pay $94,704.38 in fees.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Three people counted from the orders: the individual plaintiff whose claims were dismissed (found likely to have drafted the briefs with AI, so that AI use is a finding of likelihood and she is not counted as an established user), the lead lawyer (fined and ordered to pay 85% of fees) and local counsel (ordered to pay 15% of fees). The estate whose claim was also dismissed has beneficiaries the orders do not count; the LLC plaintiff is not a person.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.215.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Opinion and Order, ECF 215, case 1:21-cv-00157 (12 December 2025)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:05:45.14301+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:05:45.14301+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","oregon","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","claims-dismissed","client-responsibility"]},{"id":"2025-shanghai-voice-actor-ai-synthesised-voice-company-promotion-appeal-ruling","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'2026年9月29日，上海市第一中级人民法院依法审结上海首例人工智能合成语音引发的自然人声音权益保护纠纷案件，判决平台运营方构成声音侵权，赔偿权利人经济损失5万元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'上海市第一中级人民法院依法判决：驳回上诉，维持原判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'驳回上诉，维持原判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'经上海市第一中级人民法院二审，于2026年9月29日驳回上诉，维持原判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 29 September 2026 the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court concluded a voice-rights case arising from AI-synthesised speech, described as the first in Shanghai, holding that the platform operator infringed and must pay 50,000 yuan for economic loss; the appeals were dismissed and the first-instance judgment upheld.","causal_attribution":"Court outcome as relayed by outlets citing the court; the judgment was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'2025年1月'; '从好友处了解到'; 'A公司在其互联网推广拉新活动中疑似使用了'; '该活动使用的自己声音疑似AI合成，于是对相关音频进行了公证以固定证据'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In January 2025 the voice actor learned from a friend that Company A appeared to be using the voice actor's voice in an online user-acquisition promotion, judged the audio to be AI-synthesised and had it notarised before suing.","causal_attribution":"The claimant's case as summarised in the court account."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'其从未与A公司进行过合作和任何授权，A公司擅自使用其声音构成侵权，遂要求A公司停止侵权并赔偿经济损失30万元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The voice actor said there had been no cooperation with or authorisation of Company A and asked the court to stop the use and award 300,000 yuan.","causal_attribution":"The claimant's position as summarised in the court account."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A公司辩称，案涉音频确为该公司开发的AI生成，但具体的来源和投喂的素材因前员工离职无法确认'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Company A said the audio was generated by AI the company had developed, but that its source and the material fed to the system could not be confirmed because a former employee had left.","causal_attribution":"The company's defence as summarised in the court account; the company denied using the voice actor's voice."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'在28个共振峰声学指标中'; '有24个偏离度小于10%，其中16个小于5.36%，两者较为相似及高度相似的部分达到90%'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A forensic comparison found that 24 of 28 formant indicators deviated by less than 10 percent and that the parts rated fairly or highly similar reached 90 percent.","causal_attribution":"Forensic opinion as summarised in the court account."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A公司的行为构成人工智能生成声音侵权'; '赔偿5万元'; '双方均不服一审判决，提起上诉'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'并向长宁区人民法院提出起诉'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The first-instance court awarded 50,000 yuan and both sides appealed; the Legal Daily report carried on Sina Finance says the claim was filed in the Changning District People's Court.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history as relayed from the court account."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'未经自然人同意，使用自然人的声音作为训练语料，模仿该自然人的音色、语调和发音风格等生成能够识别该自然人的合成人声，应当认定侵害自然人声音权益'; '应承担举证不能的不利后果'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appeal court held that using a person's voice as training material without consent to generate an identifiable synthetic voice infringes that person's voice rights, and that Company A bore the consequence of failing to prove the lawful source of its material.","causal_attribution":"The appeal court's reasoning as relayed; it rests on a presumption from similarity and access, because the company did not produce its training records."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'涉案语音上架持续时间较短，属流程播报提示音效'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appeal court noted that the audio was online for a short time and was a process prompt sound in the promotion.","causal_attribution":"The appeal court's reasoning on the amount, as relayed."}],"effects":[{"label":"courts reported to have found a voice actor's voice identifiable in AI-synthesised audio used without consent in a company promotion","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://news.ifeng.com/c/8woTv1MjTRx","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"The Paper's article as carried on ifeng, read in the original Chinese on 2026-10-05 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. Relays the Shanghai High People's Court WeChat account; the judgment itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"shanghai-no1-intermediate-court-release"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20260929A0C6NK00","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Southern Metropolis Daily N Video on Tencent News, read in Chinese on 2026-10-05 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. The reporter cites the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court; same court account as s1.","independence_group":"shanghai-no1-intermediate-court-release"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://finance.sina.com.cn/jjxw/2026-09-29/doc-initpatz6144930.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Legal Daily article carried on Sina Finance, read in the original Chinese on 2026-10-05 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. Same court account with the first-instance court named and a judge's commentary.","independence_group":"shanghai-no1-intermediate-court-release"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["Which company and which speech-synthesis product were involved; the court account anonymises both.","When the promotion began and how long the audio was in use.","Whether the company used the voice actor's recordings as training material; the court presumed it because the company did not prove otherwise.","The dates of the filing and of the first-instance judgment.","Where the voice actor lives."],"geography":{"basis":"The case was decided by the Changning District People's Court and the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court in China. The reports anonymise the company and the app and do not say where the company is based, where its online promotion ran or where the voice actor lives, so no event or affected-person country is recorded.","court_countries":["CN"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): the Shanghai courts found that a company imitated a voice actor's voice with AI-synthesised audio in a promotion without consent and awarded 50,000 yuan. One reporting chain (the court's release, read in three Chinese outlets); the parties are anonymised by the court.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"In the court account, the company said the audio was generated by AI it had developed, and both courts found AI-generated voice infringement. The audio imitated the voice actor's voice (depicted_or_impersonated). The company denied using the voice actor's recordings; the appeal court relied on a forensic similarity report and on the company's failure to prove the source of its training material.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Shanghai: an appeal court upheld a 50,000 yuan award to a voice actor after finding that AI-synthesised audio in a company's online promotion was identifiable as the voice actor's voice","summary":"Chinese outlets reported on 29 September 2026, citing the Shanghai courts, that the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court had concluded what it called Shanghai's first voice-rights case arising from AI-synthesised speech. According to the court's account, a voice actor who publishes work on an app learned from a friend in January 2025 that a company appeared to be using the voice actor's voice in an online user-acquisition promotion, judged the audio to be AI-synthesised, had it notarised and sued for 300,000 yuan. The company said the audio was generated by AI it had developed but that the training material could not be confirmed, and denied using the voice actor's voice. A forensic comparison rated about 90 percent of the measured features as fairly or highly similar. The first-instance court awarded 50,000 yuan and both sides appealed. The appeal court held that the company had put an identifiable synthetic voice to commercial use without consent, dismissed the appeals and upheld the award.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-29","aiSystem":"AI speech synthesis developed by the defendant company (anonymised as Company A in the court account), which the courts found had generated audio imitating the voice actor's voice for an online promotion","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's account as relayed by Chinese outlets, the Shanghai courts found that AI-synthesised audio used in a company's online promotion was identifiable as a voice actor's voice and had been used without consent, causing economic loss, and awarded 50,000 yuan.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the voice actor who brought the claim (court account relayed by The Paper, Southern Metropolis Daily and Legal Daily). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://news.ifeng.com/c/8woTv1MjTRx","primarySourceLabel":"The Paper via ifeng, 29 September 2026: AI took a voice actor's voice, company ordered to pay 50,000 yuan","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:16:35.611187+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:16:35.611187+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["voice-cloning","voice-rights","voice-actor","court-ruling","shanghai","china","depicted-or-impersonated"]},{"id":"2026-jiashan-zhejiang-doubao-burial-date-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'今年4月17日，他接到家里人的消息，说母亲突发疾病过世'; '当时家里人请了一个风水先生，算出来4月20日是“黄道吉日”'; '软件的问答记录显示，史先生当时提问：“妈妈今天去世，什么时候安葬最合适？”'; '“豆包”回答，按照当地习俗和黄历吉日，最稳妥的推荐是4月19日'; '我就把“豆包”的话说给他们听'; '那么他们就相信了，就照办了'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'今年4月17日，史先生母亲去世后，为选择下葬日期，他向豆包询问“黄道吉日”。史先生称，豆包首次回答推荐4月19日'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"After his mother died suddenly on 17 April 2026, the man asked Doubao when she should be buried, having objected to a feng-shui master's choice of 20 April; Doubao's recorded answer recommended 19 April as the safest choice under local custom and the almanac, and he persuaded his family to follow it.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's account and the chat records shown by the Jiaxing broadcaster."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'“豆包”回答7点到9点，不过这次的答案跟上次的答案有点不一样，“豆包”的回答中提到，4月19日不是黄道吉日'; '他又问了好几遍，“豆包”给出的答复是19日不是下葬的“黄道吉日”'; '亲戚朋友已经通知，改日期已经来不及'; '丧事办好不久，家里就有亲戚出交通事故，受伤严重。家里人有怨言，说是母亲安葬日子不对，破坏了风水'; '记者：家里亲戚有怪你的嘛？'; '肯定怪啊，他们说是不是日子被我改了'; '也让家庭关系变得紧张'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'等相关事情都安排妥当后，史先生再次询问豆包时，其称19日不是“黄道吉日”，可此时已不便再更改日期'; '家里人对于史先生的安排产生怨言，认为其选择安葬母亲的日子不对，破坏了风水'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"When he later asked what hour was suitable, Doubao answered 7 to 9 o'clock but said 19 April was not an auspicious day, and repeated that when asked again; relatives had already been notified, so the burial went ahead on 19 April. After a relative was seriously injured in a traffic accident, family members blamed the burial date and him, and family relations became tense.","causal_attribution":"The contradictory answers are shown in the chat records; the link between the burial date and the relative's accident is the family's belief, which the reports and the quoted lawyers treat as unsupported."},{"id":"c3","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'“豆包”软件和服务生成的内容仅供参考，不作为专业建议。涉及产生重大影响的情形，建议咨询相关专业人士'; '所带来的后果和责任均由用户自行承担'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'华商报大风新闻记者看到，豆包App《用户协议》中注明：“本软件及服务生成的内容仅供参考，你不得将输出的内容作为专业建议'; '本软件的输出不应成为你进一步作为或者不作为的依据'; '用户协议中“后果由用户自行承担”等条款属于格式条款'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'目前，豆包对话界面上方也标注“AI生成可能有误，注意核实”'","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Doubao's user agreement states that generated content is for reference only and not professional advice, that users should consult professionals on matters of major impact, and that the output should not be the basis for action or inaction; it also contains a clause placing the consequences of acting on outputs on the user.","causal_attribution":"Quoted from the agreement by the broadcaster and read in the app by Huashang Daily's reporter."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'向“豆包”软件的公司投诉，没有收到回复，于是他决定起诉对方。“豆包”还帮史先生写了一份起诉状'; '这起案件嘉善县人民法院已经开庭审理。庭审中，“豆包”公司一方认为不存在网络侵权行为，软件服务过程中不存在任何过错'; '诉求就是赔礼道歉，赔损失'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'该案件已于9月3日在浙江省嘉善县人民法院开庭审理，案由为网络侵权责任纠纷'; '天眼查信息显示，豆包运营主体为北京春田知韵科技有限公司'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'9月3日，该案在嘉善县人民法院开庭审理，案由为网络侵权责任纠纷，被告为豆包运营方某公司'; '虽目前尚未宣判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"His complaint to the operator went unanswered; he sued Beijing Chuntian Zhiyun Technology for an apology and compensation, saying Doubao drafted the complaint; Jiashan County People's Court heard the case on 3 September 2026 as a network-tort liability dispute, the company denied any tort or fault, and no judgment had been reported.","causal_attribution":"Hearing date and cause of action per Sohu, per Tianyancha as cited by The Paper, and per Huashang Daily; the parties' positions as relayed from the Jiaxing report."}],"effects":[{"label":"a burial date chosen on the chatbot's recommendation, then contradicted by the chatbot too late to change; family blame and strained relations after a relative's accident","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"an unanswered complaint and a lawsuit against the app's operator, heard 3 September 2026 with no judgment reported","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://news.sina.com.cn/s/2026-09-16/doc-inirykpk3180879.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-09-21 (Sina News, published 2026-09-16 03:03, live). Credited to Xinhua Daily; carries the Jiaxing Media Centre 'Xiaoxin Shuoshi' report of 15 September with the interview transcript, the chat records and the lawyer's comment. Translated by the reviewer; the plaintiff's surname is elided from the record.","independence_group":"jiaxing-media"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://k.sina.com.cn/article_5953740931_162dee08306703zmok.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-09-21 (Huashang Daily 'Dafeng News' legal weekly via Sina, published 2026-09-21 10:34, live). Summarises the case 'according to media reports', reports the 3 September hearing, and its own reporter read the Doubao app's user agreement; adds a lawyer's analysis. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"huashang-daily"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://m.sohu.com/a/1077957190_122045489","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-09-21 (Sohu, published 2026-09-18 21:33, live). Relays the Jiaxing report and adds Tianyancha company details, the 3 September hearing and the May 2026 refund lawsuit. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"jiaxing-media"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://finance.sina.cn/2026-09-16/detail-iniryzkw6682430.d.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-09-21 (Labour Daily relay on Sina Finance, published 2026-09-16 14:21, live). Same Jiaxing account in summary form. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"jiaxing-media"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_34093004","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-09-21 (The Paper, a Pengpai-hao post by China City News, published 2026-09-18 00:15, live). Relays the Jiaxing report, cites Tianyancha for the 3 September hearing and adds a lawyer's comment and the June 2026 Douyin statement on AI answers. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"jiaxing-media"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.scmp.com/news/people-culture/trending-china/article/3368136/chinese-man-sues-ai-firm-after-chatbots-auspicious-date-suggestion-leads-disaster","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-21 from the JSON-LD article body of the saved page (South China Morning Post, published 20 September 2026 10:21, live; a Jimu News relay). Consistent with the Chinese accounts; no case fact rests on it. Context only.","independence_group":"jiaxing-media"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","relationships","justice"],"unknowns":["The date and circumstances of the relative's traffic accident and the relative's identity are not reported; no report connects the accident to the burial date other than the family's belief.","The amount of compensation claimed is not disclosed.","No judgment or later hearing had been reported by 21 September 2026.","Whether the user's complaint reached the operator and why it went unanswered is not reported.","The case facts come from one reporting chain (the Jiaxing municipal broadcaster and its relays); the operator has not commented publicly beyond its position at the hearing."],"geography":{"basis":"The plaintiff lives in Jiashan county, Zhejiang, and the funeral was in his home town of Shuyang, Jiangsu (Huashang Daily: his mother died in his home town; the Jiaxing broadcaster via Sina gives the home town as Shuyang); the case is before Jiashan County People's Court, Zhejiang (Sohu citing Tianyancha; Huashang Daily).","court_countries":["CN"],"event_countries":["CN"],"affected_person_countries":["CN"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a failure of ordinary assistance with a reported adverse experience: a consequential family decision made on a chatbot's contradictory advice, followed by family blame and a lawsuit. Five Chinese bodies and one English relay read in full; the case facts rest on one reporting chain and are recorded as reported; the relative's accident is recorded as the family's attribution, not as a consequence of the AI advice. The plaintiff is identified only by a surname in the reports and is not named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-21"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Doubao's question-and-answer records, shown in the Jiaxing report and described by every relay, recommend 19 April and later state that 19 April is not an auspicious day; the plaintiff also says Doubao drafted his complaint. No inspected report records the operator disputing the chat records; its reported position at the hearing was that there was no tort and no fault in its service.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Jiashan, Zhejiang: a man chose his mother's burial date on Doubao's recommendation, the chatbot then contradicted itself, and after a relative's road accident his family blamed the date; he sued the app's operator for an apology and damages","summary":"A man living in Jiashan county, Zhejiang, whose mother died suddenly on 17 April 2026, asked the ByteDance chatbot Doubao which day was auspicious for her burial after disagreeing with a feng-shui master's choice of 20 April; Doubao recommended 19 April and he persuaded his family to follow it. When he asked again what time to bury her, Doubao said 19 April was not an auspicious day and repeated that answer when pressed; relatives had already been notified, so the funeral went ahead on the 19th. Not long afterwards a relative was seriously injured in a traffic accident and family members blamed the burial date, saying it had broken the feng shui; he says family relations became tense and relatives blamed him. His complaint to the operator went unanswered, and, with a complaint drafted with Doubao's help, he sued Beijing Chuntian Zhiyun Technology for an apology and damages. Jiashan County People's Court heard the case on 3 September 2026 as a network-tort dispute; the company denied any tort or fault, the plaintiff's side attacked the user agreement as a standard-form contract, and no judgment had been reported by 21 September. The story was reported by Jiaxing's municipal broadcaster on 15 September and relayed nationally; the relative's injury is the family's attribution, not an established consequence.","incidentDate":"2026-04-17","incidentEndDate":"2026-04-19","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-09-15","aiSystem":"Doubao (豆包), ByteDance's consumer chatbot app","aiProduct":"Doubao","aiCompany":"Beijing Chuntian Zhiyun Technology Co., Ltd. (Doubao operator; a ByteDance/Douyin subsidiary per Tianyancha as relayed by Sohu and The Paper)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["relationship_disruption","impaired_judgment"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The man relied on Doubao's recommendation for a consequential family decision and was left, after the app reversed itself too late to change the date, with a burial on a day his family considers inauspicious; relatives blamed him after a relative's later traffic accident and family relations became tense (his account to the Jiaxing broadcaster). The accident itself is the family's superstition-based attribution and is not treated here as a consequence of the AI advice.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the Doubao user who made the burial decision and reports family blame and tension (all inspected reports). The injured relative is not counted: the reports give no basis for connecting the traffic accident to the AI advice. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://news.sina.com.cn/s/2026-09-16/doc-inirykpk3180879.shtml","primarySourceLabel":"Sina News, 16 September 2026, relaying Jiaxing Media Centre's 'Xiaoxin Shuoshi' of 15 September: interview transcript with the plaintiff, the Doubao chat records and the lawyer's comment","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-21T04:11:21.856829+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:42.015154+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["doubao","bytedance","everyday-assistance","contradictory-answers","funeral","lawsuit","china","zhejiang","jiashan","family-conflict"]}]}