{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T07:01:50.864Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"denied","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":5,"coverage":{"cases":5,"countries":3,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":5,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":2,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":2},"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-moscow-court-upholds-sales-directors-dismissal-over-trade-secrets-uploaded-to-deepseek","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Бабушкинский суд Москвы признал законным увольнение топ-менеджера инженерной компании за загрузку сведений, составляющих коммерческую тайну, в нейросеть DeepSeek, сказано в решении суда, с которым ознакомилось РАПСИ.'; 'В решении суда указано, что менеджер направляла на свою личную почту документы об участии в тендере, файл с данными о зарплатах сотрудников, ставила ее в скрытую копию и пересылала корпоративную переписку.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'путем выгрузки внутренних отчетов в нейросеть DeepSeek (дело № 02-1545/2026)'; 'Дополнительным основанием для увольнения стало разглашение стратегической информации поставщику'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A Moscow district court (the Babushkinsky District Court) upheld an engineering company's dismissal of its head of sales for disclosing trade secrets. The grounds it accepted included uploading protected internal reports to DeepSeek, forwarding company documents and correspondence to her personal email, and disclosing strategic information to a supplier.","causal_attribution":"Court decision as reported by RAPSI and Pravo.ru; the DeepSeek upload is one of several grounds."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'«Выгрузка сведений, составляющих коммерческую тайну и (или) являющихся конфиденциальной информацией, в систему искусственного интеллекта Deepseek является разглашением таких сведений», — указал суд и отклонил иск.'; 'По данным компании, в нейросеть она загрузила отчеты, которые содержат сведения о сделках, поступлении денежных средств, статистические и финансовые данные компании с разбивками по отделам.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Суд подчеркнул: сама по себе загрузка коммерческой тайны или конфиденциальной информации в систему искусственного интеллекта Deepseek уже является разглашением таких сведений.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The court held that uploading trade secrets or confidential information to DeepSeek is in itself a disclosure of that information. According to the company, the uploaded reports held data on deals, incoming payments and the company's financial and statistical figures by department.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning as quoted by RAPSI; the description of the reports is the company's."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Она обратилась в суд с требованием изменить формулировку увольнения и выплатить предусмотренный договором «золотой парашют» 5 миллионов рублей.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Требование о выплате 5 млн руб. отклонили, так как суд указал, что выплата «золотого парашюта» предусматривалась исключительно при расторжении договора по соглашению сторон или при сокращении штата, а не при увольнении за виновные действия.'; 'суд отменил необоснованное дисциплинарное взыскание в виде замечания и присудил'; 'компенсации морального вреда'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"She asked the court to change the dismissal to one by mutual agreement and to award a contractual severance payment of 5 million roubles. The court rejected those claims, because the payment applied only to termination by agreement or redundancy; it annulled a separate unfounded reprimand and awarded her compensation for moral harm.","causal_attribution":"Court decision as reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'работала с апреля 2025-го.'; 'привлекла сотрудницу к дисциплинарной ответственности, а затем уволила за разглашение охраняемой законом тайны.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'работала в компании с 18 апреля 2025 года с окладом свыше 800 000 рублей в месяц'; 'В сентябре 2025 года её уже привлекали к дисциплинарной ответственности, после чего последовало увольнение за разглашение охраняемой законом тайны.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'истец около полугода работала руководителем отдела продаж с окладом 800 тысяч рублей, уволили ее за разглашение коммерческой тайны.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"She had worked for the company since April 2025, for about half a year, on a monthly salary of over 800,000 roubles. She was disciplined in September 2025 and then dismissed for disclosing legally protected secrets.","causal_attribution":"Case materials as reported; the exact dismissal date is not given."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Решение суда по делу № 02-1545/2026 пока не вступило в законную силу и может быть обжаловано.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"As reported on 27 July 2026, the decision in case No. 02-1545/2026 had not entered into force and could be appealed.","causal_attribution":"HashTelegraph's report of the decision's status."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Она настаивала, что компания не представила доказательств разглашения коммерческой тайны, а основания для увольнения были незаконными.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Работодатель также ссылался на систематическое невыполнение планов продаж.'; 'В ходе процесса ответчик предлагал мировое соглашение с выплатой более 400 000 рублей — половины оклада, — но истица от него отказалась.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"In court she argued that the company had not proved any disclosure of trade secrets and that the grounds for dismissal were unlawful. The employer also cited a systematic failure to meet sales plans, and during the proceedings offered a settlement of more than 400,000 roubles, which she refused.","causal_attribution":"The parties' positions in the case as reported by Meduza and HashTelegraph; recorded as counterevidence and context."}],"effects":[{"label":"dismissed for disclosing trade secrets, including DeepSeek uploads, and denied a contractual severance payment","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"http://rapsinews.ru/moscourts_news/20260727/312063726.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ru","translation_note":"Read in Russian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-19 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. RAPSI (Russian legal and judicial information agency), 27 July 2026; HTTP 200, full text read. RAPSI says it saw the court's decision; the decision itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"babushkinsky-court-moscow-case-02-1545-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://pravo.ru/news/264969/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ru","translation_note":"Read in Russian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-19 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Pravo.ru, 27 July 2026; HTTP 200, full text read; gives the case number. The body names the plaintiff; this record does not.","independence_group":"babushkinsky-court-moscow-case-02-1545-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://meduza.io/news/2026/07/27/v-moskve-top-menedzhera-kompanii-uvolili-za-razglashenie-kommercheskoy-tayny-cherez-deepseek","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ru","translation_note":"Read in Russian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-19 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Meduza, 27 July 2026; HTTP 200, full text read; cites the claim materials for the employment and disciplinary dates. Names the plaintiff; this record does not.","independence_group":"babushkinsky-court-moscow-case-02-1545-2026"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://hashtelegraph.com/direktor-po-prodazham-posovetovalas-s-deepseek-lishilas-raboty-i-5-mln-rubley/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ru","translation_note":"Read in Russian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-19 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. HashTelegraph, 27 July 2026; HTTP 200, full text read; relays the same decision with the start date and the appeal status. Names the plaintiff; this record does not.","independence_group":"babushkinsky-court-moscow-case-02-1545-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The exact date of the dismissal; the bodies give only the start of employment (18 April 2025), its length (about half a year) and a disciplinary action in September 2025.","Whether the decision was appealed or has entered into force.","Whether any company policy expressly prohibited uploading data to AI services."],"geography":{"basis":"The company is a Moscow engineering company and the case was decided by the Babushkinsky District Court of Moscow (RAPSI; Meduza). She worked for that Moscow company (Meduza); where she lives is not stated.","court_countries":["RU"],"event_countries":["RU"],"affected_person_countries":["RU"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a consequential-response case: a court-upheld dismissal and loss of a severance claim in which the court treated an employee's uploads to DeepSeek as disclosure of trade secrets. The account is the court decision as reported by RAPSI and Pravo.ru. The employee is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the employer's dismissal of an employee in response to her use of an AI service, upheld by a court. According to the decision as reported by RAPSI, she uploaded protected company reports to DeepSeek, and the court held that this upload was in itself a disclosure of trade secrets. The DeepSeek upload was one of several grounds, alongside forwarding documents to her personal email and disclosing strategic information to a supplier (Pravo.ru). No source reports any DeepSeek output about her, so the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Moscow court upholds a sales director's dismissal for disclosing trade secrets, including uploading company reports to DeepSeek, and rejects her severance claim","summary":"A Moscow district court upheld an engineering company's dismissal of its head of sales for disclosing trade secrets, according to RAPSI and Pravo.ru reports of 27 July 2026. The grounds included uploading protected internal reports to the Chinese chatbot DeepSeek, forwarding company documents to her personal email and disclosing strategic information to a supplier. The court held that uploading trade secrets to DeepSeek is in itself a disclosure. She had sought a dismissal by mutual agreement and a contractual severance payment of 5 million roubles. The court rejected both, annulled a separate reprimand and awarded her compensation for moral harm. The decision was not yet final.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-07-27","aiSystem":"DeepSeek, the chatbot to which, per the court decision as reported, she uploaded internal company reports","aiProduct":"DeepSeek","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A sales director was dismissed for disclosing trade secrets, including by uploading company reports to DeepSeek; a Moscow court upheld the dismissal and rejected her claim to a 5 million rouble severance payment (RAPSI; Pravo.ru).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the dismissed head of sales, who used DeepSeek herself (RAPSI; Pravo.ru). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"RU","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"http://rapsinews.ru/moscourts_news/20260727/312063726.html","primarySourceLabel":"RAPSI, 27 July 2026: Moscow court upholds dismissal over uploading commercial data to DeepSeek","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-19T03:25:48.347444+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-19T03:25:48.347444+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepseek","workplace","dismissal","trade-secrets","labour-dispute","russia","moscow"]},{"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-puerto-rico-federal-court-sanctions-soccer-league-lawyers-over-citations-judge-said-bore-ai-hallmarks","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The judge ordered attorneys José Olmo-Rodríguez and Ibrahim Reyes Gándara to pay $24,492.10 on September 23, 2025, after finding dozens of inaccurate or nonexistent legal citations across four filings.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"A subsequent order issued on September 23, 2025, established the financial penalty at $24,492.10, payable to FIFA and other defendants.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The judge found dozens of inaccurate or nonexistent legal citations across four filings by the league's attorneys and ordered the two attorneys to pay $24,492.10 on 23 September 2025.","causal_attribution":"The court record as reported; the order itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Arias-Marxuach said the errors bore hallmarks of generative AI, although both lawyers denied using the technology. He found that they violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to reasonably verify the legal authorities supporting their arguments.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"previously concluded that filings by the plaintiffs’ lawyers contained 55 erroneous citations that appeared to have been generated with artificial intelligence, according to Reuters.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judge said the errors bore hallmarks of generative AI and found a Rule 11 violation for failing to reasonably verify the cited authorities.","causal_attribution":"The AI attribution is the judge's assessment; the sanction rests on the failure to verify."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"although both lawyers denied using the technology","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"However, attorneys José Olmo-Rodríguez and Ibrahim Reyes Gándara have denied using artificial intelligence to prepare the problematic submissions.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Both lawyers have denied using artificial intelligence to prepare the filings.","causal_attribution":"Counterevidence to the AI attribution."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In April 2025, Judge Arias-Marxuach determined that deficiencies in the lawyers' submissions warranted sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the court's inherent authority to address litigation misconduct.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The judge decided in April 2025 that the deficiencies warranted sanctions under Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history of the sanction as reported; no causal claim about AI."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In an October 6, 2026, filing, soccer's international governing body urged Chief U.S. District Judge Raúl Arias-Marxuach to dismiss the Puerto Rico Soccer League's remaining antitrust claim; The attorneys subsequently proposed paying $1,000 per month beginning October 15","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The plaintiffs' lawyers oppose that request, maintaining that dismissal would unfairly penalise their client for the conduct of its legal representatives.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"FIFA asked the court in an October 2026 filing to dismiss the league's remaining antitrust claim because the sanction had not been paid; the lawyers proposed paying $1,000 a month and argued that dismissal would punish their client.","causal_attribution":"The dismissal request responds to the unpaid sanction; its outcome is pending."}],"effects":[{"label":"two attorneys personally sanctioned $24,492.10 over defective citations","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the client's remaining claim faces a dismissal request over the unpaid sanction","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/fifa-antitrust-lawsuit-ai-citations-sanctions","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full; no translation.","independence_group":"lawcommentary-court-record-oct-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.pymnts.com/cpi-posts/fifa-seeks-to-toss-antitrust-case-over-ai-related-court-sanctions/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full; no translation. PYMNTS attributes its account to Reuters reporting; Reuters itself returned HTTP 401 and was not read.","independence_group":"reuters-fifa-oct-2026-relay"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2026/10/fifa-seeks-dismissal-of-antitrust-lawsuit-over-alleged-ai-misuse/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full; no translation. Its account closely follows the Reuters report relayed by PYMNTS and is grouped with that relay.","independence_group":"reuters-fifa-oct-2026-relay"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether any AI tool was used to prepare the filings, and which one.","The text of the April 2025 and September 2025 sanction orders, which were not read.","Whether the court will dismiss the league's remaining claim or accept the instalment plan."],"geography":{"basis":"The filings were made in, and the sanction imposed by, the U.S. District Court before Chief U.S. District Judge Arias-Marxuach in Puerto Rico (Law Commentary: 'a federal judge in Puerto Rico'). The event is recorded under Puerto Rico's ISO code PR, and the court, a U.S. federal district court, under US. The attorneys' residence is not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["PR"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete court sanction on two attorneys for defective citations that the judge said bore hallmarks of generative AI, with the lawyers' denial recorded. The AI involvement is the judge's assessment and is disputed.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is a court's sanction responding to defective citations that the court attributed to suspected generative AI use. Law Commentary reports that the judge said the errors bore hallmarks of generative AI, and PYMNTS, citing Reuters, reports his conclusion that the 55 erroneous citations appeared to have been generated with AI. Both lawyers deny using AI, no source names a tool, and the sanction itself rests on the failure to verify the citations. Because no AI output is established as reaching the lawyers or the court, the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Puerto Rico federal judge sanctions a soccer league's lawyers over 55 defective citations he said bore hallmarks of generative AI; the lawyers deny using AI","summary":"In an antitrust lawsuit that the Puerto Rico Soccer League brought against FIFA, CONCACAF and Puerto Rican football officials, Chief U.S. District Judge Raúl Arias-Marxuach found dozens of inaccurate or nonexistent legal citations across four filings by the league's two attorneys. According to Law Commentary, he said the errors bore hallmarks of generative AI and found that the lawyers violated Rule 11 by failing to reasonably verify the authorities they cited. Lawyer Monthly reports that the sanctions were decided in April 2025 and that an order of 23 September 2025 set the penalty at $24,492.10, payable to FIFA and the other defendants. Both lawyers have denied using artificial intelligence. In an October 2026 filing FIFA asked the court to dismiss the league's remaining claim because the sanction had not been paid. The lawyers proposed paying $1,000 a month, cited financial difficulties and an injury one of them suffered in March 2026, and argued that dismissal would punish their client for penalties imposed on them personally. The court had not ruled on the dismissal request when these reports were published.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-07","aiSystem":"Generative AI that the judge said the defective citations bore hallmarks of; the lawyers deny using AI and no source names a tool","aiProduct":"Unidentified legal research tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Two attorneys were personally ordered to pay $24,492.10 over defective citations the judge said bore hallmarks of generative AI, and their client's remaining claim now faces a dismissal request over the unpaid sum (court record as reported by Law Commentary and Lawyer Monthly)","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two attorneys were ordered to pay the sanction (Law Commentary and Lawyer Monthly name both). They are counted as other people harmed because both deny using AI, so neither is established as a direct AI user. The league is an organisation and is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/fifa-antitrust-lawsuit-ai-citations-sanctions","primarySourceLabel":"Law Commentary, 12 October 2026: FIFA wants antitrust lawsuit dismissed after lawyers sanctioned over suspected AI-generated citations","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-13T03:08:38.415526+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:08:38.415526+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["legal-citations","court-sanction","rule-11","generative-ai-suspected","consequential-response","puerto-rico"]},{"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":"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"]}]}