{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-06T06:59:45.209Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"dismissal","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-krafton-unknown-worlds-executives-terminated-after-chatgpt-takeover-strategy","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton breached the EPA by terminating the Key Employees without valid Cause and by improperly seizing operational control of Unknown Worlds.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Date Decided: March 16, 2026","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 16 March 2026 the Delaware Court of Chancery entered judgment that Krafton breached the acquisition agreement by terminating the three Key Employees without valid Cause and by improperly seizing operational control of the studio.","causal_attribution":"Phase One judgment on the contract claims. The court reserves damages for a second phase and does not decide whether the earnout was wrongfully impaired."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"a “dismissal with cause” would not eliminate the earnout obligation","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"turned to ChatGPT for help.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Now, chatgpt starts to answer that it is difficult to cancel the earn-out.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"When the AI chatbot responded that the earnout would be “difficult to cancel,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that after the Head of Corporate Development at Krafton warned the CEO that a dismissal with cause would not eliminate the earnout obligation, the CEO turned to ChatGPT, and that the CEO told the Head of Corporate Development in a Slack message that ChatGPT answered the earnout would be difficult to cancel.","causal_attribution":"Findings of fact drawn from Slack messages and trial testimony. The chat itself was deleted."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"The AI chatbot prepared a “Response Strategy to a ‘No-Deal’ Scenario,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Lock down Steam/console publishing rights and access rights over code/build pipeline","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Preemptive Framing - Repeat that protecting quality and fan trust is the highest priority","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Systematic materials for legal defense - Prepare contract interpretation memorandums, log all communications","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Team retention - Operation of retention packages for key personnel and rapid backfill pipelines","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Over the next month, Krafton followed most of ChatGPT’s recommendations.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that ChatGPT prepared a \"Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario\" recommending, among other steps, preemptive public framing, locking down publishing rights and access to the build pipeline, legal defense materials and team retention, and that Krafton followed most of these recommendations over the next month.","causal_attribution":"The opinion lists the strategy items and the steps Krafton took. The listed strategy does not include dismissing the executives. The dismissal decision is Krafton's."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton locked down Steam publishing rights to ensure Unknown Worlds could not publish Subnautica 2.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This severed Unknown Worlds’ practical ability to launch Subnautica 2.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On June 12, Krafton posted a message on the Unknown Worlds and Subnautica websites.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the Unknown Worlds team were shocked, since they had “nothing to do with” the message","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On July 1, 2025, Krafton sent termination letters to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The letters identified a single ground for dismissal","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that Krafton locked Unknown Worlds out of its Steam publishing rights, which the court found severed the studio's practical ability to launch its game, posted a message on the studio websites without the studio's involvement, and on 1 July 2025 sent termination letters citing a single ground.","causal_attribution":"Court findings of fact. The opinion links the lockdown to ChatGPT's recommendation and does not state that ChatGPT recommended the July terminations."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton’s newly manufactured justifications for the terminations are pretextual.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"had secretly entered semi-retirement and that all three leaders had executed massive downloads of company data","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found Krafton's later justifications for the terminations (semi-retirement of two founders and data downloads) were pretextual.","causal_attribution":"Judicial finding after an expedited trial. Krafton's arguments are its litigation positions."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"is hereby reinstated as CEO of Unknown Worlds","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"authority over the early access launch of Subnautica 2","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the base earnout Testing Period is equitably extended by 258 days","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court reinstated the CEO of Unknown Worlds, enjoined Krafton from impeding the studio CEO's authority over the game's early access launch, and extended the base earnout Testing Period by 258 days.","causal_attribution":"Specific performance remedy. The court declined to return the two founders to their earlier roles."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"had deleted specific, relevant ChatGPT logs.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This particular chat was deleted.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The CEO admitted at trial to deleting relevant ChatGPT logs, including the particular chat in which the earnout question was put to the chatbot.","causal_attribution":"A limit on the record. It bears on what the chatbot said, not on the court's findings about the terminations."}],"effects":[{"label":"Three studio executives terminated without valid Cause and removed from operational control during a takeover campaign that followed a CEO's ChatGPT strategy","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=392880","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"delaware-chancery-opinion-2026-03"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["The date of the CEO's first ChatGPT use is not given beyond the sequence in the opinion (a legal warning on 2 June 2025 followed by the ChatGPT consultation). The incident date is the month.","The content of the deleted ChatGPT chat is unknown.","Whether ChatGPT recommended or was asked about terminating the executives is not stated in the opinion.","Money damages, including whether the earnout was wrongfully impaired, are reserved for Phase Two.","Appeal status is unknown.","Where the executives lived and worked is not stated in the inspected passages.","The Reuters article listed in the AIID entry returned HTTP 401 and was not read."],"geography":{"basis":"The opinion is from the Delaware Court of Chancery. It describes Krafton as a South Korean company and does not state where the executives were located when terminated, so event and affected-person countries are left unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"The full Delaware Court of Chancery opinion (90 pages) was read for the ChatGPT passages, the termination chronology and the conclusion. Claims are court findings, so they are documented as findings of that record. The affected executives are described by role.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court opinion finds Krafton's CEO consulted ChatGPT, that it prepared a \"Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario\", and that Krafton followed most of its recommendations. The relevant first chat log was deleted by the CEO, so the record on the chatbot's first replies is limited to Slack messages.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Krafton and Unknown Worlds: game studio executives terminated in a takeover campaign that followed a CEO's ChatGPT strategy, court finds no valid cause","summary":"A Delaware Court of Chancery opinion of 16 March 2026 finds that in June 2025 the CEO of Krafton, after being warned that a dismissal with cause would not eliminate a contingent earnout obligation, consulted ChatGPT, obtained a \"Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario\" and followed most of its recommendations over the next month. Krafton locked the studio out of its game publishing platform, posted a message on the studio's websites, and on 1 July 2025 sent termination letters to the studio's two founders and its CEO. The court held the terminations were without valid Cause, reinstated the studio's CEO and extended the earnout period. The opinion does not find that ChatGPT recommended the terminations. Money damages are reserved for a second phase.","incidentDate":"2025-06-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-16","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court opinion finds three executives were terminated without valid Cause and had operational control taken from them, and reinstates one as CEO. Money damages, including for the earnout, are reserved for a second phase.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"unclear","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The opinion finds three Key Employees (two founders and the CEO) were terminated without valid Cause. Former shareholders represented by the plaintiff, studio staff and players are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=392880","primarySourceLabel":"Delaware Court of Chancery opinion, Fortis Advisors v. Krafton, 16 March 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:25.863533+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:07.891335+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-aberdeen-mississippi-fee-suit-ai-hallucinated-citations-four-attorneys-sanctioned","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 2: 'the Court was unable to locate certain legal authorities cited within them. Specifically, the Court determined that the following filings contained hallucinatory citations'; p. 3: 'the attorneys admitted that the hallucinatory citations cited by them, and identified by the Court, resulted from unverified AI use.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In *Withers v. City of Aberdeen*, attorneys for both sides cited no fewer than six entirely fabricated precedents.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"In late 2025, legal memoranda filed for both sides in a fee suit against the City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.) cited cases that do not exist; the court identified one such citation in the City's summary-judgment memorandum, three in its fee-challenge memorandum and two in the plaintiff's opposition, and the attorneys admitted the citations resulted from unverified AI use.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's sanctions order on the attorneys' own admissions."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 3: 'Williams admitted to using an AI tool to conduct legal research, and Wilson admitted to using generative AI to draft her respective filing. Neither of them verified the legal authority output by AI before filing their briefs.'; p. 9: 'She explained that she used “First Drafts,” an AI- powered program for drafting legal documents.'; p. 14: 'it had acquired software that was built for in-house legal research.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff's out-of-state counsel, Kathleen M. Wilson, drafted the opposition using 'First Drafts', an AI-powered drafting program, and the City's out-of-state counsel, Kathryn Y. Williams, used an in-house AI legal research tool; neither verified the AI output before filing.","causal_attribution":"Admissions recorded and findings made in the sanctions order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 21: 'Kathleen M. Wilson’s pro hac vice admission in this case is REVOKED.'; 'Wilson is hereby ORDERED to pay a $2,500 fine to the registry of this Court'; 'Williams is hereby ORDERED to pay a $3,500 fine to the registry of this Court'; 'Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway is DISQUALIFIED from further participation in this case.'; p. 22: 'Mark McClinton is DISQUALIFIED from further participation in this case.'; 'send a copy of this Sanctions Order to the Mississippi Bar, the Louisiana Bar, and the Texas Bar.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"p. 20: 'Wilson and Williams are hereby BARRED from entering an appearance in any case before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi for the period of two (2) years'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 8 June 2026 the court revoked Wilson's and Williams' pro hac vice admissions, barred both from appearing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years, fined Wilson $2,500 and Williams $3,500, ordered Wilson to complete an AI ethics CLE, disqualified the two local counsel (Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway and Mark C. McClinton, who signed without checking the citations) with $1,000 fines each, and sent the order to the Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas bars.","causal_attribution":"The sanctions are the court's response to the AI-generated false citations and the failure to verify them."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Given the pending sanctions issue, this case is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court. The final pretrial conference scheduled on February 19, 2026 and trial scheduled on March 23, 2026 are hereby cancelled'; 'The following pending motions are hereby TERMINATED'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"p. 20: 'The Court is cognizant that upon disqualifying the resident attorneys the litigants are effectively left without representation in this case, and that this can cause hardship for them.'; p. 22: 'the Court will dismiss this case without further notice.'; p. 12: 'The Court was unable to resolve that dispositive motion given the tainted filings, and it effectively inhibited the case from proceeding further.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Because of the sanctions issue the court stayed the case, cancelled the pretrial conference and the 23 March 2026 trial, and terminated the pending summary-judgment and fee motions; after disqualifying all four attorneys it gave both litigants 60 days to find new counsel, acknowledging this could cause them hardship, and warned the plaintiff that the case would be dismissed if no counsel appeared or he did not elect to proceed pro se by 7 August 2026.","causal_attribution":"The stay and loss of counsel follow directly from the sanctions proceeding over the AI-generated citations, per the court's orders."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'directing attorney Kathleen M. Wilson to show cause as to why this Court should not hold her in contempt for her failure to pay the fine'; 'Wilson shall have until September 16, 2026 to (1) pay the monetary fine'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 17 August 2026, after a show-cause order over Wilson's failure to pay the fine, the court extended her deadline to pay it and to complete the CLE to 16 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"Follow-on enforcement of the sanctions order."}],"effects":[{"label":"two attorneys who used AI tools without verifying the output lost their pro hac vice admissions, were barred from the district for two years and fined","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"two local counsel were disqualified and fined for signing the AI-drafted filings without checking the citations","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the case was stayed, the trial cancelled and both litigants left without counsel, with the plaintiff's case facing dismissal if no new counsel appeared","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.123.0_1.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Sanctions Order, ECF 123, filed 8 June 2026 (Senior Judge Sharion Aycock), 23 pages; full text read via pdftotext on 2026-09-29 (RECAP copy on CourtListener).","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.120.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order staying the case, ECF 120, filed 4 February 2026; one page, read in full on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.133.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order of 17 August 2026, ECF 133, extending one attorney's deadline to pay the fine and complete the CLE; one page, read in full on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/technology-science/artc-courtroom-hallucinations-lawyers-cite-precedents-dreamt-up-by-ai-as-clients-sabotage-their-own-cases","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"i24NEWS aggregate piece (Sep 2026) read on 2026-09-29 from the Internet Archive capture of 10 Sep 2026 (the live page is a JavaScript shell). It mentions the case in two sentences; its count of 'no fewer than six' fabricated precedents matches the order's list and is not an independent check.","independence_group":"i24news"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which underlying model the 'First Drafts' program and Williams' research tool used; the order names neither vendor's model.","Whether the Mississippi, Louisiana or Texas bars opened disciplinary proceedings, and whether Wilson paid by 16 September 2026.","Whether the litigants retained new counsel by 7 August 2026 and what became of the case.","The dates of the other tainted filings Wilson drafted in this case (ECF 123 p.11); they may predate 5 November 2025."],"geography":{"basis":"Federal case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi (Aberdeen Division); the order describes the attorneys as licensed in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published from the court's own sanctions order and related docket orders, which record the attorneys' admissions of unverified AI use and the resulting sanctions, stay and loss of counsel. Attorneys are named as they are in the public order; the plaintiff, a private litigant, is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions order records the two drafting attorneys' admissions that their filings were produced with AI tools (Wilson: 'First Drafts', a generative drafting program; Williams: an unnamed in-house AI legal research product) and finds that their unverified reliance on the output produced the fabricated citations.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Fee suit against the City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.): four attorneys on both sides sanctioned after AI tools produced fabricated case citations; trial cancelled and both litigants left without counsel","summary":"In a fee dispute between a Louisiana attorney and the City of Aberdeen, Mississippi, briefs filed for both sides in late 2025 cited six cases that do not exist. The attorneys admitted the citations came from unverified AI use: the plaintiff's out-of-state counsel, Kathleen M. Wilson, drafted her filing with an AI drafting program called 'First Drafts', and the City's out-of-state counsel, Kathryn Y. Williams, used an in-house AI legal research tool. Senior Judge Sharion Aycock stayed the case and cancelled the March 2026 trial, then on 8 June 2026 revoked both attorneys' pro hac vice admissions, barred them from the district for two years and fined them $2,500 and $3,500, and disqualified and fined the two local counsel who had signed the filings. Both litigants were left without counsel and given 60 days to find new representation.","incidentDate":"2025-11-05","incidentEndDate":"2026-06-08","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-06-08","aiSystem":"'First Drafts', an AI-powered legal drafting program (plaintiff's counsel), and an unnamed in-house AI legal research software product (City's counsel); underlying models not stated","aiProduct":"First Drafts and unidentified legal research tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Per the court's orders, two attorneys who filed AI-generated fabricated citations lost their pro hac vice admissions, were barred from the district for two years and fined $2,500 and $3,500; two local counsel who signed the filings were disqualified and fined $1,000 each; the case was stayed with its trial cancelled, and the plaintiff was left without counsel under threat of dismissal.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":2,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Sanctions Order (ECF 123). Participant users: Wilson and Williams, the two attorneys who used the AI tools and were sanctioned (2). Others harmed through their use: the two local counsel disqualified and fined (Ridgeway, McClinton) and the plaintiff, an individual whose case was stayed, whose trial was cancelled and who was left without counsel (3). The City of Aberdeen is an organisation and is not counted; no other person's harm is stated.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MS","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.123.0_1.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Withers v. City of Aberdeen, No. 1:24-cv-218-SA-RP (N.D. Miss.), Sanctions Order, ECF 123, 8 June 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:31.680119+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:55.045067+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","justice","legal-profession","sanction","fabricated-citations","pro-hac-vice","own-use","mississippi"]},{"id":"2025-lipps-facial-recognition-wrongful-jailing","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Surveillance 'showed woman using a fake US army military ID to withdraw tens of thousands'; the 8-count charge list.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Zibolski 'acknowledged that investigators made incorrect assumptions based on the West Fargo Police Department's Clearview AI facial recognition technology'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"Warrant signed 2025-07-01 with nationwide extradition; the chief: the case 'was not solely based on just that one piece'; 'an AI function through the North Dakota State Intelligence Center'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The case began with bank-fraud surveillance of a woman using a fake U.S. Army military ID to withdraw tens of thousands of dollars; an AI facial-recognition identification tied Lipps to that surveillance — recorded by Snopes as the West Fargo Police Department's Clearview AI technology, and by Fargo's chief as 'an AI function through the North Dakota State Intelligence Center... not anything that we own'; a nationwide-extradition warrant was signed on 1 July 2025.","causal_attribution":"The vendor attribution differs between the chains (Clearview per Snopes' reading of the WFPD investigation; the state intelligence center's function per the chief) and is recorded with the discrepancy."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'US marshals arrested Lipps at her Tennessee home while she was babysitting four children... taken away at gunpoint'; 'nearly four months without bail'; bank records 'more than 1,200 miles away in Tennessee'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"PD timeline: TN waiver 10-20; booked Cass Co. 10-30; bank records presented 12-12; dismissal agreed 12-23; released 12-24.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Dismissal 'without prejudice... Angela remains a person they are investigating'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"U.S. Marshals arrested her at gunpoint at her Tennessee home on 14 July 2025 while she babysat four children; she fought extradition for about three months in a Tennessee jail, was booked into Cass County on 30 October, and was released on 24 December after her bank records showed her more than 1,200 miles away in Tennessee; charges were dismissed without prejudice.","causal_attribution":"The custody timeline is consistent across the Guardian, KVLY's police timeline and Snopes; the dismissal's without-prejudice character comes from KVLY's attorney piece."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"KVLY-obtained email 'showed six Fargo detectives were notified of Lipps' arrest in July — nearly five months before Fargo Police say they knew she was in custody'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"An email obtained by KVLY shows six Fargo detectives were notified of her arrest in July 2025 — nearly five months before the department says it learned she was in custody (5 December).","causal_attribution":"KVLY's own document reporting; the department's stated knowledge date comes from its police timeline."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"The 'incorrect assumptions' concession (Snopes' reading of the 24 March presser).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"The chief's 'not solely based on just that one piece' and the state-center tool description.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Stefonowicz's April statement on an apology.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Fargo Police Chief Dave Zibolski acknowledged 'incorrect assumptions' linked to the AI identification while insisting the case 'was not solely based on just that one piece'; incoming Chief Stefonowicz said in April that if Ms. Lipps deserves an apology, 'I will absolutely be the first person to reach out'.","causal_attribution":"The concession's exact wording beyond Snopes' paraphrase is unverified; both chiefs' positions are recorded as stated."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'lost her home, her car and her dog.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Rice: 'pursuing potential civil rights claims, though no lawsuit has been filed'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"She lost her home, her car and her dog; her attorney Eric Rice said he was pursuing potential civil-rights claims, with no lawsuit filed as of 31 March 2026.","causal_attribution":"The losses are from the Guardian's account of her situation; the claim status is the attorney's statement as of 31 March 2026."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Angela Lipps, of Elizabethton, Tennessee, filed the federal lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in North Dakota against the City of Fargo and Fargo Police Department Detective Lucas Heck'; 'The complaint says Heck failed to disclose that the facial recognition result was actually based on a photo from the suspect's fake ID, not the surveillance footage'; 'The lawsuit brings five claims... Lipps is seeking $10 million in damages'; 'These are allegations contained in a civil complaint. No response has been filed as of this writing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"On 15 September 2026 Lipps filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit in the District of North Dakota against the City of Fargo and Detective Lucas Heck seeking $10 million, alleging that he relied on a flawed facial-recognition match based on the suspect's fake-ID photo, ignored exculpatory evidence and failed to disclose that such results are only investigative leads; the suit brings five claims and says the department had no facial-recognition policy or training at the time.","causal_attribution":"The filing and its contents are reported by the same station chain (KVLY) that broke the case; the complaint itself was not inspected, so the claim is recorded as reported rather than documented. The InForum report of the same filing answered HTTP 403."}],"effects":[{"label":"five months wrongfully jailed on an AI facial-recognition identification, with lasting losses","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/12/tennessee-grandmother-ai-fraud","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (12 Mar 2026, Marina Dunbar).","independence_group":"guardian"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.valleynewslive.com/2026/03/17/chief-zibolski-ai-was-lead-not-only-evidence-wrongful-jail-allegation/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (17 Mar 2026, Alix Larsen).","independence_group":"kvly"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.valleynewslive.com/2026/04/01/attorney-discusses-potential-lawsuit-after-tennessee-grandmother-jailed-by-facial-recognition-error/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (31 Mar 2026, Ethan Kramer).","independence_group":"kvly"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ai-tennessee-woman-jail/","kind":"fact_check","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (19 Jul 2026, updated 22 Jul; rating True). Aggregates the InForum/WDAY originals (blocked, 403); its Clearview attribution reflects that chain.","independence_group":"snopes"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.valleynewslive.com/2026/09/15/tennessee-woman-sues-fargo-ex-detective-over-wrongful-arrest-tied-facial-recognition-error/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-16 (datePublished 2026-09-15T17:39Z; Valley News Live, which first reported the case in March 2026).","independence_group":"kvly"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The InForum original investigation (the first reporting chain) is blocked (403) and was not read; Snopes' and the Guardian's accounts of it are used instead.","The exact wording of the 'incorrect assumptions' concession beyond Snopes' paraphrase is unverified.","The vendor question — Clearview AI (per Snopes) versus the North Dakota State Intelligence Center's AI function (per the chief) — is unresolved.","The woman in the bank-fraud surveillance (the actual suspect) is not reported as identified; the dismissal without prejudice leaves the investigation open.","Her arrest's bail conditions and the custody conditions are not detailed in the inspected sources.","The federal complaint (filed 15 September 2026) was not inspected and its case number is not given in the inspected report; the InForum account of the filing was blocked (403)."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: arrest at her Tennessee home; jailing in Tennessee and Cass County, North Dakota; the underlying bank fraud in the Fargo/West Fargo area. Affected person: Lipps, Tennessee. Court: the Cass County charges (dismissed), North Dakota.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional automated-decision case (made_decision_about / made_claim_about): an AI facial-recognition identification set five months of wrongful custody in motion, documented by the Guardian, an independent local chain with its own document reporting (KVLY), and a fact-check carrying the blocked original chain. She is named in national coverage; the police chiefs' accounts are preserved as contrary context. Updated 16 September 2026 with the $10 million federal suit filed on 15 September, recorded from the Valley News Live report as a reported claim.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Snopes records the misidentification as based on the West Fargo PD's Clearview AI technology; Fargo's police chief separately describes 'an AI function through the North Dakota State Intelligence Center' and concedes 'incorrect assumptions' while insisting the case was not solely based on that one piece. The vendor attribution (Clearview vs the state center's function) is recorded with the discrepancy.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Tennessee grandmother Angela Lipps jailed five months on an AI facial-recognition misidentification; charges dismissed after bank records placed her 1,200 miles away","summary":"On 14 July 2025, U.S. Marshals arrested Angela Lipps, a 50-year-old Tennessee grandmother, at gunpoint at her home while she was babysitting four children, on a nationwide-extradition North Dakota warrant: West Fargo police's AI facial-recognition technology had tied her to bank-fraud surveillance of a woman using a fake U.S. Army military ID to withdraw tens of thousands of dollars. She fought extradition for about three months in a Tennessee jail, was booked into Cass County, North Dakota on 30 October 2025 on four counts of unauthorized use of personal identifying information and four counts of theft, and was released on 24 December after her bank records showed her more than 1,200 miles away in Tennessee; charges were dismissed without prejudice. Fargo's police chief acknowledged 'incorrect assumptions' linked to the AI identification; an email obtained by KVLY shows six Fargo detectives were notified of her arrest in July, nearly five months before the department says it knew she was in custody. She lost her home, her car and her dog; her attorneys are pursuing potential civil-rights claims, with no lawsuit filed as of 31 March 2026. On 15 September 2026 she filed a $10 million federal civil-rights suit in the District of North Dakota against the City of Fargo and the detective, alleging he relied on a flawed facial-recognition match and ignored exculpatory evidence.","incidentDate":"2025-07-14","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-24","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-03-12","aiSystem":"Clearview AI facial recognition (per Snopes' account of the West Fargo PD investigation); described by Fargo's chief as 'an AI function through the North Dakota State Intelligence Center'","aiProduct":"Clearview AI facial recognition (reported)","aiCompany":"Clearview AI (vendor per Snopes); North Dakota State Intelligence Center (per Fargo police chief)","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","loss_of_autonomy","reputational_harm","property_loss","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Five months jailed on an AI-driven misidentification — arrested at gunpoint while babysitting, held states away from home — ending only when her bank records proved she was 1,200 miles away; she lost her home, car and dog, and the dismissal without prejudice leaves her 'a person they are investigating'.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: Lipps, the misidentified defendant (three chains; her attorneys' account). The children she was babysitting are recorded in the narrative but not counted as harmed persons (no harm to them is reported).","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/12/tennessee-grandmother-ai-fraud","primarySourceLabel":"The Guardian (12 Mar 2026, Marina Dunbar) — the arrest, the custody ordeal, the losses","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T10:28:13.154947+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:08.693119+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["civil-rights","clearview","facial-recognition","justice","lawsuit","made-claim-about","made-decision-about","north-dakota","tennessee","wrongful-arrest"]},{"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"]}]}