{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-02T17:23:27.486Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"dismissed","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"unknown","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":2,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":4,"relationPending":2,"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":"2023-harper-v-sirius-xm-alleged-ai-hiring-screening","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'On August 4, 2025, he filed the instant federal lawsuit alleging race discrimination'; 'specifically through its alleged use of AI-powered recruiting tools integrated into the ATS that Defendant uses to screen applications'; 'brings a class'; 'alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII and'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 4 August 2025 Arshon Harper filed a proposed class action against Sirius XM Radio in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging race discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981 through the company's alleged use of AI-powered recruiting tools to screen applications.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's order, which recites the filing."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'he applied for'; 'approximately 150 positions with Sirius XM'; 'all but one of his applications were rejected before the interview stage'; 'he received a 30-minute interview for a role in IT Desktop Support, but was rejected post-interview'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Harper applied to 150 job openings at Sirius XM and was rejected for each, receiving only one interview.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The complaint, as recited in the court's order, alleges that from November 2023 to November 2024 Harper applied for approximately 150 positions at Sirius XM for which he was qualified, that all but one application was rejected before the interview stage, and that after one 30-minute interview he was also rejected.","causal_attribution":"The order documents the content of the complaint; the rejections themselves are allegations that the court accepted as true only for the purpose of the motion."},{"id":"c3","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"'utilizes algorithmic decisionmaking tools provided by third-party vendor iCIMS in its hiring process'; 'such as candidate-matching and shortlisting features'; 'Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that the iCIMS AI/ML tools used by Sirius XM evaluate applicants using data points that act as proxies for race'; 'such as educational institutions, employment history, and zip codes'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'does not, nor has it ever, used iCIMS or any other AI/Machine Learning tool in the hiring process'","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Even assuming that Defendant uses AI/ML in the hiring process'","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Sirius XM used AI and machine-learning features of the iCIMS applicant tracking system, such as candidate matching and shortlisting, to screen and reject job applicants, and those tools evaluate applicants using data points that act as proxies for race, such as educational institutions, employment history and zip codes. The complaint alleges this, partly upon information and belief, as recited in the court's order; Sirius XM says it has never used iCIMS or any AI tool in hiring, and the court did not decide the question.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court, contested by the company's stated position; unresolved."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'does not, nor has it ever, used iCIMS or any other AI/Machine Learning tool in the hiring process'; 'Defendant maintains that it previously communicated to Plaintiff that it does not use AI'; 'The Court therefore excludes the EEOC Statement'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order records Sirius XM's position, quoted from its EEOC position statement, that it 'does not, nor has it ever, used iCIMS or any other AI/Machine Learning tool in the hiring process', and the company's contention that it told the plaintiff it does not use AI during the EEOC process and later through his counsel. The court excluded the position statement from its consideration of the motion.","causal_attribution":"The order records the company's position and contention; the court excluded the position statement and did not decide whether the company used AI."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Even assuming that Defendant uses AI/ML in the hiring process, Plaintiff has not pleaded factual allegations sufficient to explain how'; 'DIMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE'; 'Dated: September 30, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'failed to establish a viable claim of employment discrimination, regardless of whether the company actually uses the artificial intelligence tools that he alleged'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 30 September 2026 Judge Terrence G. Berg granted Sirius XM judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that even assuming the company used AI in hiring, Harper had not pleaded facts explaining how it could have been used to discriminate against him by race.","causal_attribution":"The order itself."}],"effects":[{"label":"rejection of all but one of about 150 job applications, which the applicant attributes to AI screening (complaint allegation; the employer denies using AI)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.387495/gov.uscourts.mied.387495.19.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-02: Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 19, Harper v. Sirius XM Radio, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-12403 (E.D. Mich. 30 September 2026), 20 pages, free RECAP copy.","independence_group":"mied-harper-docket"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/sirius-xm-wins-dismissal-of-ai-related-racial-hiring-bias-claims","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-02 up to the paywall (headline and first three paragraphs of the Bloomberg Law report by Chris Marr, 1 October 2026).","independence_group":"bloomberg-law"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Whether Sirius XM used any AI or machine-learning screening tool on these applications.","Why the applications were rejected.","Whether the plaintiff will amend, refile or appeal."],"geography":{"basis":"The order describes the plaintiff as from Detroit, Michigan, and the case was decided in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. It does not say where the applications were processed, so no event country is recorded.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case of an applicant who attributes repeated job rejections to an employer's alleged AI screening, with the employer's denial and the dismissal on the pleadings recorded from the court order. The plaintiff sues in his own name; the AI connection is disputed and unestablished.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-02"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The applicant alleges, on information and belief, that iCIMS AI screening features made or shaped the rejections, which would be a decision about him. Sirius XM says it has never used iCIMS or any AI tool in hiring, and the court did not decide the question. Because the AI system's role in any decision about him is not established, the relation is recorded as unknown.","status":"disputed"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Harper v. Sirius XM: an applicant says AI screening tools rejected nearly all of about 150 job applications on the basis of race; the company denies using AI in hiring and a federal court dismissed the complaint without prejudice","summary":"Arshon Harper, a job applicant from Detroit, sued Sirius XM Radio in August 2025, alleging that AI screening tools in the iCIMS applicant tracking system rejected him because of his race. According to the complaint, as recited by the court, he applied for about 150 positions between November 2023 and November 2024 and all but one application was rejected before the interview stage. Sirius XM's EEOC position statement says it has never used iCIMS or any AI tool in hiring, and the company says it told the plaintiff's counsel the same; the court excluded that statement from its ruling. On 30 September 2026 a federal judge in Michigan dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The judge held that, even assuming AI was used, the complaint did not explain how it could have discriminated against him. The rejections and the AI connection are allegations, and the AI connection is disputed.","incidentDate":"2023-11-01","incidentEndDate":"2024-11-30","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-01","aiSystem":"AI and machine-learning features of the iCIMS applicant tracking system (candidate matching and shortlisting), alleged by the plaintiff on information and belief; Sirius XM denies using them","aiProduct":"iCIMS AI screening tools (reported)","aiCompany":"iCIMS","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The applicant says all but one of about 150 applications to Sirius XM were rejected before interview and attributes this to race discrimination by AI screening tools; the employer denies using AI and the court found the complaint did not plausibly link any tool to discrimination (allegation, disputed).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the plaintiff, who reports the rejections. No other class members are identified (the order notes none). He was an applicant to an employer that allegedly used the tool, so he is counted among people affected through institutional use. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MI","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.387495/gov.uscourts.mied.387495.19.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Order granting judgment on the pleadings, Harper v. Sirius XM Radio (E.D. Mich.), 30 September 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-02T03:21:01.983585+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-02T03:21:01.983585+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["lawsuit","hiring","employment","applicant-screening","icims","race-discrimination","dismissed","institutional-use"]},{"id":"2026-surat-customs-penalty-ai-hallucinated-citations-supreme-court","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The present appeal arose out of an Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposing a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on the appellant under Section 114, Customs Act, 1962, for misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The challenge to the said penalty before the Gujarat High Court failed, as the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20 January 2026.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The penalty was imposed for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to attract a lower tariff.'; 'the High Court dismissed his challenge on January 20, 2026, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds, and the Gujarat High Court dismissed his challenge on 20 January 2026.","causal_attribution":"Facts of the proceedings as recited in the Supreme Court judgment, reported by legal outlets; the judgment itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Upon verifying such judgments and articles, it does appear that the second respondent has relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations. A further investigation has also revealed that some of the case laws relied upon by the second respondent, which do exist, do not lay down the ratio deduced therefrom and it appears to be a hallucination of AI,' the Court observed.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Upon verification, the court found that the second respondent had \"relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations.\" It further found that some case laws which did exist did not lay down the legal propositions attributed to them, and that this \"appears to be a hallucination of AI\".'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Supreme Court found that the penalty order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on existing cases that did not lay down the ratio attributed to them, which it said appears to be a hallucination of AI.","causal_attribution":"Finding of the Supreme Court after its own verification of the cited material, as quoted by the reports. The court attributes the defects to AI in qualified terms ('appears to be'); the tool is not named."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The use of AI in this case, resulting in reliance placed by the second respondent on material which is dubious, proves fatal to the sustainability of the order imposing penalty on the appellant. Such circumstances compel us to interfere and remand the case,' the Court said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The proceedings were revived for fresh adjudication by an officer of the same rank other than the officer who had passed the original order.'; 'The Court left it to the wisdom of the appointing authority to initiate such action against the author of the Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 as may be warranted in the circumstances, in accordance with law.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, set aside a customs penalty of over ₹425 crore'; 'A bench of Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Sheel Nagu did not examine the merits of the customs case at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Верховний суд Індії 2 вересня 2026 року розглянув справу щодо використання штучного інтелекту працівником митниці, який послався на неіснуючі судові справи та фальшиві цитати, накладаючи штраф у розмірі близько $45 млн' (the Supreme Court of India on 2 September 2026 considered a case of a customs officer's use of AI, who cited non-existent cases and fake quotations while imposing a fine of about $45 million)","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"On 2 September 2026 the Supreme Court held that the use of AI and the resulting reliance on dubious material was fatal to the penalty order, set aside the order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left action against the order's author to the appointing authority.","causal_attribution":"Holding of the Supreme Court as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"a ₹425 crore customs penalty order resting on non-existent and misattributed case law that the Supreme Court found appeared to be AI hallucination stood against the trader for about eleven months and was upheld by the Gujarat High Court","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the trader had to take the case to the Supreme Court, which voided the order but revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full body (including JSON-LD article body) read by curl on 2026-09-29. Reports and quotes the Supreme Court judgment of 2 September 2026.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/09/03/supreme-court-sets-aside-%E2%82%B9425-crore-customs-penalty-over-ai-generated-fake-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"SCC Times case note, read by curl on 2026-09-29; summarises the same judgment (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1741).","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://upstox.com/news/personal-finance/tax/how-a-diamond-trader-got-relief-from-a-425-crore-penalty-after-customs-used-ai-generated-citations/article-199828/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Upstox (4 September 2026), read by curl on 2026-09-29; based on the same judgment.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://sud.ua/uk/news/abroad/371427-mytnyk-poviryv-shi-i-vypysav-shtraf-na-45-mln-verkhovnyi-sud-use-skasuvav","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"uk","translation_note":"Ukrainian-language report (6 September 2026) read through the r.jina.ai relay on 2026-09-29 (direct fetch 403); translated by the reviewer. Cited only for context; it converts the penalty to about US$45 million.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","public_services","finance"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the customs officer used and how it was used in drafting the order.","Whether the trader paid any part of the penalty or incurred other financial consequences while the order stood, and the trader's litigation costs.","The outcome of the revived adjudication and whether any action was taken against the officer.","The trader's country and place of residence."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, challenged in the Gujarat High Court and decided by the Supreme Court of India. The trader's country of residence is not stated in the read reports, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete case of institutional AI use in an adverse administrative decision about a person: a penalty order that India's Supreme Court voided after finding apparently AI-hallucinated authorities in it. The account rests on legal reporting of the judgment; the judgment text was not read. The underlying misdeclaration allegation was not decided and the proceedings were revived. The trader is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Supreme Court, after individually verifying the cited material, found non-existent cases, fake citations and misattributed ratios in the penalty order and said this 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'; it held that 'the use of AI in this case' was fatal to the order. The tool, and how the officer used it, are not stated in the read reports. The penalty decision was the officer's; whether the AI drafted or merely supplied authorities is unknown, so the AI-to-person relation is recorded as unknown.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Surat, India: a customs officer's ₹425 crore penalty order against a diamond trader relied on non-existent and misattributed case law that India's Supreme Court found 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'; the court set the order aside after the trader had lost in the Gujarat High Court","summary":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Surat imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 (about ₹425 crore) on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The trader's challenge was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on 20 January 2026. Before the Supreme Court the trader argued that judgments and articles cited in the penalty order had been generated using artificial intelligence. On 2 September 2026 a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, after checking the material, found that the order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on real cases that did not lay down the propositions attributed to them, which the court said 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'. Holding that the use of AI and reliance on this dubious material was fatal to the order, the court set aside both the penalty order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, sent the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority. The AI tool used is not named in the read reports.","incidentDate":"2025-10-08","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-02","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-02","aiSystem":"Unnamed generative AI tool whose output the Supreme Court of India found in a customs penalty order (non-existent and misattributed case law); the tool is not identified in the read reports","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A diamond trader was subjected for about eleven months to a ₹425 crore customs penalty order, and lost a High Court challenge to it, before India's Supreme Court voided the order because it relied on non-existent and misattributed case law that the court found appeared to be AI hallucination (Supreme Court judgment as reported by Bar & Bench, SCC Online and Upstox). The underlying proceedings were revived.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One trader, the appellant, on whom the penalty was imposed. The trader did not use the AI; the customs officer did. No other person is reported harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","primarySourceLabel":"Bar & Bench, 2 September 2026: Supreme Court scraps ₹425 crore penalty over fake citations, AI hallucinations in customs order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:08:50.773251+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:55.666396+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["india","surat","customs","supreme-court","hallucinated-citations","institutional-use","administrative-decision","penalty"]},{"id":"2025-winters-v-openai","metadataReview":{"version":1,"geography":{"basis":"Geographic fields reviewed against the cited retained dossier passages. This is a metadata review, not a new source or causal review. Residence, event setting and court are recorded separately. Affected-person countries refer to reported location or residence, not citizenship or a complete residence history.","evidence":[{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"living in Florida","location":"detailed_description","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco","location":"outcome_details","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["US"]}],"court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"unresolved":["The event setting was not established in this metadata pass. A person’s home country alone was not used as its location.","Source languages remain unreviewed; no source body was newly inspected for this record during this metadata pass."],"reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","source_reviews":[]},"name":"Winters v. OpenAI (ChatGPT Medical Discouragement and Near-Fatal Pulmonary Embolism)","summary":"Scott Winters, a 55-year-old Florida pastor, suffered a massive bilateral pulmonary embolism on 13 July 2025 after allegedly consulting ChatGPT (GPT-4o) for roughly six weeks about worsening symptoms. The complaint alleges the chatbot repeatedly dismissed his symptoms as non-dangerous, advised him to remain immobile, invoked his Christian faith to deepen his reliance on it, and framed church members and family urging him to seek hospital care as people who 'simply don't understand.' He survived after ICU admission but lost his job, ministry and home. A lawsuit was filed 22 July 2026 in San Francisco County Superior Court.","incidentDate":"2025-07-13","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-07-22","aiSystem":"ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"critical","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":["treatment_discouragement","isolation_encouragement","dependency_creation","psychological_manipulation","crisis_response"],"harmOutcomes":["medical_deterioration","hospitalization","treatment_disruption","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Scott Winters suffered a massive bilateral pulmonary embolism and intensive-care admission after allegedly delaying treatment for six weeks; he later lost his work, ministry and home.","frameworkFacets":["P1a","P1b","P1c","P1d","P2b","P2d","P3c","P5b","P5c"],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The complaint documents one named participant's medical, professional, and financial harms.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-FL","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/winters-v-open-ai-complaint.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Winters v. OpenAI — complaint (via Courthouse News)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-07-26T00:41:00.976587+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:21.677441+00:00","scopeVersion":"participant-v2","tags":["lawsuit","adult","chatgpt","openai","medical-advice","sycophancy","treatment-discouragement","us","us-fl"]},{"id":"2025-viktoria-poland-chatgpt","metadataReview":{"version":1,"geography":{"basis":"Geographic fields reviewed against the cited retained dossier passages. This is a metadata review, not a new source or causal review. Residence, event setting and court are recorded separately. Affected-person countries refer to reported location or residence, not citizenship or a complete residence history.","evidence":[{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"Young Ukrainian woman in Poland received suicide encouragement","location":"summary","supports":["event_countries","affected_person_countries"],"countries":["PL"]}],"court_countries":[],"event_countries":["PL"],"affected_person_countries":["PL"]},"unresolved":["No court country established in this review. Regulatory authorities and police locations are not automatically courts.","Source languages remain unreviewed; no source body was newly inspected for this record during this metadata pass."],"reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","source_reviews":[]},"name":"Viktoria Poland - ChatGPT Suicide Encouragement","summary":"Young Ukrainian woman in Poland received suicide encouragement from ChatGPT, which validated self-harm thoughts, suggested suicide methods, dismissed value of relationships, and allegedly drafted suicide note. OpenAI acknowledged 'violation of safety standards.' Non-fatal due to intervention.","incidentDate":"2025-06-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2025-07-15","aiSystem":"ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":["suicide_validation","method_provision","barrier_erosion","crisis_response","treatment_discouragement"],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","impaired_judgment"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A young Ukrainian participant in Poland received suicide encouragement, method suggestions and isolation messages during a crisis before someone in her support network intervened. OpenAI acknowledged a safety-standard violation.","frameworkFacets":["P1a","P1b","P1c","P1d","P2d","P5d"],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The reporting documents one protected participant's distress and impaired judgment before intervention.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"PL","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/its-not-just-in-your-head/202601/the-hidden-dangers-of-ai-driven-mental-health-care","primarySourceLabel":"Psychology Today","firstPublishedAt":"2026-01-13T10:04:24.625869+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:20.422164+00:00","scopeVersion":"participant-v2","tags":["poland","ukraine","chatgpt","openai","suicide_encouragement","method_provision","openai_acknowledged","non_fatal"]}]}