{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-12T09:13:52.009Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"employee","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":3,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"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-genoa-labour-court-reinstates-logistics-worker-dismissed-in-reported-ai-replacement","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Quattro lavoratori dipendenti della società Maersk Italia Spa del reparto Customer Service sono stati improvvisamente licenziati'; '21 Gennaio 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'il reintegro della lavoratrice licenziata insieme ad altri tre colleghi a gennaio 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Four Customer Service employees of Maersk Italia, which is based in Genoa, were suddenly dismissed in January 2025, according to the regional transport unions.","causal_attribution":"The unions' statement, and a later news report of the ruling. Maersk's account was not found."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'L’azienda non solo ha deciso di spostare queste lavorazioni a Manila, nelle Filippine, ma ha anche sostituito parte delle mansioni finora svolte dai lavoratori della sede genovese con l’utilizzo dell’Intelligenza Artificiale'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The unions said Maersk moved the work to Manila and replaced part of the tasks done by the Genoa staff with artificial intelligence.","causal_attribution":"The unions' attribution of the dismissals to offshoring and partial AI replacement. The company's explanation was not inspected, and the AI system is not described."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Una giornata di sciopero è stata proclamata per i lavoratori di Maersk Italia'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The unions called a one-day strike over the dismissals.","causal_attribution":"Reported from the unions' strike proclamation."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'aveva deciso di fare causa all'azienda in seguito al licenziamento motivato da un piano di riorganizzazione interna. Gli altri dipendenti, invece, accettarono la buonuscita economica proposta loro come risarcimento'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"One dismissed employee sued, while the other three accepted a severance offer.","causal_attribution":"Euronews's account of the case."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'la sentenza del Tribunale del lavoro di Genova ha disposto giovedì il reintegro della lavoratrice'; 'si tratta di un \"licenziamento illegittimo\" in quanto \"non rispetta l'obbligo di repêchage\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'il licenziamento era dichiarato illegittimo, per il mancato tentativo di ricollocazione (repêchage) del lavoratore'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Genoa labour court ordered the employee reinstated, finding the dismissal unlawful because the employer had not tried to redeploy her elsewhere in the company before dismissing her.","causal_attribution":"Reports of the judgment. The judgment text was not inspected, the Domani commentary does not name the employer, and the two reports may share an underlying account, so the claim is kept as reported."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'la scelta di licenziare il lavoratore scaturiva da una riorganizzazione aziendale occasionata dall’implementazione ed evoluzione dei sistemi di intelligenza artificiale, che coinvolgeva quattro lavoratori'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"According to a legal commentary on a Genoa judgment that matches this case but does not name the employer, the dismissal arose from a company reorganisation occasioned by the implementation and development of AI systems, which involved four workers.","causal_attribution":"A commentator's summary of the judgment's facts. It describes the reorganisation as occasioned by AI systems and does not describe what any AI system did."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'La sentenza reintegra la lavoratrice con il diritto a essere risarcita per i mesi in cui è rimasta scoperta dallo stipendio'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judgment entitles the employee to compensation for the months she went without pay.","causal_attribution":"Euronews's account of the judgment."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'il reintegro della lavoratrice licenziata insieme ad altri tre colleghi a gennaio 2025 perché \"sostituita dall'Intelligenza artificiale\"'; 'in seguito al licenziamento motivato da un piano di riorganizzazione interna'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Euronews reported that the employee was dismissed in January 2025, together with three colleagues, because she had been 'replaced by artificial intelligence', a phrase it puts in quotation marks without naming who said it, and that the dismissal was motivated by an internal reorganisation plan.","causal_attribution":"Euronews's description of the reason for the dismissal. The quoted phrase is not attributed to the court, the unions or the company, and the judgment was not inspected."}],"effects":[{"label":"four Customer Service employees dismissed in a reorganisation the unions attributed partly to AI replacement","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"a dismissed employee went without pay until a court ordered her reinstatement","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://shippingitaly.it/2025/01/21/licenziamenti-e-sciopero-per-maersk-a-genova","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Read in Italian in full. Quotations and their English renderings in this record were translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed them. The article reproduces the regional unions' strike-proclamation note of January 2025.","independence_group":"genoa-unions-jan-2025-note"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://it.euronews.com/business/2026/04/30/genova-tribunale-reintegra-lavoratrice-sostituita-dallia-alla-vigilia-della-festa-del-lavo","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Read in Italian in full. Quotations and their English renderings in this record were translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed them. The live euronews.com page refused the fetcher (HTTP 406); the identical article was read in a Wayback Machine capture of the same URL.","independence_group":"genoa-ruling-news-apr-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.editorialedomani.it/giustizia/ce-un-giudice-a-pechino-no-al-licenziamento-per-la-sostituzione-del-lavoratore-con-lintelligenza-artificiale-th2yxbwr","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Read in Italian in full. Quotations and their English renderings in this record were translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed them. A legal commentary column dated 8 May 2026, mainly about a Chinese ruling, with a paragraph on a Genoa judgment that matches this case (Genoa labour court, four workers, AI reorganisation, failed redeployment) but does not name the employer; the judgment itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"domani-legal-commentary-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI system Maersk Italia adopted and which Customer Service tasks it took over.","Maersk's own explanation of the dismissals and its response to the judgment.","The exact date of the judgment (30 March 2026 in the Domani commentary; a Thursday shortly before 1 May 2026 in Euronews).","Whether the judgment was appealed.","How much of the job loss the unions attribute to AI rather than to moving the work to Manila."],"geography":{"basis":"The dismissed staff worked at Maersk Italia's office in Genoa, which the unions' note and Euronews both locate there, and the ruling was given by the Genoa labour court.","court_countries":["IT"],"event_countries":["IT"],"affected_person_countries":["IT"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete dismissal of four Customer Service employees that their unions attributed partly to AI replacement, followed by a first-instance court ruling reinstating one of them. The AI attribution is the unions' and a commentator's, and the record states that no source describes the AI system.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the employer's dismissal of staff in response to its own adoption of AI. The regional unions said in January 2025 that Maersk Italia replaced part of the Genoa Customer Service tasks with artificial intelligence while moving the work to Manila, Euronews reported that the claimant was dismissed because she had been 'replaced by artificial intelligence', a phrase it quotes without naming who said it, and a legal commentary on a Genoa judgment that matches this case but does not name the employer says the reorganisation behind that dismissal was occasioned by the implementation of AI systems. No source says an AI system produced any output about the dismissed employees, so the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Genoa court reinstates a Maersk Italia worker whose January 2025 dismissal unions linked to AI replacing customer service tasks","summary":"In January 2025 Maersk Italia, the Genoa-based Italian arm of the Danish logistics group, dismissed four employees of its Customer Service department without warning, according to the regional transport unions Filt Cgil, Fit Cisl and Uiltrasporti, who called a one-day strike. The unions said the company had moved the work to Manila and had also replaced part of the tasks done by the Genoa staff with artificial intelligence. One of the four, a woman, sued, while the other three accepted a severance offer. Euronews reported on 30 April 2026 that the Genoa labour court had ordered her reinstatement with compensation for the months she went unpaid, finding the dismissal unlawful because the employer had not tried to redeploy her within the company. A legal commentary in Domani gives the judgment's date as 30 March 2026, while Euronews says the decision came on Thursday, the eve of 1 May. The unions that backed the case described it as the first Italian case in which judges ruled on a dismissal linked to AI, although the Domani commentary also cites a Rome ruling of November 2025 on an AI-related dismissal. The Domani commentary does not name the employer. No source describes the AI system or what it did, and Maersk's account of the dismissals was not found.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-01-21","aiSystem":"An AI system that, according to the regional unions, took over part of the Customer Service tasks of Maersk Italia's Genoa staff; no source names or describes it","aiProduct":"Unidentified customer-service AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Four employees lost their jobs in a reorganisation that their unions said partly replaced their tasks with AI; one went unpaid until a court ordered her reinstatement (union statement and news reports of the ruling).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":4,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Four employees dismissed: the unions' note names four Customer Service employees, and Euronews says the claimant was dismissed together with three colleagues. Counted under other people harmed because the AI was the employer's tool. The count does not establish that AI caused each dismissal.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IT","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://it.euronews.com/business/2026/04/30/genova-tribunale-reintegra-lavoratrice-sostituita-dallia-alla-vigilia-della-festa-del-lavo","primarySourceLabel":"Euronews Italia, 30 April 2026: Genova, tribunale reintegra lavoratrice sostituita dall'IA","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-11T03:34:40.235932+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T03:34:40.235932+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["dismissal","workplace-ai","logistics","labour-court","reinstatement","italy","consequential-response"]},{"id":"2026-new-jersey-remote-worker-dismissed-after-seeking-exemption-from-ai-webcam-monitoring","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'her former employer, Sutherland Healthcare Solutions in Clifton, let her go in early September for being unwilling to submit to the AI software monitoring, known as Sentinel AI'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The employee alleges that Sutherland Healthcare Solutions, based in Clifton, New Jersey, ended her employment in early September 2026 for being unwilling to submit to AI monitoring software known as Sentinel AI.","causal_attribution":"The employee's allegation in her lawsuit, as reported. The employer did not respond."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'it would start using AI to take still images of her via the webcam on her work laptop'; 'would use AI and facial recognition software to make sure'; 'taking 160 images during an eight-hour work shift, or one image every three minutes, the suit says'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the suit, the employer said it would use AI to take still images of the employee through her work laptop's webcam, using facial recognition to confirm she was the person at the desk, at 160 images in an eight-hour shift.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's description of the employer's planned monitoring, as reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'notified her employer in writing that she was worried about the AI seeing the inside of her home, and whether the data would be securely stored, the complaint says'; 'the proposed monitoring had significantly increased\" her anxiety and stress'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The employee raised concerns in writing about the AI seeing inside her home and about whether the data would be securely stored, and told the employer the proposed monitoring had significantly increased her anxiety and stress.","causal_attribution":"The employee's account in the complaint, as reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'asked for an accommodation to be exempt from the monitoring while working from home, the lawsuit says, but was denied'; 'On Aug. 13, 2026,'; 'was given a 24-hour ultimatum to submit to the AI surveillance or resign'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Her request for an accommodation exempting her from the monitoring while working from home was denied, and on 13 August 2026 she was given a 24-hour ultimatum to submit to the AI surveillance or resign.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's account, as reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Management offered to let her avoid the software if she commuted to the office'; 'it would require six hours of travel time'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Management offered to let her avoid the software by commuting to the office, which she rejected because it would require six hours of travel.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's account, as reported."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'employment was terminated on Sept. 8, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Her employment was terminated on 8 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's account, as reported. The employer has not given its reasons publicly."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'lawsuit filed on Sept. 23 in state Superior Court in Atlantic City'; 'violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws and retaliated against her for requesting “reasonable accommodations”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A lawsuit filed on 23 September 2026 in New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City alleges that the employer violated the state's anti-discrimination laws and retaliated against her for requesting reasonable accommodations.","causal_attribution":"The outlet's report of the filing. The filing was not inspected."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sutherland did not respond to multiple emails seeking comment for this story'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Sutherland did not respond to the outlet's requests for comment.","causal_attribution":"The outlet's statement."}],"effects":[{"label":"employment terminated after refusing AI facial-recognition webcam monitoring and being denied an accommodation (alleged)","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"},{"label":"increased anxiety and stress attributed to the monitoring requirement (employee's account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/business/2026/10/05/clifton-nj-bill-ai-monitor-employees-lawsuit/92056487007/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full. The www host refused the fetcher, so the identical article was read on the eu.northjersey.com mirror of the same URL path. The complaint itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"northjersey-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy","accessibility"],"unknowns":["Whether the monitoring software was ever run on this employee and what it recorded.","The employer's account of the monitoring policy and of the reasons for the dismissal.","The vendor of the Sentinel AI software and how its facial-recognition check works.","The court's response to the lawsuit.","The dates on which the employer announced the monitoring and on which the accommodation request was made and denied."],"geography":{"basis":"The employer is in Clifton, New Jersey, and the report says the employee worked remotely for it from a home in New Jersey, so the dismissal and the home-working arrangement at issue were in the US. The lawsuit was filed in New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete account of a person's dismissal after objecting to an employer's AI facial-recognition monitoring, reported by a regional newspaper from a filed lawsuit and the employee's attorneys. The account is attributed as allegation throughout, and the employee is not named in this record.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the employer's response to the employee's objection to AI monitoring: according to the complaint as reported, the employer required webcam monitoring that would use AI and facial recognition to confirm her identity at the desk, denied her accommodation request and terminated her employment after she refused it. The report does not say the software ever captured or assessed images of this employee, so no output of the AI system about her is established and the relation is recorded as unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Lawsuit says a New Jersey employer dismissed a remote worker who sought exemption from AI facial-recognition webcam monitoring","summary":"NorthJersey.com reported on 5 October 2026 that a former remote employee of Sutherland Healthcare Solutions, based in Clifton, New Jersey, sued the company in New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City on 23 September 2026. According to the complaint as reported, the employer told the employee it would start monitoring her through her work laptop's webcam with software called Sentinel AI, which would use AI and facial recognition to confirm that she was the person at the desk, taking 160 still images in an eight-hour shift. The employee raised concerns in writing about the AI seeing inside her home and about whether the data would be securely stored, said the monitoring had increased her anxiety and stress and worsened a medical condition, and asked for a full or partial exemption as a reasonable accommodation. The suit says the request was denied, she was given a 24-hour ultimatum on 13 August 2026 to submit to the monitoring or resign, an offer to avoid the software by commuting to the office was rejected because it would require six hours of travel time, and her employment was terminated on 8 September 2026. The suit alleges that the employer violated New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws and retaliated against her for requesting reasonable accommodations. Sutherland did not respond to the outlet's requests for comment, and the allegations have not been tested in court.","incidentDate":"2026-08-13","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-08","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-05","aiSystem":"Workplace webcam-monitoring software reported as Sentinel AI in NorthJersey.com's account of the employee's lawsuit, which the complaint, as reported, says would use AI and facial recognition to take still images of a remote worker and confirm that she was the person at the desk","aiProduct":"Sentinel AI (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The employee lost a long-held job after refusing an employer's AI facial-recognition webcam monitoring and being denied an accommodation, and says the monitoring requirement increased anxiety and stress and worsened a medical condition (allegations in a lawsuit reported by NorthJersey.com; the employer did not comment).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the employee whose employment was terminated. Counted under other people harmed because the AI system was the employer's monitoring tool, not one the employee chose to use.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-NJ","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/business/2026/10/05/clifton-nj-bill-ai-monitor-employees-lawsuit/92056487007/","primarySourceLabel":"NorthJersey.com (The Record), 5 October 2026: \"NJ employer wanted to use AI to monitor at-home employee, suit says\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T03:13:23.649886+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T03:13:23.649886+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["workplace-monitoring","facial-recognition","dismissal","workplace-accommodation","employment-lawsuit","new-jersey","consequential-response"]},{"id":"2026-dillon-faces-wrongful-arrest-florida","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'took pictures of the screen with his cell phone… low resolution… partially shadowed and off-axis'; '93 percent confidence'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Warrant based on the FR hit + 'a statement from a restaurant employee who picked his photo out of a lineup'; 'police called Dillon in 2023, he denied involvement citing skin-cancer scars'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The warrant rested on a 93%-confidence FACES result obtained from low-resolution cell-phone photos of the restaurant's surveillance screen (partially shadowed, off-axis) plus a restaurant employee's photo-lineup identification; police had called Dillon in 2023 and he denied involvement, citing skin-cancer scars.","causal_attribution":"The evidentiary basis is the complaint's account, carried by two chains; whether '93%' was system-generated or an investigator's characterization is unverified (the suit says the system 'spit out' his photo as a 'possible match')."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'arrested Aug 2024 in Fort Myers'; 'more than two months later, prosecutors dropped the charges'; 'it took an entire year… to take down his mug shot and expunge the arrest'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Arrest bodycam 'outside his San Carlos Park home' via Gulf Coast affiliate; the Dillon interview ('I don't wish this on my worst enemy').","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'charges… dropped… in October 2024'; 1 night jail, bonded out pledging his truck's title.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Dillon was arrested at his San Carlos Park home in August 2024, spent one night in jail and bonded out pledging his truck's title; prosecutors dropped the charges in October 2024 after work-alibi evidence; the arrest took about a year to expunge, with his mugshot lingering online.","causal_attribution":"The custody and expungement timeline is consistent across three chains."},{"id":"c3","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'suit in M.D. Fla. vs. city of Jacksonville Beach + officers/officials incl. Sheriff T.K. Waters'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Suit 'includes the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, which oversees the use of the AI facial recognition technology across Florida'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"ACLU attorney Nathan Wessler interview; defendants: Jacksonville Beach PD + Jacksonville and Pinellas County sheriffs' offices.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit in the week of 8 June 2026 in the Middle District of Florida against the city of Jacksonville Beach, Jacksonville Sheriff T.K. Waters and the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, seeking damages and policy safeguards.","causal_attribution":"The suit's existence and parties are carried by three chains; the exact filing date within the week of 8 June is not pinned in the inspected sources."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"PCSO response passages ('patently false'; 'never \"matches\"'; 'rests solely with any officer').","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Pinellas County Sheriff's Office responded that a training-failure claim 'is patently false', that 'facial recognition results are never \"matches\"', and that liability 'rests solely with any officer who did so'.","causal_attribution":"The agency's position is quoted directly and preserved as contrary evidence."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'one of at least 14 people arrested since 2019'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'one of 15 known people'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The ACLU counts Dillon as at least the 14th known person wrongfully arrested since 2019 from police reliance on facial recognition (Reason, 11 June); a later WUSF attorney interview puts the count at 15 known.","causal_attribution":"The advocacy count is attributed to the ACLU; the two figures are recorded as stated on their dates."}],"effects":[{"label":"wrongful felony arrest on a 93% facial-recognition hit, with a year-long expungement fight","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://reason.com/2026/06/11/aclu-sues-after-facial-recognition-falsely-identifies-florida-man-as-a-child-abductor/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (11 Jun 2026, Joe Lancaster).","independence_group":"reason"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://abcnews.com/GMA/News/man-sues-law-enforcement-alleging-ai-facial-recognition/story?id=133810835","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (12 Jun 2026, Hipos & Yu).","independence_group":"abc-news"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.wusf.org/courts-law/2026-06-18/ai-facial-recognition-tool-led-to-florida-man-wrongful-arrest-lawsuit","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (18 Jun 2026, Lyden/Peddie).","independence_group":"wusf"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The exact filing date within the week of 8 June 2026 and the docket number are not pinned in the inspected sources.","Whether the '93%' figure was system-generated or an investigator's characterization is unverified.","The lineup procedure's details (who administered it and how) are only partly reported.","The expungement's completion date is given only as 'about a year' after the arrest.","The actual perpetrator of the 2023 luring attempt is not reported as identified."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: the warrant (Jacksonville Beach) and the arrest (San Carlos Park / Fort Myers), Florida. Affected person: Dillon, Florida. Court: the felony charge (dropped) and the federal suit in the Middle District of Florida.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional automated-decision case (made_decision_about / made_claim_about): a facial-recognition hit treated as warrant-grade identification, documented by three independent chains including the ACLU's own attorney and the vendor agency's response. Dillon spoke publicly; the PCSO denial is preserved as contrary evidence.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The warrant rested on the FACES 93%-confidence result plus a lineup identification, per the complaint as carried by Reason and WUSF; the vendor (Pinellas County Sheriff's Office FACES) is confirmed by WUSF, and the PCSO's own response acknowledges its technology's role while rejecting liability.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Florida: 93% facial-recognition hit led to Robert Dillon's arrest as an attempted child abductor; charges dropped, ACLU suit filed","summary":"In August 2024, Robert Dillon, a 52-year-old self-employed commercial crabber from the Fort Myers area, was arrested at his San Carlos Park home on a third-degree felony warrant for the attempted luring of a child at a Jacksonville Beach McDonald's in November 2023 — a crime he had no part in. The warrant rested on a 93%-confidence result from FACES, the Face Analysis Comparison and Examination System maintained by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, run against low-resolution cell-phone photos of a surveillance screen, plus a restaurant employee's photo-lineup identification. Dillon spent a night in jail and bonded out against his truck's title; prosecutors dropped the charges in October 2024 after work-alibi evidence, but it took about a year to expunge the arrest and remove his mugshot. In June 2026 the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit (M.D. Fla.) against Jacksonville Beach, the Jacksonville sheriff and the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, calling Dillon one of at least 14 known wrongful arrests from police reliance on facial recognition since 2019.","incidentDate":"2024-08-01","incidentEndDate":"2024-10-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-06-11","aiSystem":"FACES (Face Analysis Comparison and Examination System), Pinellas County Sheriff's Office","aiProduct":"FACES facial recognition","aiCompany":"Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (FACES centralized database)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","reputational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Arrested at home on a child-abduction-class felony from a 93% facial-recognition hit on grainy screen photos; a night in jail, two months to clear the charge, and about a year to expunge the record and remove the mugshot.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: Dillon, the misidentified arrestee (three independent chains). The child in the underlying luring attempt is a victim of the actual perpetrator, not of the misidentification, and is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://reason.com/2026/06/11/aclu-sues-after-facial-recognition-falsely-identifies-florida-man-as-a-child-abductor/","primarySourceLabel":"Reason (11 Jun 2026, Joe Lancaster) — complaint-based account: the screen photos, the 93% hit, the arrest, the expungement, the suit","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T10:27:54.71948+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:35.503237+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-decision-about","made-claim-about","facial-recognition","wrongful-arrest","justice","florida","aclu"]}]}