{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-28T07:17:24.421Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"exam","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":1,"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-san-diego-health-system-patient-alleges-ai-scribe-recorded-exam-room-visit-without-consent","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court claims Sharp HealthCare secretly recorded doctor-patient conversations using an artificial intelligence tool'; 'The tool records conversations between patients and clinicians and then generates draft medical notes.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A recent lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court alleges that Sharp HealthCare recorded conversations between doctors and their patients without written consent, using the information to document visits with an artificial intelligence program developed by a private company in Pittsburgh.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'A lawsuit in San Diego claims Sharp Healthcare recorded doctor visits without written consent, while using an A.I. tool called Abridge to take notes.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A proposed class action filed in San Diego Superior Court alleges that Sharp HealthCare used the AI app Abridge, which records patient-clinician conversations and generates draft medical notes, and recorded doctor-patient conversations without patients' consent.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's allegations, relayed by three outlets (one underlying origin: the complaint); not tested in court in the sources read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sharp began using an AI app called Abridge in April of this year, according to the complaint.'; 'sent the audio to the company’s servers, where employees could review it.'; 'Patients were never informed that their appointments were being recorded or given an opportunity to consent or opt-out, the lawsuit alleges.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Recordings, the lawsuit states, were transmitted to Abridge'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the complaint, Sharp began using Abridge in April 2025, and the app captured everything said in the exam room and sent the audio to the company's servers, where employees could review it; patients were never informed or given a chance to consent or opt out.","causal_attribution":"Complaint allegations; the start date and server review detail are in the KPBS relay only, the transmission to Abridge in both."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'said he discovered the recording only after reading his medical notes from a July appointment at a Sharp Rees-Stealy clinic. When he contacted Sharp, the lawsuit said the clinic apologized, acknowledged the recording occurred and told him the file could remain on the vendor’s servers for about a month before being deleted.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff says he discovered that a July appointment at a Sharp clinic had been recorded only after reading his medical notes; according to the lawsuit the clinic apologised, acknowledged the recording and said the file could remain on the vendor's servers for about a month.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's account in the complaint as reported by KPBS; Sharp's acknowledgement is as described in the lawsuit, not a Sharp statement read directly."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It also claims that Abridge automatically inserted incorrect statements into medical charts, documenting that patients “were advised” the visit was being recorded and that they “consented,” even when the patient said it never happened.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that Abridge automatically inserted incorrect statements into medical charts documenting that patients were advised the visit was being recorded and consented, even when the patient said it never happened.","causal_attribution":"Complaint allegation relayed by KPBS only; whether the tool or a clinician produced the entries is not established in the sources."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The lawsuit seeks damages, corrections to medical records, and a court order blocking the use of the AI tool without proper consent. It estimates that more than 100,000 Sharp patients may have been recorded during the rollout.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'seeks class action status and damages that could reach five thousand dollars per violation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The lawsuit seeks class status, damages, corrections to medical records and an order blocking use of the tool without consent, and estimates that more than 100,000 Sharp patients may have been recorded.","causal_attribution":"The relief sought and the estimate are the complaint's; the estimate is of people possibly recorded."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Both Sharp and Counterpoint Legal said they cannot comment on pending litigation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Sharp said that while \"patient safety and privacy are our top priorities at all times,\" it is \"unable to comment on pending litigation.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Sharp said patient safety and privacy are its top priorities and that it could not comment on pending litigation.","causal_attribution":"Sharp's statements to two outlets (one party); no response to the substance of the allegations is reported."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Abridge suggests that doctors could say, \"I will be using a tool that records our conversation to help me write my clinical note, so I can pay more attention to our conversation and less time on the computer. Is that okay with you?\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Other local hospitals say they use similar tech, but with patient permission.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Abridge's support material suggests consent language clinicians could use with patients, and other San Diego providers using similar tools say they require patient consent.","causal_attribution":"Context from the Union-Tribune's review of Abridge's support pages and both outlets' comments from other providers; not a statement about this visit."}],"effects":[{"label":"confidential clinic visit recorded and sent to an AI vendor without the patient’s knowledge (alleged)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"chart entry stating consent the patient says he never gave (alleged)","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/health/2025/12/11/lawsuit-claims-sharp-healthcare-secretly-recorded-exam-room-conversations-without-patient-consent","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; no translation.","independence_group":"kpbs-11-dec-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://medicalxpress.com/news/2026-01-ai-exam-room-lawsuit-alleges.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; no translation.","independence_group":"san-diego-union-tribune-6-jan-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ai-in-the-exam-room-lawsuit-says-not-so-fast/ar-AA1TG8JK","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; no translation.","independence_group":"san-diego-union-tribune-6-jan-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["health","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether a court has ruled on the complaint or certified a class.","Sharp's and Abridge's response to the substance of the allegations.","How many patients were recorded without consent; the 100,000 figure is the complaint's estimate of patients who may have been recorded.","Whether the consent statements in charts were produced by the tool or entered by clinicians, beyond the complaint's allegation.","Whether recordings were used for anything beyond note generation."],"geography":{"basis":"The recorded visit was at a Sharp clinic and the suit was filed in San Diego Superior Court (KPBS; Union-Tribune). The plaintiff's country of residence is not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a privacy-capture case (received_personal_information) under the 2026-10-06 boundary: a reported complaint describes a patient's confidential visit actually being recorded into an AI documentation service and sent to its vendor without his knowledge, with the AI-generated chart allegedly stating he consented (made_claim_about). All facts are attributed to the complaint.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-17"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"According to the complaint as reported by KPBS and the San Diego Union-Tribune, Sharp's AI documentation app Abridge recorded the conversation at the plaintiff's July clinic visit and transmitted the audio to Abridge's servers to generate draft notes, without his knowledge or consent; the lawsuit says the clinic acknowledged the recording. The complaint also alleges that Abridge inserted chart statements that he had been advised and had consented. That capture and disclosure of his confidential visit, and the false consent entry, are the reported harm. These are allegations not yet tested in court.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Class action alleges San Diego health system Sharp's Abridge AI scribe recorded a patient's exam-room visit without consent and charted false consent","summary":"A proposed class action filed in San Diego Superior Court in late 2025 alleges that Sharp HealthCare, which began using the AI documentation app Abridge in April 2025, recorded doctor-patient conversations without telling patients, sent the audio to the vendor's servers and used it to generate draft medical notes. According to the lawsuit as reported by KPBS, the named plaintiff discovered that a July appointment at a Sharp clinic had been recorded only when he read his medical notes; the clinic apologised, acknowledged the recording and told him the file could stay on the vendor's servers for about a month. The complaint also alleges that Abridge inserted statements into charts that patients had been advised of the recording and had consented, when the plaintiff says that never happened. It seeks damages, corrected medical records and an order against using the tool without consent, and estimates that more than 100,000 patients may have been recorded. Sharp told reporters it could not comment on pending litigation. The allegations have not been tested in court in the sources read.","incidentDate":"2025-07-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-12-11","aiSystem":"Abridge, an AI clinical documentation app that, according to the complaint as reported, records patient-clinician conversations and generates draft medical notes; deployed by Sharp HealthCare from April 2025","aiProduct":"Abridge (reported)","aiCompany":"Abridge","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_autonomy","other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to a proposed class action, a patient's confidential clinic visit was recorded by an AI documentation tool and sent to its vendor without his knowledge or consent, and his chart falsely recorded that he had consented.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the named plaintiff whose July visit, the lawsuit says, was recorded (KPBS). The complaint alleges other patients were recorded without consent but gives only an estimate that more than 100,000 'may have been recorded', which is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/health/2025/12/11/lawsuit-claims-sharp-healthcare-secretly-recorded-exam-room-conversations-without-patient-consent","primarySourceLabel":"KPBS, 11 December 2025: lawsuit claims Sharp HealthCare secretly recorded exam room conversations without patient consent","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-17T03:04:33.888418+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-17T03:04:33.888418+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai_scribe","ambient_documentation","recording_without_consent","medical_privacy","class_action"]},{"id":"2025-maastricht-university-ai-fraud-sanction-over-nonexistent-sources-upheld-by-dutch-council-of-state","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Bij beslissing van 11 december 2025 heeft de examencommissie zich op het standpunt gesteld dat'; 'ongeoorloofd gebruik gemaakt van kunstmatige intelligentie (hierna: AI)'; 'houdt in dat er een formele waarschuwing wordt opgenomen in haar studentendossier, dat alle toetsonderdelen van het vak ongeldig worden verklaard'; 'niet mag deelnemen aan de herkansing van het vak'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 11 December 2025 the examination board found that the student had committed fraud in a weekly assignment and had made unauthorised use of AI, and imposed a formal warning in her student file, invalidation of all assessment components of the course and exclusion from the resit.","causal_attribution":"Recorded in the Council of State's ruling."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'de verdenking van fraude ziet op het gebruik van AI in drie van de vier bronnen bij de opdracht'; 'weergegeven bronnen bestaan niet en de manier waarop deze zijn opgenomen in de opdracht duidt op het gebruik van AI'; 'Er is geen technische analyse verricht, er is geen AI-detectietool ingezet'; 'omdat het onderzoek naar de vermeende fraude niet met behulp van technische middelen is verricht'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The examination board based the finding on three of four cited sources that named a different journal or edition, year, incomplete title or page numbers from existing articles; it said the sources did not exist and that the way they were included pointed to the use of AI. The Council of State's ruling records that the investigation was not carried out with technical means; the student argued that no technical analysis or AI-detection tool was used.","causal_attribution":"The board's reasoning and the absence of a detection tool are recorded in the ruling; the AI use itself is the board's inference."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Verder is nooit aan haar gevraagd of zij gebruik heeft gemaakt van AI.'; 'heeft de opdracht afgerond in tijdnood en haar internetverbinding was op dat moment slecht.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student argued that she was never asked whether she had used AI and that she completed the assignment under time pressure with a poor internet connection, relying on memory and notes.","causal_attribution":"The ruling documents that the student made these arguments, not their truth."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'De examencommissie heeft met hoge waarschijnlijkheid aangetoond dat het ingediende werk door kunstmatige intelligentie is gegenereerd.'; 'Bij beslissing van 5 maart 2026 heeft het CBE het door'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 5 March 2026 the university's examination appeals board rejected her appeal, holding that the examination board had shown with high probability that the work was AI-generated.","causal_attribution":"Recorded in the ruling."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Datum uitspraak: 12 augustus 2026'; 'verklaart het beroep ongegrond;'; 'wijst het verzoek om schadevergoeding af.'; 'Door de beschuldiging en de aantekening leidt zij reputatieschade en psychische schade.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 12 August 2026 the Council of State dismissed her appeal and her claim for damages, in which she said the accusation and the note in her file caused her reputational and psychological harm.","causal_attribution":"The dismissal is documented; the reputational and psychological harm is the student's claim as recorded in the ruling."}],"effects":[{"label":"formal fraud warning, invalidation of all course assessments and exclusion from the resit","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"appeal and damages claim dismissed by the Council of State","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in full in Dutch and translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translation.","independence_group":"raad-van-state-ecli-nl-rvs-2026-4720"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["education","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether the student used an AI tool, and which one.","When the assignment was submitted; the ruling dates only the examination board's decision."],"geography":{"basis":"The assignment, sanction and appeals concern Maastricht University and the Council of State in the Netherlands, as the ruling states. The student's own country is not stated; the use of an interpreter at the hearing does not establish it.","court_countries":["NL"],"event_countries":["NL"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as an institution's consequential response to suspected AI use: Maastricht University sanctioned a student for fraud after attributing non-existent sources to AI without a detection tool, and the Dutch Council of State upheld the sanction and rejected her damages claim. The facts rest on the published ruling.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the university's sanction for suspected AI use: its examination board concluded from non-existent and garbled citations in three of four sources that the student had made unauthorised use of AI and imposed a formal warning, invalidated the course's assessments and excluded her from the resit, and the Council of State upheld that decision on 12 August 2026. No detection tool or technical analysis was used and the student offered a different explanation, so AI use is recorded as suspected and the relation as unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Dutch Council of State upholds Maastricht University fraud sanction on a law student whose assignment cited non-existent sources the university attributed to AI","summary":"On 11 December 2025 an examination board at Maastricht University found that a European Law School student had committed fraud in a weekly assignment whose purpose was to find and correctly cite legal sources. The board said three of the four sources contained wrong journals, years, titles and page numbers, that the sources did not exist, and that the way they were included pointed to the use of AI; it concluded the student had made unauthorised use of AI. The sanction was a formal warning in the student's file, invalidation of all assessment components of the course and exclusion from the resit. The student argued that no technical analysis or AI-detection tool had been used, that she was never asked whether she had used AI, and that the errors came from completing the work in a hurry from memory and notes with a poor internet connection. The university's examination appeals board rejected her appeal on 5 March 2026, and on 12 August 2026 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State dismissed her further appeal and her claim for damages for reputational and psychological harm.","incidentDate":"2025-12-11","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-08-12","aiSystem":"No AI tool is named. The examination board inferred from non-existent and garbled source citations that the assignment had been generated with AI; no detection tool or technical analysis was used","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The student received a formal fraud warning in her file, had all assessment components of the course invalidated and was excluded from the resit after the university attributed non-existent sources to AI; the Council of State upheld the sanction and rejected her claim of reputational and psychological harm (ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One sanctioned student (ruling). She is counted under other people harmed because her use of AI is the university's inference and is not established.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"NL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720","primarySourceLabel":"Council of State (Netherlands), ruling ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720, case 202601147/1/A2, 12 August 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:11:28.361182+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:11:28.361182+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-use-accusation","academic-integrity","education","fabricated-sources","sanction-upheld","ai-involvement-suspected"]}]}