{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-25T07:30:04.430Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"extension-of-time","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":0,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"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-fair-work-commission-refuses-former-employee-extension-for-claim-he-filed-on-chatgpt-advice","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'resigned from his employment in writing on 19 October 2022. He makes his application almost 2 and a half years after his resignation.'; 'The delay is 919 days.'; 'opposes the extension of time and asserts that'; 'was not dismissed, as he resigned.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the Fair Work Commission, the applicant resigned in writing on 19 October 2022 and applied under s. 365 of the Fair Work Act almost two and a half years later, seeking an extension of time for a delay of 919 days; the former employer opposed the extension and said he had resigned.","causal_attribution":"The decision's own statement of the procedural facts."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'confirmed during the conference that he had used an artificial intelligence large language model, Chat GPT, in preparing his application.'; 'The application also included an extract from advice given by Chat GPT which was that various employment and other statutory obligations had been contravened by the Respondent. The advice suggested that'; 'commence various legal actions against the Respondent, including making application under s. 365 of the Act.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The application included an extract from ChatGPT's advice suggesting that various employment and statutory obligations had been contravened by the employer.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The applicant confirmed at the conference that he used ChatGPT to prepare his application, and the application included an extract of ChatGPT advice saying the former employer had contravened various obligations and suggesting he commence legal actions including the s. 365 application.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal's record of the applicant's confirmation and of the application's contents; HRD relays the same decision."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'I can see no basis for this advice.'; 'Chat GPT also advised'; 'to consult a legal professional or union representative to determine the appropriate course of action. He did not do so.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Commission said it could see no basis for ChatGPT's advice, and recorded that ChatGPT had also advised him to consult a legal professional or union representative, which he did not do.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal's finding on the advice and its record of the advice's caveat."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'simply followed the suggestion made by Chat GPT and commenced the proceedings. The circumstances highlight the obvious danger of relying on artificial intelligence for legal advice.'; 'commencing proceedings that are best described as hopeless and unnecessarily wasting the resources of the Commission and the Respondent'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Instead, the worker simply followed the AI system's suggestion to commence proceedings, highlighting what the Commission described as \"the obvious danger of relying on artificial intelligence for legal advice.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Commission found that he simply followed ChatGPT's suggestion and commenced proceedings best described as hopeless, unnecessarily wasting the resources of the Commission and the former employer.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal's own causal finding linking the ChatGPT advice to the proceedings."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'being the lengthy delay in bringing the application and'; 'use of, and reliance upon, Chat GPT to bring what appears to be an altogether unmeritorious claim. I also find that those circumstances tell against granting an extension of time'; 'The application is dismissed.'; 'I announced my decision to refuse to extend time at the conclusion of the conference.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Commission found exceptional circumstances in the lengthy delay and his reliance on ChatGPT to bring an apparently unmeritorious claim, held that these told against extending time, also weighed prejudice to the employer, and dismissed the application; it announced the refusal at the conference on 6 August 2025.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal's decision; the AI reliance is one of the circumstances it weighed, alongside the delay and prejudice."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The first reason does not amount to exceptional circumstances.'; 'assertion was not supported by any evidence.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Commission rejected his stated reasons for the delay separately: unawareness of workplace rights is not an exceptional circumstance, and his fear of retribution was not supported by evidence.","causal_attribution":"Contrary context: the delay findings do not depend on the AI use."}],"effects":[{"label":"extension of time refused and application dismissed; tribunal said the claim brought on ChatGPT advice was hopeless","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc2289.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-25: the Fair Work Commission decision [2025] FWC 2289 (Deputy President, Sydney, 8 August 2025), PDF from fwc.gov.au (HTTP 200), text extracted with pdftotext; the whole three-page decision was read.","independence_group":"fwc-2025-fwc-2289-decision"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/fwc-slams-ai-generated-application-after-chatgpt-drafted-dismissal-claim/545918","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-25 (HTTP 200). HRD Australia (HCAMag) report published 14 August 2025 summarising [2025] FWC 2289; it relays the decision, so it shares the decision's independence group.","independence_group":"fwc-2025-fwc-2289-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which ChatGPT version he used and the full advice; the decision quotes only an extract.","Where the applicant worked and lives; the decision does not say.","Whether he appealed; no appeal is reported in the sources read."],"geography":{"basis":"The decision was made by Australia's Fair Work Commission (Deputy President, Sydney) under the Fair Work Act 2009, with the conference held by video. The decision does not state where the applicant worked or lives, so the event and affected-person countries are left unknown.","court_countries":["AU"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the Fair Work Commission's own findings: a former employee brought a general protections application on ChatGPT's advice, the Commission found no basis for the advice, called the proceedings hopeless and refused an extension, naming his reliance on ChatGPT. The applicant is not named in the record.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-25"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Fair Work Commission recorded that the applicant confirmed preparing his application with ChatGPT and that the application quoted ChatGPT advice saying his former employer had contravened various obligations and suggesting he bring proceedings including this one. It found no basis for the advice, said he simply followed ChatGPT's suggestion and commenced hopeless proceedings, and named his reliance on ChatGPT as a circumstance telling against the extension it refused.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Australia's Fair Work Commission refuses a former employee more time for a claim he brought on ChatGPT's advice, calling the proceedings hopeless","summary":"A former employee who had resigned in writing on 19 October 2022 applied to Australia's Fair Work Commission almost two and a half years later to have a general protections dismissal dispute dealt with, and asked for an extension of time for a delay of 919 days. In [2025] FWC 2289 (8 August 2025) the Deputy President recorded that he confirmed using ChatGPT to prepare the application, that the application included ChatGPT advice saying his former employer had contravened various obligations and suggesting he commence legal actions including this one, and that the Commission could see no basis for that advice. ChatGPT had also advised him to consult a lawyer or union representative, which he did not do. The Commission said he simply followed ChatGPT's suggestion, called the proceedings hopeless, found that his reliance on ChatGPT to bring an apparently unmeritorious claim told against an extension, announced its refusal at a conference on 6 August 2025 and dismissed the application.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-08-08","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which the applicant confirmed using to prepare his application and whose advice, quoted in the application, suggested he commence proceedings, per the Fair Work Commission","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Fair Work Commission refused the extension of time and dismissed the former employee's application, calling the proceedings he brought on ChatGPT's suggestion hopeless and finding his reliance on ChatGPT told against an extension.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the applicant who used ChatGPT, per the Fair Work Commission decision.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"AU","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc2289.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Fair Work Commission, [2025] FWC 2289, decision of 8 August 2025 (extension of time refused, application dismissed)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-25T03:15:48.242397+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-25T03:15:48.242397+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["australia","fair-work-commission","chatgpt","legal-advice","self-represented-litigant","extension-of-time","tribunal-finding"]}]}