{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-27T06:25:07.258Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"financial_loss","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":23,"coverage":{"cases":23,"countries":8,"languages":8,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":3,"lawsuits":6,"regulatory":6,"minors":1,"coreRelations":8,"contextualRelations":23,"mixedRelations":8,"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":"2021-amazon-delivery-drivers-say-netradyne-ai-van-cameras-flagged-driving-events-they-did-not-commit-lowering-bonus-scores","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In February, Amazon announced that it would install cameras made by the AI-tech startup Netradyne in its Amazon-branded delivery vans'; 'Each time the camera registers an event, footage is uploaded into a system, recorded, and affects a score drivers receive at the end of the week for safe driving.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Amazon installed AI-powered Netradyne cameras in its delivery vans during 2021; the cameras detect driving events, upload the footage and feed a weekly safe-driving score.","causal_attribution":"Describes the system and its role in the score."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the camera in his van started to incorrectly penalize him whenever cars cut him off'; 'the Netradyne camera in his van has also detected “events” that didn’t actually happen, but that impacted his performance score at Amazon'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Drivers said the cameras registered events they did not commit or that were not unsafe: a driver in Los Angeles said it incorrectly penalised him when cars cut him off, and a former driver in Texas said it detected events that did not happen and that they affected his performance score.","causal_attribution":"The drivers' accounts attribute the penalties to the camera's detections; Amazon and Netradyne did not address these individual events."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A few times, we’ve been in the country on a dirt road, where there’s no stop sign, but the camera flags a stop sign.'; 'If I look into my mirrors to make sure I am safe to change lanes, it dings me for distraction because my face is turned to look into my mirror.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Other drivers described false stop-sign detections, including a stop sign flagged on a dirt road with no sign, and being flagged for distraction when checking mirrors.","causal_attribution":"Drivers' accounts of the cameras' detection errors."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'For many Amazon drivers, these performance scores determine whether they receive weekly bonuses, prizes, and extra pay.'; 'Before I would be able to win prizes and stuff, as soon as cameras came along, it went downhill,'; 'which receive bonuses by earning “fantastic” scores on a weekly scorecard'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to drivers and an Amazon scorecard document obtained by Motherboard, the weekly scores determine bonuses, prizes and extra pay, and the former Texas driver said winning prizes went downhill once the cameras came.","causal_attribution":"Connects the detections to pay; the amount lost by any individual driver is not reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'but they don’t respond. There’s no room for discussion around the possibility that maybe the camera’s data isn’t clean.'; 'made the appeal process futile.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Los Angeles driver said requests through his delivery company to see the photos flagged as events went unanswered, and a delivery-company owner said appeals were futile.","causal_attribution":"The drivers' and owner's account of the appeal route."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'a team of Amazon employees manually reviews all events that are appealed to ensure that erroneous events do not impact drivers or Amazon delivery companies'; 'This technology provides drivers real-time alerts to help them stay safe when they are on the road.'; 'accidents had decreased by 48 percent'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Amazon said the cameras give real-time safety alerts, that accidents had fallen 48 percent since installation, and that its employees manually review all appealed events so that erroneous events do not affect drivers.","causal_attribution":"Amazon's response; its safety figures are its own claims."}],"effects":[{"label":"Drivers say false camera events lowered their weekly scores","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Scores decide bonuses and prizes","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.vice.com/en/article/amazons-ai-cameras-are-punishing-drivers-for-mistakes-they-didnt-make/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-27 (HTTP 200, full article body).","independence_group":"motherboard-netradyne-2021-09-20"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","finance"],"unknowns":["How many events recorded against these drivers were wrong, and whether any was later overturned on appeal.","How much bonus or prize value any individual driver lost.","Whether Amazon or Netradyne changed the detection thresholds after these reports."],"geography":{"basis":"The drivers worked from Amazon delivery stations in Los Angeles, Sugar Land (Texas), Mobile (Alabama), Oklahoma and Kentucky, and the vans and routes are in the United States.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the drivers describe specific detection errors by the AI cameras (cars cutting in scored as unsafe following, mirror checks scored as distraction, a stop sign flagged where none existed) and say those detections lowered the weekly scores that decide their bonuses and prizes. The accounts are attributed, Amazon's response and appeal process are recorded, and the amount lost is left unknown.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-27"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Motherboard describes the Netradyne cameras as AI-powered devices that detect driving events (following distance, stop-sign and signal violations, distracted driving) and upload them to a score. The drivers say the cameras' own detections were wrong: a car cutting in was recorded as unsafe following distance, a glance at a mirror as distraction, and a stop sign was flagged on a road that had none. Those detections entered the weekly scores that, according to the drivers and Amazon's internal scorecard document, decide bonuses and prizes.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Amazon delivery drivers say Netradyne AI cameras in their vans flagged driving 'events' they did not commit, lowering the weekly scores that set bonuses","summary":"In September 2021 Motherboard reported accounts from six Amazon delivery drivers in five US states and the owner of an Amazon delivery company, who said the AI-powered Netradyne cameras Amazon had installed in its delivery vans from early 2021 regularly registered driving 'events' that were beyond their control or were not unsafe driving: being cut off by another car, glancing at a side mirror, stopping past a stop sign to see around a bush, or a stop sign flagged on a dirt road with no sign. Each event fed a weekly safe-driving score that, according to the drivers and an internal Amazon document Motherboard obtained, helped decide drivers' bonuses and prizes and delivery companies' bonuses. A driver in Los Angeles said the camera incorrectly penalised him and that requests to see the photos flagged as events went unanswered; a former driver in Texas said events that did not happen affected his score, which decided prizes from his delivery company. Amazon said the technology gives drivers real-time safety alerts, that accidents and violations had fallen since it was installed, and that its staff manually review appealed events so that erroneous ones do not affect drivers. Netradyne did not respond to Motherboard.","incidentDate":"2021-01-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2021-09-20","aiSystem":"Netradyne AI-powered four-lens cameras installed in Amazon-branded delivery vans, which detect driving 'events' such as following distance, stop-sign and signal violations and distracted driving, upload the footage and feed Amazon's weekly driver and delivery-company scores","aiProduct":"Netradyne cameras","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Drivers told Motherboard that the AI cameras registered events they did not commit or that were not unsafe, lowering the weekly scores that decided their bonuses and prizes; one said winning prizes 'went downhill' once the cameras came, and another described the penalties as upsetting.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Two drivers are counted: the Los Angeles driver, who said the camera incorrectly penalised him in the data used for his weekly evaluation and bonus, and the former Sugar Land driver, who said events that did not happen affected his score and his prizes. Motherboard spoke to six drivers and a delivery-company owner who described false or unfair events more generally; the others are not counted because a personal score or pay consequence is not reported for each. The fleet size and driver numbers in the article are not counts of harmed people. The drivers are not counted as direct AI users.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.vice.com/en/article/amazons-ai-cameras-are-punishing-drivers-for-mistakes-they-didnt-make/","primarySourceLabel":"Motherboard (VICE), 20 September 2021: Amazon's AI cameras are punishing drivers for mistakes they didn't make","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-27T03:09:21.159219+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-27T03:09:21.159219+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","delivery-drivers","workplace-monitoring","in-vehicle-camera","driver-scores","pay","institutional-use"]},{"id":"2024-brasilia-labour-court-orders-ifood-to-compensate-delivery-worker-banned-after-its-face-check-flagged-his-own-photos","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'O aplicativo do iFood exige que, todos os dias, os entregadores enviem uma foto como reconhecimento facial, antes das entregas ou durante o trabalho. O objetivo é evitar fraudes e invasão à conta.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The iFood courier app requires delivery workers to send a photo for facial recognition every day, before deliveries or during work, to prevent fraud and account takeover.","causal_attribution":"Description of the system; no causal claim."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'O caso ocorreu em 30 de abril de 2024' ... 'apareceu a mensagem dizendo que eu estava banido da plataforma por descumprir as normas' ... 'o motivo do banimento foi por conta de que outra pessoa tentou acessar inúmeras vezes o aplicativo e isso é proibido' ... 'era eu na foto'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Pedi que enviassem a foto de quem estava tentando acessar. E para minha surpresa, a pessoa na foto era eu.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The worker says that on 30 April 2024, after completing the facial check, he received a message that he was banned for breaking the rules; iFood later said another person had repeatedly tried to access the account, and the photo it showed was of him.","causal_attribution":"The worker's account (one witness, interviewed by two outlets); accepted as true by the court by default."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'me tiraram uma renda bem significativa, contava com esse dinheiro toda semana pra pagar minhas contas'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The worker says the ban took away a significant income he relied on every week to pay his bills.","causal_attribution":"The worker's account of the consequence."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'condenou o iFood a pagar R$ 60 mil como indenização por danos morais' ... 'reconheço como verdadeiros: a suspensão do contrato de trabalho por culpa exclusiva da Reclamada; os prejuízos financeiros e psicológicos sofridos pelo Reclamante em razão da impossibilidade de laborar em favor da Reclamada; e a falha racista na ferramenta utilizada para reconhecimento facial' ... 'o iFood não cumpriu o prazo para apresentar a defesa'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'O iFood não apresentou defesa, segundo o magistrado.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A Brasília labour judge ordered iFood to pay R$60,000 in moral damages, applying a default because iFood did not file a defence in time, and recognised as true the suspension of the contract through iFood's fault, the worker's financial and psychological losses and a racist failure in the facial recognition tool.","causal_attribution":"First-instance judgment as quoted by two outlets (one underlying document); findings rest on a procedural default and are under appeal."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'O iFood afirmou não existe análise de características raciais no procedimento de reconhecimento facial.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A empresa já apresentou recurso contra a sentença.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"iFood says there is no analysis of racial characteristics in its facial recognition procedure, and it has appealed the judgment.","causal_attribution":"iFood's statement and the appeal; contrary evidence on the racial-bias finding."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'voltou a trabalhar com entrega pelo app'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"iFood restored the account during the case, and the worker returned to delivering through the app.","causal_attribution":"Outcome for the worker before judgment."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Em ambas as fotos está a mesma pessoa: o reclamante (entregador)' ... 'o entregador trabalhava havia três anos para o iFood quando foi bloqueado na plataforma por suposto acesso de outra pessoa na conta'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The worker's lawyer argued that both photos iFood cited show the same person, the worker, and that he had worked for iFood for about three years when he was blocked over the supposed access by another person.","causal_attribution":"The worker's pleading as reported by Estadão."}],"effects":[{"label":"delivery worker banned from the app and lost income after its face check flagged his own photos (worker's account; court ruling by default)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://g1.globo.com/df/distrito-federal/noticia/2025/06/30/justica-condena-ifood-a-indenizar-entregador-do-df-por-danos-morais-apos-falha-racista-em-reconhecimento-facial-entenda.ghtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-27 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. G1 report by TV Globo Brasília, read in full.","independence_group":"g1-tvglobo-brasilia"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/coluna-do-estadao/justica-condena-ifood-a-indenizar-entregador-por-falha-racista-em-reconhecimento-facial/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-27 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Estadão column report, read in full; it gives the court as the 8th Labour Court, where G1 gives the 22nd.","independence_group":"estadao-coluna"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.terra.com.br/nos/ifood-e-condenado-a-indenizar-entregador-por-falha-racista-em-reconhecimento-facial-no-app,8954fd59fdcfb407081f434e12593ba4gonqqml2.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-27 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Terra report based on its own interview with the worker, read in full.","independence_group":"terra-nos"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether any person reviewed the facial check result before the ban, or whether the ban was fully automated.","How long the account stayed blocked before iFood restored it.","Which company supplies the facial recognition technology.","Which Brasília labour court heard the case (G1 says the 22nd, Estadão the 8th).","How the appeal ends."],"geography":{"basis":"G1 describes the worker as a delivery worker of the Federal District (DF) and the ban happened while he was making deliveries there, so the event and the affected person are in Brazil; the case was heard by a labour court in Brasília.","court_countries":["BR"],"event_countries":["BR"],"affected_person_countries":["BR"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case (made_decision_about): a delivery worker says the iFood app's facial recognition check flagged his own photos as another person and the platform banned him, costing income; a Brasília labour court, ruling by default, recognised a racist failure in the facial recognition tool and awarded R$60,000. iFood denies racial analysis and has appealed. No private name appears in the public record.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-27"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The iFood app runs a daily facial recognition check on delivery workers' photos (G1). The worker says that after he completed it the platform banned him, iFood support said another person had tried to access his account, and the photos it showed as that person were his own (Terra, G1); his lawyer's case was that both photos show the same person (Estadão). The labour judge, applying a default because iFood filed no defence, recognised as true a racist failure in the tool used for facial recognition (G1, Estadão). The connection between the system's output and the ban is the worker's account, accepted by default; iFood denies racial analysis but no source reports it disputing the ban sequence. Whether a person reviewed the result before the ban is not stated.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Brasília labour court orders iFood to pay delivery worker who says its face check flagged his own photos as another person and got him banned; iFood appeals","summary":"A delivery worker in Brazil's Federal District who had worked for the iFood app for about three years says he was banned from the platform in April 2024 shortly after completing the app's daily facial recognition check. iFood support told him another person had tried to access his account; when he asked to see that person's photos, they were his own. G1 reports that the only difference from his registration photo was his hair, which he was growing out. In a judgment reported in June 2025, a Brasília labour judge, applying a default because iFood had not filed a defence in time, accepted as true that the contract was suspended through iFood's fault, that he suffered financial and psychological losses, and that the facial recognition tool had a racist failure, and ordered iFood to pay R$60,000 in moral damages. iFood denies that its facial recognition procedure analyses racial characteristics and has appealed. The account was restored during the case. No appeal ruling has been reported.","incidentDate":"2024-04-30","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-06-11","aiSystem":"The facial recognition check in the iFood courier app, which requires delivery workers to submit a photo every day before or during deliveries to prevent fraud and account takeover; the provider of the underlying technology is not named","aiProduct":"iFood facial recognition check","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","professional_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A delivery worker says he was banned from the iFood app after its facial recognition check flagged his own photos as another person and lost income he relied on; a labour court, ruling by default, recognised his financial and psychological losses and awarded R$60,000. iFood denies racial analysis and has appealed.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One delivery worker, the plaintiff. No other affected person is described.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"BR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://g1.globo.com/df/distrito-federal/noticia/2025/06/30/justica-condena-ifood-a-indenizar-entregador-do-df-por-danos-morais-apos-falha-racista-em-reconhecimento-facial-entenda.ghtml","primarySourceLabel":"G1 / TV Globo Brasília, 30 Jun 2025: court orders iFood to compensate delivery worker over facial recognition failure (Portuguese)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-27T03:08:51.893173+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-27T03:08:51.893173+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","identity-verification","gig-work","delivery-workers","account-ban","labour-court","brazil","made-decision-about"]},{"id":"2025-czech-constitutional-court-fines-lawyer-for-complaint-citing-non-existent-rulings-drafted-with-ai-tool","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"I.ÚS 3004/25 ze dne 1. 12. 2025; jako povinnému se ukládá pořádková pokuta ve výši 25 000 Kč; Pokutu uložil pouze ve čtvrtině zákonného rozpětí, neboť se povinný hrubého ztížení postupu řízení před Ústavním soudem dopustil poprvé a vadu podání lze ještě odstranit.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 1 December 2025 the presiding judge of a Constitutional Court chamber fined the lawyer 25,000 crowns for grossly obstructing proceedings, at a quarter of the statutory range because it was a first failing and the defect could still be remedied.","causal_attribution":"The fine responded to the filing; the order attributes the defects to the lawyer's failure to verify presumed AI output."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"V ústavní stížnosti argumentoval celkem 12 rozhodnutími Ústavního soudu a Evropského soudu pro lidská práva. Po pečlivém prostudování ústavní stížnosti Ústavní soud zjistil, že podstatná část z těchto rozhodnutí vůbec neexistuje a část je povinným hrubě dezinterpretována.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint argued from 12 decisions of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, a substantial part of which did not exist and part of which were grossly misinterpreted.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's own verification."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"To vede Ústavní soud k domněnce, že povinný generoval podání pomocí některého z modelů umělé inteligence, poté však neověřil existenci citovaných rozhodnutí a správnost argumentace, resp. citace.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found signs of AI use in the complaint and presumed that the lawyer had generated it with an AI model and then failed to verify the citations and argument.","causal_attribution":"The order records the court's presumption of AI generation; the lawyer's confirmation is a separate claim (c4)."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Že opravdu použil při sepisování stížnosti umělou inteligenci, potvrdil INFO.CZ samotný advokát, který nad celou situací vyjádřil lítost.; Přiznává, že jeho chybou bylo, že výstup nedostatečně kontroloval a spolehl se na to, že uvedená judikatura odpovídá.; placený profesionální model AI, který nabízí některá z velkých společností provozujících komplexní právní informační systémy","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The lawyer confirmed to INFO.CZ that AI was used to write the complaint, said the output was not checked enough, and described the tool as a paid professional AI model from a large legal information system provider.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer attributes the false citations to the AI tool's output that was not checked."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Stěžovateli, prostřednictvím jeho právního zástupce, souběžně Ústavní soud zasílá výzvu k odstranění vad ústavní stížnosti, aby stěžovatel v důsledku postupu svého právního zástupce neutrpěl procesní újmu.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I.ÚS 3004/25 ze dne 30. 1. 2026; Ústavní stížnost se odmítá.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court invited the client to remedy the complaint so that the client would suffer no procedural harm, and later rejected the complaint as manifestly unfounded on 30 January 2026.","causal_attribution":"No source connects the rejection to the AI-generated citations."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Podle zdrojů INFO.CZ se kontrolní rada ČAK tímto konkrétním případem již zabývá. A to přestože se advokát soudu omluvil, pokutu zaplatil a klienta se jeho selhání nedotkne, neboť od ÚS dostal prostor na nápravu.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"Ústavní soud ocenil následný přístup advokáta, který pokutu obratem uhradil a zaslal omluvu.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The lawyer apologised and paid the fine, and the Czech Bar Association's supervisory board was reported to be examining the case.","causal_attribution":"Consequence of the fine; the bar examination rests on INFO.CZ's unnamed sources."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Pokud jde o využití AI pro přípravu podání bez kontroly zdrojů, může se skutečně jednat o kárné provinění advokáta; Ve svých důsledcích by to mohlo vést k postihování advokáta obecně za podání, které soud vyhodnotí jako nekvalitní nebo s nesprávně aplikovanou judikaturou","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Czech Bar Association's president said using AI for a filing without checking sources may be a disciplinary offence, while the bar expressed reservations about courts fining lawyers for filings they judge to be of poor quality.","causal_attribution":"Context and a qualification of the sanction, not a causal claim."}],"effects":[{"label":"fined 25,000 crowns by the Constitutional Court over non-existent and misinterpreted rulings in an AI-drafted complaint","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"case reported to be under examination by the bar association's supervisory board","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/GetText.aspx?sz=1-3004-25_1","kind":"court_decision","access":"read","language":"cs","translation_note":"Read in Czech on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). Order dated 1 December 2025 in the NALUS database; the client and lawyer are named in the order and are not reproduced here.","independence_group":"czech-constitutional-court-order-i-us-3004-25-dec-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/GetText.aspx?sz=1-3004-25_2","kind":"court_decision","access":"read","language":"cs","translation_note":"Read in Czech on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). Resolution dated 30 January 2026 in the NALUS database.","independence_group":"czech-constitutional-court-resolution-i-us-3004-25-jan-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.info.cz/zpravodajstvi-a-komentare/ustavni-soud-pokuta-advokat-umela-inteligence-ai","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"cs","translation_note":"Read in Czech on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). INFO.CZ broke the story and interviewed the fined lawyer; later reports relay its interview.","independence_group":"info-cz-lawyer-interview-dec-2025"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.info.cz/zpravodajstvi-a-komentare/pokuta-advokat-ai-justice-cak-vyhrady","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"cs","translation_note":"Read in Czech on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). Follow-up article with statements of the Czech Bar Association president and the presidents of the two top courts.","independence_group":"info-cz-bar-reaction-dec-2025"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://advokatnidenik.cz/2025/12/12/generativni-ai-prinesla-k-soudum-take-halucinace-ai-v-pravnich-podanich/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"cs","translation_note":"Read in Czech on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). Bar Association journal article credited to the ČTK news agency.","independence_group":"ctk-advokatni-denik-dec-2025"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The name of the AI tool and its provider; the lawyer declined to name it.","The date the complaint was filed (INFO.CZ says it reached the court in October 2025).","The outcome of the Czech Bar Association supervisory board's examination, if any."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint was filed with, and the fine imposed by, the Czech Constitutional Court; the reports describe the lawyer as practising in Prague. Residence is not recorded as a country of the affected person.","court_countries":["CZ"],"event_countries":["CZ"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse consequence of AI use: the Constitutional Court's order fines a lawyer for a complaint whose non-existent citations it presumes were generated with an AI model, and the lawyer confirmed using a paid legal AI tool without checking its output.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-26"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Constitutional Court's order finds that a substantial part of the 12 decisions cited in the complaint did not exist, identifies signs of AI-generated text, and presumes the lawyer generated the filing with an AI model without verifying it; the lawyer confirmed to INFO.CZ that an AI tool, a paid professional model from a legal information system provider, was used and that its output was not checked enough. The tool's output reached the lawyer and went into the complaint (communicated_with), and the court read those invented authorities and fined the lawyer for them (informed_decision_about). The provider is not named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Czech Constitutional Court fines a lawyer 25,000 crowns over a complaint citing non-existent rulings; the lawyer says a paid legal AI tool drafted it","summary":"On 1 December 2025 the presiding judge of a chamber of the Czech Constitutional Court fined a Prague lawyer 25,000 crowns (a quarter of the statutory maximum) for grossly obstructing proceedings. The lawyer had filed a constitutional complaint, for a client refused a temporary residence permit, that argued from 12 decisions of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights; the court found that a substantial part of them did not exist and part were grossly misinterpreted. The order says the complaint showed signs of generative AI and that the court presumed the lawyer had generated it with an AI model and then failed to verify the citations. The lawyer confirmed to INFO.CZ that an AI tool was used, described it as a paid professional model from a legal information system provider, said the output was not checked enough, and expressed regret. The court invited the client to correct the complaint so that the client would suffer no procedural harm; the complaint was later rejected as manifestly unfounded on 30 January 2026. INFO.CZ reported on 10 December 2025 that the lawyer had apologised and paid the fine and that the Czech Bar Association's supervisory board was examining the case.","incidentDate":"2025-12-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-12-03","aiSystem":"A paid professional AI model offered by a legal information system provider, used to draft a constitutional complaint (provider not named; the court inferred generative AI from the text and the lawyer confirmed its use)","aiProduct":"Unidentified legal research tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Constitutional Court's order, a lawyer whose complaint cited non-existent and misinterpreted rulings, which the court presumed were AI-generated and the lawyer says came from a paid legal AI tool, was fined 25,000 crowns; INFO.CZ reported that the bar association's supervisory board was examining the case.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the lawyer fined by the Constitutional Court. The court invited the client to remedy the complaint so that the client would suffer no procedural harm, and INFO.CZ reports that the client was not affected, so the client is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CZ","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/GetText.aspx?sz=1-3004-25_1","primarySourceLabel":"Czech Constitutional Court, order I. US 3004/25 imposing a disciplinary fine (1 December 2025)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-26T03:09:43.763021+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-26T03:09:43.763021+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["czechia","legal-profession","hallucinated-citations","court-fine","constitutional-court"]},{"id":"2024-gelderland-sub-district-judge-used-chatgpt-to-estimate-solar-panel-damages-in-neighbour-dispute-and-rejected-claim","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Volgens hem is de verminderde opbrengst van de panelen van 77%'; 'Dat leidt volgens hem tot een totale schade van € 21.385,90'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The claimant sued his neighbour for about 21,000 euros, saying the neighbour's roof extension cut the yield of his solar panels by 77%.","causal_attribution":"The claimant's case as recorded in the judgment; documented as the content of his claim, not as a fact about the yield."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'De kantonrechter schat, mede met behulp van ChatGPT, de gemiddelde levensduur van zonnepanelen uit 2009 op 25 à 30 jaar'; 'Uitgaande, wederom mede aan de hand van ChatGPT, van een huidige gemiddelde kWh-prijs van € 0,30'; 'bedraagt het rendementsverlies, met een min of meer gelijkblijvende kWh-prijs, daarmee ongeveer € 2.250,--'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Bij de schadeberekening maakt de rechtbank ook gebruik van ChatGPT'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judge estimated the panels' remaining lifespan and the average electricity price partly with the help of ChatGPT and put the yield loss at about 2,250 euros.","causal_attribution":"Stated by the court in its own judgment; the summary relays it. One origin (the judgment)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'het maximaal te begroten bedrag aan schade zou hiermee (€ 2.250,-- + € 1.073,40 =) € 3.323,40 bedragen'; 'uiteindelijk aangeboden bedrag van'; 'Er is dus in deze procedure geen grond om'; 'heeft ook geen recht op € 3.300,-, nu hij het aanbod tot het betalen van dit bedrag heeft verworpen'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Rechtbank Gelderland oordeelt dat X geen recht heeft op een schadevergoeding in verband met de door Y geplaatste dakopbouw'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Because half of the maximum damage of 3,323.40 euros was below the neighbour's 3,300-euro offer, which the claimant had refused, the claim was rejected and he received nothing.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning linking the ChatGPT-assisted estimate to the rejection; documented by the judgment."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Redelijkerwijs – en ook weer mede aan de hand van ChatGPT – valt aan te nemen dat dit materiaal daardoor niet meer bruikbaar was'; 'wegens schadevergoeding te betalen'; '€ 2.619,02, vermeerderd met de wettelijke rente'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The judge also assumed, partly with ChatGPT, that insulation the claimant threw into water was unusable, and on the counterclaim ordered him to pay damages of 2,619.02 euros in total and the costs of the main claim.","causal_attribution":"Stated in the judgment; the ChatGPT-assisted assumption supports only the 204.66-euro insulation item within the total."}],"effects":[{"label":"damages claim rejected after a ChatGPT-assisted damage estimate","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-24 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Full text of the judgment of 7 June 2024 from the Rechtspraak open-data service (published 26 July 2024); HTTP 200, read in full.","independence_group":"rechtbank-gelderland-judgment-2024-3636"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.taxlive.nl/nl/documenten/vn-vandaag/rechter-gebruikt-chatgpt-bij-schadeberekening/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-24 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Taxlive V-N Vandaag summary of the same judgment, edition 12 August 2024; HTTP 200, read in full.","independence_group":"rechtbank-gelderland-judgment-2024-3636"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["What the judge asked ChatGPT and what it answered.","Whether the claimant appealed and with what result.","How the outcome would have differed without the ChatGPT-assisted estimates; the judgment also rejected the investment claim on other grounds."],"geography":{"basis":"The dispute concerns two attached houses whose owners also live in them, decided by the Rechtbank Gelderland sitting in Nijmegen; the street and town are anonymised in the published judgment, which applies Dutch law and Dutch subsidies.","court_countries":["NL"],"event_countries":["NL"],"affected_person_countries":["NL"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as an AI-informed decision: in a judgment of 7 June 2024 a Dutch sub-district judge stated that the estimates of a homeowner's solar-panel lifespan and electricity prices were made partly with ChatGPT, and the resulting damage figure led to the rejection of the homeowner's claim against his neighbour. The facts come from the judgment itself.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The judgment states that the judge estimated the lifespan of the claimant's solar panels and the current electricity price partly with the help of ChatGPT, and those figures set the yield loss at about 2,250 euros and the maximum damage below the level at which the neighbour's offer would have been insufficient, leading to the rejection of the claim; the judge also relied partly on ChatGPT to treat insulation material as unusable in the counterclaim. The judgment does not reproduce the questions or answers.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Dutch sub-district judge used ChatGPT to estimate solar-panel lifespan and power prices in a neighbour dispute, then rejected the homeowner's damages claim","summary":"A homeowner in the Netherlands sued his neighbour, whose permitted roof extension shaded his solar panels, claiming more than 21,000 euros for lost yield and investment. In a judgment of 7 June 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636), the sub-district judge of the Rechtbank Gelderland, sitting in Nijmegen, held that the neighbour had to bear half of the damage and then calculated the damage, estimating the average lifespan of solar panels from 2009 and the current average electricity price partly with the help of ChatGPT, as the judgment states. Using a lifespan of 27.5 years, about 15 remaining years and a price of 0.30 euros per kWh, the judge put the yield loss at about 2,250 euros and the maximum damage at 3,323.40 euros; half of that was less than the 3,300 euros the neighbour had offered, so the claim was rejected and the homeowner, who had refused the offer, received nothing and was ordered to pay costs. On the neighbour's counterclaim, the judge assumed, again partly with ChatGPT, that insulation material the homeowner had thrown into water was no longer usable, and ordered him to pay damages of 2,619.02 euros in total. The judgment does not say what was asked or answered, and whether it was appealed is not reported.","incidentDate":"2024-06-07","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-07-26","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which the judgment says was used, together with other reasoning, to estimate the lifespan of solar panels, the average electricity price and whether water-damaged insulation was still usable","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A homeowner's damages claim was rejected after the judge calculated the damage partly with ChatGPT's estimates, and the homeowner was ordered to pay costs and counterclaim damages, according to the judgment.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The claimant homeowner, whose claim was rejected in the judgment. The neighbour won the counterclaim and is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"NL","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636","primarySourceLabel":"Rechtbank Gelderland, judgment of 7 June 2024, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636 (Rechtspraak open data)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-24T03:15:10.77655+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-24T03:15:10.77655+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["court","judge-ai-use","chatgpt","damages","netherlands"]},{"id":"2021-telangana-samagra-vedika-algorithm-wrongly-tagged-poor-families-as-car-owners-food-security-cards-denied","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'started arming the officials with Samagra Vedika, an algorithmic system that consolidates citizens'; 'the officials were mandated to check whether the algorithmic system approved the eligibility of the applicant before making their own decision'; 'They could either go with the algorithm'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Since 2016 Telangana has used Samagra Vedika, a system that consolidates residents' data from several government databases, to check welfare eligibility; officials processing food security cards were mandated to check whether the system approved an applicant before deciding, and could depart from it only by giving reasons and evidence.","causal_attribution":"Background on the system and how its output entered officials' decisions."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Samagra Vedika uses'; 'to uniquely identify a person'; 'If it finds a match close enough violating any of the criteria, it tags the claimant as ineligible'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Al Jazeera reports that Samagra Vedika uses machine learning and entity resolution technology to identify a person across databases, and tags a claimant as ineligible when it finds a close enough match violating a criterion such as owning a four-wheeler.","causal_attribution":"The description of the technology is Al Jazeera's, quoting terms whose origin the article does not state; the government describes it as using big data."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'mistook her late husband'; 'and the authorities accepted the algorithm'; 'finally rejecting it in 2021 because they claimed she possessed a four-wheeler'; 'The authorities did not trust her'; 'they believed their algorithm'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to Al Jazeera, the system mistook a widow's late husband, a rickshaw puller, for a car owner with a similar name; her food security card renewal application was rejected in 2021 because she was said to possess a four-wheeler, and that the authorities believed their algorithm rather than her.","causal_attribution":"Al Jazeera attributes the rejection to the system's wrong match and officials' acceptance of it."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'found its real owner'; 'the officials agreed there was an algorithmic error but said that her application could not be considered because her total family income exceeded the eligibility limit even though that was not the case'; 'who has been denied ration for more than seven years, is still waiting'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"After she traced the vehicle's real owner, officials agreed there had been an algorithmic error but said that her application could not be considered because family income exceeded the limit, which Al Jazeera says was not the case; she had been denied the rations for more than seven years when the article was published.","causal_attribution":"The officials' acknowledgement of an algorithmic error is reported by Al Jazeera; the continued denial rests on a different, disputed ground."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'an algorithm has tagged the family as owning a car, denying them access to subsidised food grains'; 'The family applied for a food security card in 2018 but was rejected in 2021'; 'Instead of three rupees, we spend 10 for every kilogramme of rice'; 'the petitioner is eligible'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A second family, whose husband cannot drive, applied in 2018 and was rejected in 2021 for possessing a four-wheeler they do not own; Al Jazeera's caption says an algorithm tagged the family as owning a car, and the woman says the family pays more for the same rice bought from dealers. In November 2023 the High Court of Telangana said the petitioner is eligible whenever the state issues new cards.","causal_attribution":"The algorithmic tag is stated in an Al Jazeera photo caption credited to The Reporters' Collective; the High Court remark is reported, not read in the order itself."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The petition lists around 10 cases of wrongful exclusions'; 'Al Jazeera visited three of those and can confirm they were wrongly tagged by Samagra Vedika'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Al Jazeera says it visited three of the roughly ten wrongful-exclusion cases listed in a Supreme Court petition and confirmed they were wrongly tagged by Samagra Vedika.","causal_attribution":"Al Jazeera's own verification; the three cases are not identified."},{"id":"c7","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"'The government has previously said that the technology is of'; 'It has also said that the error of tagging a vehicle or a house to the wrong person happens in less than five percent of all cases'; 'very high levels of accuracy'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Telangana government has said the technology is of high precision, that wrong tagging of a vehicle or house occurs in less than five per cent of cases and has mostly been corrected, and an official said verifications found very high levels of accuracy.","causal_attribution":"Government counter-position; it does not address the individual cases."}],"effects":[{"label":"food security card applications rejected after the system wrongly tagged families as car owners; years without subsidised rations","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/1/24/how-an-algorithm-denied-food-to-thousands-of-poor-in-indias-telangana","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-24 (full article). Reported by Tapasya, Kumar Sambhav and Divij Joshi with The Reporters' Collective and the Pulitzer Center's AI Accountability Network; the photo captions are courtesy of The Reporters' Collective.","independence_group":"al-jazeera-reporters-collective-samagra-vedika-investigation"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["public_services","finance"],"unknowns":["Which three petition cases Al Jazeera verified, and how many wrongful exclusions the system itself caused.","Whether the widow's card was later issued, and whether the second family has received a card since November 2023.","How the matching works in detail; the state withheld the source code and data formats.","Why the widow's card was first cancelled in 2016."],"geography":{"basis":"Al Jazeera reports from Hyderabad that both families live there and applied to the Telangana government; the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Telangana heard related petitions.","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":["IN"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse public decision informed by an automated matching system: Al Jazeera reports that Samagra Vedika wrongly matched a widow's late husband to a car owner and tagged another family as owning a car, and that officials rejected their food security cards on those tags; officials later acknowledged an algorithmic error in the widow's case.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Al Jazeera reports that Samagra Vedika matched a widow's late husband to a car owner with a similar name and tagged her family as owning a four-wheeler, that officials (mandated to check the system's approval before deciding) accepted the tag and rejected her food security card in 2021, and that they later agreed there had been an algorithmic error. It describes the system as using machine learning and entity resolution to match people across databases; the government describes it as using big data and disputes the error rate. The source code and data formats were withheld from the reporters.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Al Jazeera investigation says Telangana's Samagra Vedika system wrongly matched poor families to car owners, and officials denied them food subsidy cards","summary":"An Al Jazeera investigation published on 24 January 2024, produced with The Reporters' Collective and the Pulitzer Center's AI Accountability Network, reports that Samagra Vedika, a system the Telangana government uses to consolidate residents' data and check welfare eligibility, wrongly tagged poor families in Hyderabad as owning cars, and that officials relied on those tags to deny them food security cards (subsidised rice). Al Jazeera says the system uses machine learning and entity resolution to match people across databases, and that since 2016 officials have been mandated to check whether the system approved an applicant before deciding. In one case it reports that the system mistook a widow's late husband, a rickshaw puller, for a car owner with a similar name; her renewal application was rejected in 2021 for possessing a four-wheeler. After she traced the vehicle's real owner, officials agreed there had been an algorithmic error but said her family income exceeded the limit, which Al Jazeera says was not the case; she had been without the subsidised rations for more than seven years. A second family, whose husband cannot drive, was rejected in 2021 for possessing a four-wheeler; in November 2023 the High Court of Telangana said the petitioner is eligible whenever new cards are issued. The government says the technology is highly precise and that wrong vehicle or house tags occur in under five per cent of cases and have mostly been corrected.","incidentDate":"2021-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2024-01-24","aiSystem":"Samagra Vedika, the Telangana government's data-integration and profiling system developed by Posidex Technologies, which Al Jazeera says uses machine learning and entity resolution technology to identify people across government databases and tag welfare applicants as ineligible","aiProduct":"Samagra Vedika","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to an Al Jazeera investigation, Telangana's Samagra Vedika system wrongly tagged poor families as car owners and officials denied them food security cards on that basis; a widow had been without subsidised rations for over seven years and another family pays market prices for rice.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Two applicants described with their rejections: the widow and the woman whose family was rejected in 2021 (members of their households are not counted separately). Al Jazeera says it visited three of about ten petition cases and confirmed they were wrongly tagged, without listing them, and gives state re-verification figures that it does not attribute to the system alone; these are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/1/24/how-an-algorithm-denied-food-to-thousands-of-poor-in-indias-telangana","primarySourceLabel":"Al Jazeera, How an algorithm denied food to thousands of poor in India's Telangana, 24 January 2024","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-24T03:08:52.234671+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-24T03:08:52.234671+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["welfare-eligibility-algorithm","entity-resolution","food-security","wrong-match","public-services"]},{"id":"2026-udmurtia-entrepreneur-fined-by-russian-intellectual-property-court-over-ai-invented-case-law","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Суд установил, что часть из приведенных предпринимателем в тексте кассационной жалобы 12 ссылок на судебную практику, в том числе одна якобы на правовую позицию, изложенную в определении Верховного суда РФ, относилась к несуществующим судебным актам либо содержала приписанные им выводы; наложил на предпринимателя судебный штраф в размере 5 тысяч рублей","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Суд по интеллектуальным правам оштрафовал на пять тысяч рублей индивидуального предпринимателя из Удмуртии, который сослался в своей жалобе на несуществующую практику.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Court for Intellectual Property Rights found that part of the 12 case-law references in the entrepreneur's cassation appeal, including one said to be a position of the Supreme Court of Russia, referred to non-existent court acts or attributed conclusions to them, and imposed a court fine of 5,000 roubles.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings as relayed by its press service and by Rossiyskaya Gazeta; the ruling itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Бизнесмен пояснил, что при подготовке кассационной жалобы использовал сервис, работающий на основе искусственного интеллекта.; Именно нейросеть подобрала судебную практику","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"несуществующую судебную практику, сгенерированную сервисами искусственного интеллекта","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The entrepreneur explained that he had prepared the cassation appeal with an AI-based service, which selected the case law he cited.","causal_attribution":"His own explanation to the court, reported by Rossiyskaya Gazeta; the press service describes the case law as generated by AI services."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Защита предпринимателя заявила, что у него нет юридического образования, поэтому он не мог самостоятельно оценить корректность ссылок.; Оправдаться не получилось.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"представитель заявителя жалобы уверял, что допущенные им неточности и технические ошибки вследствие использования сервисов искусственного интеллекта не свидетельствуют о неуважении к суду; СИП критически оценил аргументы заявителя","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"His side argued that he had no legal education and could not check the references, and that the inaccuracies were technical errors caused by using AI services rather than contempt of court; the court rejected these arguments.","causal_attribution":"The appellant's defence and the court's rejection, as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"fined 5,000 roubles for contempt of court over AI-invented case law in his appeal","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://1prime.ru/20260827/biznesmen-872750520.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ru","translation_note":"Read in Russian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200) and translated by that agent; no human translator or reviewer read it. PRIME (RIA Novosti group) report of 27 Aug 2026 quoting the court's press service (bodies/ru-prime-sip.html/.txt).","independence_group":"sip-press-service-ria"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://rg.ru/2026/09/01/nejroset-podvela.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ru","translation_note":"Read in Russian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200) and translated by that agent; no human translator or reviewer read it. Rossiyskaya Gazeta report of 1 Sep 2026 that quotes the court's ruling and describes the parties' explanations (bodies/ru-rg-neiroset.html/.txt).","independence_group":"rg-sip-ruling"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The date of the ruling; it was reported on 27 August 2026.","Which AI service was used and what it produced beyond the citations described.","Whether the fine was appealed."],"geography":{"basis":"The recorded events are court events in Russia: the appeal was filed with, and the fine imposed by, Russia's Court for Intellectual Property Rights (PRIME; Rossiyskaya Gazeta). Both reports describe the entrepreneur as being from Udmurtia, a Russian region.","court_countries":["RU"],"event_countries":["RU"],"affected_person_countries":["RU"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with, with informed_decision_about): by his own account an AI-based service selected case law for an entrepreneur's cassation appeal, part of it did not exist, and the court fined him 5,000 roubles, as reported from the court's press service and the ruling.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"By the entrepreneur's own explanation to the court, an AI-based service selected the case law in his cassation appeal, and PRIME (RIA Novosti), reporting the court's press service, describes that case law as generated by AI services; the court's own findings as quoted do not mention AI. The court found that part of the references pointed to court acts that do not exist or misstated them, and fined him for it. The AI service is not named, and its output was read only as described in the reports.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Russian intellectual property court fined an Udmurtia entrepreneur 5,000 roubles over non-existent case law he said an AI service selected, reports say","summary":"Russia's Court for Intellectual Property Rights fined an individual entrepreneur from Udmurtia 5,000 roubles for contempt of court after finding that part of the 12 references to case law in his cassation appeal, including one said to be a Supreme Court position, pointed to court acts that do not exist or attributed conclusions to them, the court's press service told RIA Novosti on 27 August 2026. Rossiyskaya Gazeta reports that the entrepreneur explained he had prepared the appeal with an AI-based service that selected the case law, and that his side argued he had no legal education and could not check the references; the court rejected the argument that the errors were technical. The date of the ruling and the AI service are not reported.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-08-27","aiSystem":"An AI-based service, not named in the reports, that the entrepreneur said selected the case law for his cassation appeal","aiProduct":"Unidentified legal research tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"An entrepreneur was fined 5,000 roubles for contempt of court after his cassation appeal cited non-existent case law that, by his account, an AI-based service had selected.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the entrepreneur who used the AI service and was fined (court press service; Rossiyskaya Gazeta).","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"RU","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://1prime.ru/20260827/biznesmen-872750520.html","primarySourceLabel":"PRIME (RIA Novosti), 27 Aug 2026: court fines businessman over fake case law generated by AI","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:20:50.098873+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:20:50.098873+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated-citations","court-filing","court-fine","russia","own-use","russian-language"]},{"id":"2025-sixth-circuit-removes-appointed-defence-lawyer-over-cocounsel-drafted-briefs-delaying-indigent-defendants-appeal","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'qualified for a two-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines for his leadership role during drug-trafficking activities.'; 'serving as court-appointed counsel for an indigent defendant through a publicly funded program'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act represented an indigent defendant appealing a two-level leadership enhancement to his drug-trafficking sentence in the Sixth Circuit.","causal_attribution":"The court's own description of the appointment and the appeal."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The first tell was the file name of the principal brief:'; '“CoCounsel Skill Results.” CoCounsel is the name of Westlaw’s internal artificial-intelligence'; 'But the purported direct quotations do not appear in their cited sources.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The first tell was the file name of the principal brief: \"CoCounsel Skill Results.\" CoCounsel is the name of Westlaw's internal artificial-intelligence platform.'; 'But the purported direct quotations do not appear in their cited sources.'; 'misrepresent the holdings of both United States v. Washington'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court found that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results', that three quotations in the briefs appear in no legal authority, and that the briefs misrepresented the holdings of two precedents.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings, quoted verbatim in the Volokh post; the opinion PDF carries the same text."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'he directed an unnamed “staff” member to'; 'upload district court documents to Westlaw’s CoCounsel program to create a first draft of the'; 'repeated that same process for the reply brief.'; 'He concedes that the three inaccurate quotations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'he directed an unnamed \"staff\" member to upload district court documents to Westlaw's CoCounsel program to create a first draft of the principal brief.'; 'He concedes that the three inaccurate quotations identified above were the product of artificial intelligence, that they do not appear in any legal authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer admitted that a staff member uploaded district court documents to Westlaw's CoCounsel to create a first draft of the principal brief, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the three inaccurate quotations were produced by artificial intelligence and not verified.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's show-cause response as the court records it; the court's opinion documents the admission."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'shall not be compensated under the Criminal Justice Act for his time spent on'; 'to consider disciplinary proceedings under Sixth'; 'Disciplinary Clerk for the Kentucky Bar Association'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court ordered that the lawyer receive no Criminal Justice Act compensation for the appeal, forwarded the opinion to the circuit's chief judge to consider disciplinary proceedings, and served it on the Kentucky Bar Association's disciplinary clerk.","causal_attribution":"The court's orders."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'different appellate counsel to file new briefs—further delaying resolution of'; 'reset the briefing schedule upon appointment of replacement counsel.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"By a separate order the same day the court removed the lawyer, directed the appointment of replacement counsel, locked the briefs he had filed and reset the briefing schedule, which the court said further delayed resolution of the defendant's criminal appeal.","causal_attribution":"The court's own account of its separate order and of the delay."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'utilizing Westlaw CoCounsel “in this way for a Court of Appeals brief.”'; 'has never been disciplined over his 40-year career'; 'candor in acknowledging his improper use of artificial intelligence.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'first time utilizing Westlaw CoCounsel \"in this way for a Court of Appeals brief.\"'; 'has never been disciplined over his 40-year career'; 'his candor in acknowledging his improper use of artificial intelligence.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer said this was his first use of CoCounsel in this way for an appeals brief and that he had not been disciplined in a 40-year career; the court acknowledged his timely response and candour while finding his conduct inexcusable.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's explanations and the court's assessment, as the opinion records them; recorded as mitigation."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'***LOCKED PURSUANT TO ORDER ENTERED 04/03/2026***APPELLANT BRIEF filed by'; 'Certificate of Service: 10/21/2025. Argument Request: not requested. [25-5623]'; '***LOCKED PURSUANT TO ORDER ENTERED 04/03/2026***REPLY BRIEF filed by Attorney'; 'Certificate of Service: 12/26/2025. [25-5623]'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The docket records that the principal brief for the defendant was filed on 21 October 2025 and the reply brief on 26 December 2025, and that both entries were locked under the order of 3 April 2026.","causal_attribution":"Clerk docket entries; they date the filings and do not describe their contents."}],"effects":[{"label":"indigent defendant's criminal appeal delayed while replacement counsel files new briefs","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"},{"label":"court-appointed lawyer denied compensation for the appeal and referred for disciplinary consideration","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0105p-06.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Sixth Circuit published per curiam opinion, No. 25-5623, decided and filed 3 April 2026; PDF read in full (HTTP 200).","independence_group":"sixth-circuit-opinion-3-apr-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/04/09/the-first-tell-was-the-file-name-of-the-principal-brief-cocounsel-skill-results/","kind":"commentary_with_filing_excerpt","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Volokh Conspiracy (Reason), 9 April 2026, quoting the same opinion at length; read in full (HTTP 200). Same origin as the opinion.","independence_group":"sixth-circuit-opinion-3-apr-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?q=docket_id%3A70724463%20BRIEF&type=rd","kind":"court_docket_index","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"CourtListener search API listing of docket entries for Sixth Circuit No. 25-5623 (RECAP), read on 2026-10-19 (HTTP 200); entry descriptions as entered by the clerk. Party and counsel names in the entries are not reproduced.","independence_group":"sixth-circuit-docket-25-5623"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["How long the appeal is delayed, and the outcome of any disciplinary proceedings."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal is from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the lawyer practises in Kentucky (opinion).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published with communicated_with and informed_decision_about: the court documents that a court-appointed defence lawyer filed briefs drafted with Westlaw's CoCounsel that carried quotations found in no authority, and, acting on those briefs, removed him, ordered new counsel and briefing that delayed the indigent defendant's criminal appeal, and denied him compensation. The harm reaches a criminal defendant who did not use the tool.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results' and that three quotations in the briefs appear in no legal authority. The lawyer admitted that a staff member used Westlaw's CoCounsel to produce the first draft, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the false quotations were produced by artificial intelligence. Reading those briefs, the court removed him, ordered new counsel and new briefs for the defendant, and denied him compensation.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Sixth Circuit removes court-appointed defence lawyer over CoCounsel-drafted briefs with false quotations, delaying an indigent defendant's appeal","summary":"In a published opinion of 3 April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed the briefs a lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act had filed for an indigent defendant appealing a sentencing enhancement in a drug-trafficking case. The court noticed that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results' and found three quotations that appear in no legal authority and misstatements of two precedents. The lawyer admitted that a staff member had used Westlaw's CoCounsel to create the first draft, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the false quotations came from artificial intelligence he did not verify. The court denied him compensation for the appeal, referred the opinion for possible disciplinary proceedings and to the Kentucky Bar Association, and by separate order removed him, locked his briefs and ordered replacement counsel to file new ones, which it said further delayed resolution of the defendant's appeal. The court acknowledged his candour and his 40 years without discipline.","incidentDate":"2025-10-21","incidentEndDate":"2026-04-03","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-04-03","aiSystem":"Westlaw CoCounsel (Thomson Reuters), used by a lawyer's staff member to produce the first drafts of a principal and a reply brief","aiProduct":"CoCounsel","aiCompany":"Thomson Reuters","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court documents that briefs drafted with Westlaw's CoCounsel and filed unverified by a court-appointed lawyer led it to remove him and order new counsel and briefs, further delaying an indigent defendant's criminal appeal; the lawyer was denied compensation for the appeal and referred for disciplinary consideration.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two: the defendant, whose appeal the court says was further delayed, and the lawyer, who was denied compensation and referred. The lawyer's staff member ran the tool and is not counted; no other harmed person is described.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0105p-06.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 25-5623, opinion decided and filed 3 April 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-19T03:16:56.688661+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-19T03:16:56.688661+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["legal","ai-fabricated-quotations","court-appointed-counsel","criminal-appeal","sanction","cocounsel"]},{"id":"2026-arizona-appeals-court-strikes-self-represented-appellants-ai-hallucinated-citations-orders-fees-sanction","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In his opening brief with the Court of Appeals, he made eight citations. The court found that six of them were deficient; two were cases that “simply do not exist.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The self-represented appellant's opening brief made eight citations; the court found six deficient, including two cases that do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings as reported by the Arizona Mirror."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"readily acknowledged that he relied on generative AI to write his brief; he admitted he did nothing to independently verify the citations","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations he acknowledged relying on generative AI to write the brief and admitted doing nothing to verify the citations.","causal_attribution":"The appellant's own acknowledgement, recorded in the opinion and reported by the Arizona Mirror."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Accordingly, citing a hallucinated case in a legal filing is sanctionable conduct; traceable to dealing with the fake citations; appeal was also rejected because there were no supportive legal authorities for his claims once the inaccurate and false citations were stricken","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that citing a hallucinated case is sanctionable regardless of intent, ordered him to pay the portion of the other party's attorney's fees traceable to the fake citations, and rejected the appeal because no supportive authority remained once the citations were struck.","causal_attribution":"The court's ruling as reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The three-judge panel noted that court rules allow for more severe sanctions, including contempt charges and monetary fines.; isn’t a trained legal professional, it opted to narrowly sanction him","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court chose this narrow sanction over contempt or fines because he said he did not intend to deceive and is not a trained legal professional.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"brief citations struck, appeal rejected and fee sanction ordered","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://kiowacountypress.net/content/arizona-court-appeals-citing-fake-ai-generated-cases-can-get-you-sanctioned-no-matter-your","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 (HTTP 200); no translation was needed. Republication of the Arizona Mirror (States Newsroom) report.","independence_group":"arizona-mirror-report-jul-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which generative AI tool the appellant used.","The amount of the fee award, which depended on the other party's documentation."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in, and the sanction imposed by, the Arizona Court of Appeals in a Maricopa County probate appeal. Residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the Arizona Mirror's report of the Court of Appeals opinion of 15 July 2026: a self-represented appellant acknowledged relying on generative AI to write a brief that cited nonexistent cases, and the court struck the citations, rejected the appeal and ordered him to pay the fees they caused. The parties are private persons and are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-18"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The appellant acknowledged in a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations that he relied on generative AI to write his opening brief, which the court found cited two nonexistent cases and misstated others; the AI-generated text reached him (communicated_with), and the court read the fabricated citations, struck them, rejected the appeal for want of authority and imposed a fee sanction for them (informed_decision_about). The tool is not named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Arizona appeals court strikes a self-represented appellant's AI-hallucinated citations, rejects his probate appeal and orders him to pay fees as a sanction","summary":"In a published opinion of July 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals found that a self-represented appellant's opening brief in a probate dispute contained eight citations, six of them deficient, including two cases that do not exist. In a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations he acknowledged relying on generative AI to write the brief and said he did nothing to verify the citations. The court struck the inaccurate and false citations, rejected the appeal because no supportive authority remained, held that citing a hallucinated case is sanctionable whether or not it is intended, and ordered him to pay the share of the other party's attorney's fees traceable to the fake citations. Because he said he did not intend to deceive and is not legally trained, the court chose this narrow sanction over contempt or fines. It described the opinion as the first published Arizona ruling on generative AI hallucinations in filings.","incidentDate":"2026-07-15","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-07-19","aiSystem":"Generative AI, not identified in the report, that the appellant said he relied on to write his opening brief, which cited two nonexistent cases and misstated others","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court, the appellant's AI-drafted brief cited nonexistent cases; the citations were struck, the appeal was rejected and he was ordered to pay the share of the other party's attorney's fees caused by the fake citations.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used generative AI and was sanctioned.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AZ","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://kiowacountypress.net/content/arizona-court-appeals-citing-fake-ai-generated-cases-can-get-you-sanctioned-no-matter-your","primarySourceLabel":"Arizona Mirror (States Newsroom), republished by Kiowa County Press, July 2026: Arizona Court of Appeals on sanctions for fake AI-generated cases","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-18T03:14:48.762612+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-18T03:14:48.762612+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated-citations","self-represented-litigant","appeal","sanction","attorney-fees","arizona"]},{"id":"2025-shanghai-yangpu-man-used-ai-faked-food-poisoning-medical-records-to-extort-restaurants-convicted","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'要求商家赔偿2000元医疗费，否则将投诉和曝光'; '最终转账赔付'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'店家赔了钱'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A customer told a Yangpu barbecue restaurant he had fallen ill after eating there, produced a hospital visit record and invoice, demanded 2,000 yuan in medical costs under threat of complaints and publicity, and the restaurant paid.","causal_attribution":"Police account relayed by Shangguan; the Procuratorate Daily feature gives the same episode briefly. Different reporting chains on the same police case; marked reported because the details (amount, threat) come from the police account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'材料均系伪造'; '利用AI软件对图片进行篡改，替换姓名、调整日期、伪造金额'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'从未有过相关就医记录'; '于是用手机AI工具生成了虚假材料'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Police found the man had no hospital record and the materials were forged; police say he confessed to altering images of other people's medical records with AI software, replacing the name, date and amount.","causal_attribution":"The AI use rests on the man's admission as reported by police (Shangguan) and in China Voice's report of the investigation (Xinhua). The tool is not named, and the accounts differ on whether existing record images were altered or materials generated."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'成功敲诈勒索两起，未遂两起，非法获利2500元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'去年11月第一次索赔成功后，一个月内他又以同样方式对四家餐厅提出索'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Police say he succeeded twice and failed twice, obtaining 2,500 yuan; Xinhua reports that after a first successful claim in November of the previous year he made similar claims against four more restaurants within a month.","causal_attribution":"Counts come from the police account (Shangguan) and the China Voice report; they are not reconciled (two plus two versus one plus four), so the record keeps both."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'上海市杨浦区人民法院审理认定'; '判处拘役四个月、缓刑四个月，并处罚金2000元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'利用AI技术伪造就医材料、恶意投诉、敲诈勒索商家的案件依法提起公诉'; '法院审理后以敲诈勒索罪判处'; '利用AI软件生成急性肠胃炎诊断证明和逼真的呕吐物照片'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Yangpu District People's Procuratorate prosecuted him in June 2026, and the Yangpu District People's Court convicted him of extortion and sentenced him to four months' criminal detention, suspended for four months, and a 2,000 yuan fine; the Procuratorate Daily says he used AI software to generate gastroenteritis diagnosis certificates and vomit photos.","causal_attribution":"Two reporting chains give the same sentence; both relay the court outcome and the judgment itself was not read, so the claim is reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"restaurants paid compensation demanded with AI-forged medical records (police: 2,500 yuan from two successful claims)","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.shobserver.cn/sgh/detail?id=1713109","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17; no human reviewer inspected the text. Shangguan News report of the Yangpu public security sub-bureau's account, 26 February 2026.","independence_group":"yangpu-police-account-2026-02"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://app.xinhuanet.com/news/article.html?articleId=20260616b5cfed558eda4c739780064335734766","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17; no human reviewer inspected the text. Xinhua client carry of a China Media Group China Voice report (reporters named in the text), 16 June 2026, drawing on the police investigation and the court judgment.","independence_group":"cmg-china-voice-2026-06"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.chinanews.com.cn/fz/2026/10-14/10714250.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17; no human reviewer inspected the text. China News Service carry of a Procuratorate Daily feature ('来源：检察日报'), 14 October 2026.","independence_group":"procuratorate-daily-2026-10"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The AI tool used, and whether it altered existing record images or generated documents and photos from text.","How many restaurants were targeted and paid: the police account gives two successful and two failed claims, Xinhua a first claim plus four more within a month.","The date of the judgment; the text of the judgment was not read."],"geography":{"basis":"The restaurants are in Yangpu district, Shanghai, and the Yangpu police, procuratorate and court handled the case (Shangguan, Xinhua, Procuratorate Daily).","court_countries":["CN"],"event_countries":["CN"],"affected_person_countries":["CN"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case (made_claim_about): Yangpu police say a man used AI software to forge medical records claiming food poisoning and obtained 2,500 yuan from restaurants, which he admitted; the Yangpu court convicted him of extortion. Three reporting chains (police account, China Voice, Procuratorate Daily).","reviewed_on":"2026-10-17"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Yangpu police say the man confessed to altering images of other people's medical records with AI software, changing the name, date and amount and adding a beef food-poisoning note, after the hospital confirmed he had no record (Shangguan). China Voice (Xinhua) says he used an AI tool on his phone to generate the false materials, and the Procuratorate Daily says he used AI software to generate diagnosis certificates and vomit photos and was prosecuted for using AI to forge medical materials. The AI output is the forged documents and photos asserting that the restaurants' food had made him ill (made_claim_about), which the restaurants relied on when they paid. The tool is not named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Shanghai court convicts a man who, police say, used AI software to fake food-poisoning medical records and extort restaurants into paying compensation","summary":"Police in Yangpu district, Shanghai, say a customer extorted restaurants with medical records he had forged using AI software; Xinhua dates his first successful claim to November 2025. In the police account (Shangguan News, 26 February 2026) he claimed to have fallen ill after eating at a barbecue restaurant, showed a hospital visit record and medical invoice, and demanded 2,000 yuan in medical costs, threatening complaints and publicity; the restaurant paid. Police checked with other diners and the hospital, found he had no hospital record and the materials were forged, and say he confessed to using AI software to alter images of other people's medical records, replacing the name, date and amount. Police say he succeeded twice and failed twice, obtaining 2,500 yuan, and that he also filed complaints to market regulators with the forged material to pressure the restaurants. According to Xinhua's June report and the Procuratorate Daily, the Yangpu District People's Court convicted him of extortion and sentenced him to four months' criminal detention, suspended for four months, and a 2,000 yuan fine.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-02-26","aiSystem":"AI software on the man's phone that, according to Yangpu police, he used to alter images of other people's medical records (name, date, amount) and, according to later reports, to generate gastroenteritis diagnosis certificates, receipts and vomit photos; the tool is not named","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to Yangpu police, restaurants paid compensation demanded with AI-forged medical records: a barbecue restaurant paid 2,000 yuan, and the man obtained 2,500 yuan in total from two successful claims, with two more attempts failing.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Police say two extortions succeeded and two failed. One payer is described: the barbecue restaurant's person in charge, who paid 2,000 yuan (Shangguan). The second paying restaurant's people are not described, so the count is 1 plus an unquantified remainder.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.shobserver.cn/sgh/detail?id=1713109","primarySourceLabel":"Shangguan News, 26 February 2026: Yangpu police on a barbecue restaurant that paid 2,000 yuan over forged medical records","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-17T03:18:51.274802+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-17T03:18:51.274802+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["fake-medical-records","food-poisoning-claim","extortion","restaurants","criminal-conviction","shanghai","china","made-claim-about"]},{"id":"2026-new-york-federal-court-defaults-client-and-orders-lawyer-to-pay-fees-over-ai-generated-false-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'motion to dismiss that was peppered with false citations'; 'Top alerted the Court to a series of faulty citations'; 'Defendants Top Experience Company LLC (“Top”) and'; 'cited that did not exist, and eight cases that did exist but did not contain the quotes'; 'Once again, his brief contained false citations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In June 2025 the defendant's lawyer filed a brief supporting its motion to dismiss that, a co-defendant's lawyer showed, cited at least thirteen cases that did not exist and eight real cases that did not contain the quoted words; a later response to the court and a proposed reply brief also contained false citations.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings in its sanctions opinion."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'unreported cases located via Google Scholar, Google search, or the AI-assisted platform vLex, and then cite-checking those cases by running the brief through a different AI program'; 'introduced citation errors that he mistook as corrections and thus neither reviewed nor fixed'; 'I used generative AI to confirm that the information that I wrote was correctly referencing the information that I had'; 'The tool he claimed to use was NotebookLM'; 'The Court does not find the second explanation credible'; 'Court finds that explanation extremely difficult to believe'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer said he located unreported cases through Google Scholar, Google search and the AI-assisted platform vLex, cite-checked the brief by running it through AI programs (vLex or Paxton AI) that he said introduced the errors, and used NotebookLM to review the content of his response; the court did not find his account of how the errors arose credible and found his NotebookLM account extremely difficult to believe.","causal_attribution":"Documented as the lawyer's statements recorded by the court; his account of how the errors arose is his own and the court rejected it in part."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'by submitting false citations to the Court produced by generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) and then lying about their genesis'; 'had acted in bad faith'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court later described the sanctioned conduct as submitting false citations produced by generative AI and then lying about their origin, and recalled its finding that the lawyer acted in bad faith.","causal_attribution":"The court's own characterisation in the 9 October 2026 order."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'by striking Affable’s submissions and entering default judgment against it'; 'nor a client from its attorney’s misdeeds'; 'to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Affable Avenue LLC'; 'Dated: February 5, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Court imposed terminal sanctions on Affable'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 5 February 2026 the court sanctioned the lawyer by striking his client's motion papers and entering default judgment against the client, holding that a client is not excused from its lawyer's misdeeds.","causal_attribution":"The court's order; the court ties the sanction to the false citations."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'then-counsel to Defendant Top Experience Company LLC (“Top”), who had provided substantial assistance to the Court by investigating and reporting'; 'awards his firm $38,877.59'; 'for a total award of $38,877.59'; 'must be made by'; 'within 30 days of this Opinion, unless'; 'Dated: October 9, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 9 October 2026 the court awarded the firm of a co-defendant's former lawyer, who had investigated and reported the false citations, $38,877.59 in fees and costs, payable by the sanctioned lawyer within 30 days.","causal_attribution":"The court's order."}],"effects":[{"label":"client's motion papers struck and default judgment entered against it as a sanction on its lawyer","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"lawyer ordered to pay $38,877.59 in fees and costs","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195.364.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed. ECF 364, 18 pp.","independence_group":"sdny-24-civ-9429-court-orders"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195.227.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed. ECF 227, 33 pp.","independence_group":"sdny-24-civ-9429-court-orders"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which tool generated each false citation; the lawyer's account names several tools and the court rejected parts of it.","Whether the lawyer has paid the award, appealed, or been referred to a disciplinary body; neither order mentions a referral.","The amount of damages to be assessed against the defaulted client."],"geography":{"basis":"The filings were made in, and the sanctions imposed by, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Where the lawyer and the client are based is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's two orders, read in full, record the lawyer's own account of using AI tools to find and check citations, describe the false citations as produced by generative AI, and impose default judgment on his client and a $38,877.59 fee award on him because of them.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawyer told the court he found cases through the AI-assisted platform vLex and cite-checked his brief by running it through AI programs (vLex or Paxton AI), which he said introduced the errors, and that he used NotebookLM to review a later submission (communicated_with). The court's 9 October 2026 order describes the sanctioned filings as false citations produced by generative AI. The court read those citations and, because of them, struck the client's papers, entered default judgment against the client and ordered the lawyer to pay fees (informed_decision_about). Which tool generated each false citation is not established.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"New York federal court enters default judgment against a defendant and orders its lawyer to pay $38,877 after false citations it found AI produced","summary":"In a federal trademark suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court on 5 February 2026 struck a company defendant's motion papers and entered default judgment against it as a sanction on its lawyer, after his filings repeatedly cited nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations. The lawyer said he had found and cite-checked cases with AI tools (vLex and Paxton AI) and used NotebookLM to review a later submission; the court rejected his explanations and found he acted in bad faith. On 9 October 2026 the court described the citations as produced by generative AI and ordered the lawyer to pay $38,877.59 in fees and costs to the firm of a co-defendant's former lawyer, who had reported the false citations to the court.","incidentDate":"2026-02-05","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-09","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-02-05","aiSystem":"AI legal research and cite-checking tools the lawyer said he used (vLex with AI functionality, Paxton AI) and NotebookLM, which he said he used to review his response to the court; the court found the citations were produced by generative AI","aiProduct":"vLex, Paxton AI and NotebookLM (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's orders, the defendant's motion papers were struck and default judgment entered against it as a sanction for its lawyer's filings with false citations, which the court describes as produced by generative AI, and the lawyer was ordered to pay $38,877.59 in fees and costs.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the lawyer, who described his own use of AI tools and was ordered to pay $38,877.59. The client against which default judgment was entered is a company; the people behind it are not described and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-NY","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195.364.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Opinion and Order on fees, ECF 364, 24 Civ. 9429 (9 October 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:05:26.378079+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:05:26.378079+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","new-york","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","default-judgment","attorney-fees"]},{"id":"2026-israel-magistrates-court-strikes-expert-report-resting-on-ai-hallucinated-case-law-costs","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'התרשלה בתפקידה כנאמנת'; 'ביום 10.3.26הגישה הנתבעת 2חוות דעת'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, a lawyer acting as trustee, negligently transferred estate money to another person's account; the defendant filed a third-party notice against two banks and, on 10 March 2026, a banking expert's opinion.","causal_attribution":"The decision's own account of the pleadings; the negligence claim is an allegation in a continuing suit."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'מבוססת על פסיקה ,חקיקה וספרות פיקטיביות שהומצאו ע\"י בינה מלאכותית ,ובכלל זה פסק דין שאינו קיים'; 'כאשר שאלת השימוש בבינה מלאכותית מקומה להתברר בחקירה נגדית'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One bank asked the court to strike the opinion as resting on case law, legislation and literature invented by artificial intelligence, including a ruling that does not exist; the defendant replied that the question of AI use should be examined in cross-examination.","causal_attribution":"The parties' submissions as recorded by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'הליך שלא ניתן לאתרו לפי מספר או שם הצדדים'; 'מבדיקה עצמאית לא נמצא כי קיים ספר ,מאמר או ציטוט כזה'; 'מבלי שהוגשה התייחסותו של המומחה לטענות המופנות כנגד חוות דעתו ,ומחדל זה פועל לחובתה של הנתבעת'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Checking the sources itself, the court could not locate the cited Supreme Court ruling by number or party names, found no book, article or quotation matching the cited legal text, and found that the quoted statutory sections say something else; the defendant filed no response from the expert.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings after its own check of the sources."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'משנמצא כי לב חוות הדעת והנספחים המצורפים אליה נשענים על \"הזיות בינה מלאכותית\" מובהקות ועל עיוות מוחלט של לשון חוק שירותי תשלום'; 'הגשת חוות דעת המבוססת על הזיות של בינה מלאכותית מהווה פגם מהותי המצדיק את הוצאתה המידית מהתיק עוד לפני שלב ההוכחות'; 'ומורה על מחיקת חוות דעתו'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rest on clear AI hallucinations and a distortion of the statute, that an opinion resting on AI hallucinations is a substantive defect justifying its removal before the evidence stage, and struck it from the file.","causal_attribution":"The court attributes the defects to AI hallucinations; that attribution rests on the invented content, with no admission or named tool."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'שעה שהתיקון של ההודעה לצד שלישי מבוסס על חוות דעת המומחה מטעם המודיעה ,חוות דעת שמצאתי אותה פגומה והוריתי על מחיקתה מהתיק'; 'דין הבקשה לתיקון ההודעה לצד שלישי להידחות'; 'תישא בהוצאות הבקשות לטובת הצד דים השלישיים בסך של'; '₪ 2,500לכל אחד מהם בנפרד'; 'ניתנה היום ,כ\"ז תשרי תשפ\"ז 08 ,אוקטובר'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court refused the defendant's request to amend the third-party notice, giving as one reason that the amendment rested on the struck opinion, and ordered her to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each of the two banks within 30 days regardless of the outcome; the decision is dated 8 October 2026.","causal_attribution":"The court's orders. The refusal also rests on independent procedural grounds (no supporting affidavit, lateness, lack of good faith)."}],"effects":[{"label":"defendant's expert opinion struck from the file as resting on AI-hallucinated authorities","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"defendant's amendment refused and costs of 2,500 shekels ordered to each of two banks","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3278/Avaragl_v._Yaakov_Israel.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"he","translation_note":"Read in full in Hebrew by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from the copy of the decision hosted on the AI Hallucination Cases database (HTTP 200, 10 pages, text extracted with pdftotext and bidirectional-control characters removed); the English renderings in this record are the research agent's own translation, with no human translator involved.","independence_group":"nof-hagalil-nazareth-magistrates-court-civil-file-38820-04-24-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","finance"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool, if any, the expert used; the decision names none and records no account from the expert.","Whether the defendant appeals the decision or pays the costs, and how the suit and the third-party notice are decided.","Whether the expert faces any professional consequence."],"geography":{"basis":"The opinion was filed in, and struck by, the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel. Where the parties live is not stated and is not used.","court_countries":["IL"],"event_countries":["IL"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's decision, read in full, finds that a filed expert opinion rests on AI-hallucinated authorities and distorted statute text, and on that basis strikes it, refuses the amendment built on it and orders the filing defendant to pay costs. The case is an expert witness's report excluded from evidence before trial.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's decision finds that the heart of the expert opinion and its annexes rest on clear 'AI hallucinations': a Supreme Court ruling the court could not locate, a cited book it could not find and statutory sections quoted with text the statute does not contain. The court read that output in the filed opinion and, because of it, struck the opinion, refused the amendment that rested on it and ordered the defendant to pay costs (informed_decision_about). The attribution to AI is the court's own finding after checking the sources; no admission, tool or account by the expert is recorded.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Israeli court strikes a defendant's expert report it found rested on AI-hallucinated case law and orders her to pay the banks' costs","summary":"On 8 October 2026 the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel, struck from the file a banking expert's opinion that a defendant in a civil negligence suit had filed, finding that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rested on clear 'AI hallucinations': a Supreme Court ruling the court could not locate, a book it could not find and statutory sections quoted with text the statute does not contain. The court also refused the defendant's request to amend her third-party notice against two banks, partly because the amendment relied on the struck opinion, and ordered her to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each bank. No AI tool is named, and the decision records no response from the expert.","incidentDate":"2026-10-08","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-08","aiSystem":"Unidentified generative AI tool; the court found that the expert opinion rests on AI hallucinations but names no tool, and the expert did not respond","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's decision, the defendant's expert evidence was struck and her amendment refused because the opinion rested on what the court found were AI-hallucinated authorities and distorted statute text, and she was ordered to pay 2,500 shekels in costs to each of two banks.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the defendant who filed the opinion, whose evidence was struck, whose amendment was refused and who was ordered to pay costs. The expert is not counted because the decision orders nothing against him; the plaintiff and the banks are not harmed by the ruling.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IL","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3278/Avaragl_v._Yaakov_Israel.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Magistrates' Court, Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, civil file 38820-04-24, decision (8 October 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:01:26.843634+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:01:26.843634+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["israel","expert-evidence","hallucinated-citations","court-decision","costs","banking"]},{"id":"2025-oregon-federal-court-dismisses-family-plaintiffs-claims-after-briefs-with-ai-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The issue before the Court is the appropriate sanctions for Plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence'; 'Plaintiffs filed three briefs containing citations to fifteen non-existent cases and fabricated quotations falsely attributed to eight legitimate authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs filed three summary-judgment briefs citing fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations attributed to eight real authorities, and the court framed its sanctions as being for the plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'[t]he inclusion of inaccurate citations was inadvertent and the result of reliance on an automated legal citation tool'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs told the court the inaccurate citations were inadvertent and resulted from reliance on an automated legal citation tool.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' filing as quoted by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Court finds that Plaintiffs share responsibility with'; 'for the submission of fifteen non-existent cases and eight fabricated quotations'; 'is a serial self-represented litigator who was likely the person responsible for using artificial intelligence to draft the summary judgment briefs in this case'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that the plaintiffs shared responsibility with their lead lawyer and that one plaintiff, a serial self-represented litigator, was likely the person responsible for using AI to draft the briefs.","causal_attribution":"A court finding of likelihood on unrebutted circumstantial evidence; the drafter's AI use is not otherwise established."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'STRICKEN without leave to refile'; 'to pay the Clerk of the Court $15,500 within 30'; 'Defendants are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney' ; 'Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED with'; 'Local Rules provides an additional basis for terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs' claims.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court struck the briefs without leave to refile, ordered the lead lawyer to pay $15,500 to the Clerk, awarded the defendants reasonable fees and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice; it found the plaintiffs' continual violations of the Local Rules an additional basis for that dismissal.","causal_attribution":"Established by the order."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'finds the requested amount of $94,704.38 reasonable'; 'is ORDERED to pay Defendants 15% of that award, $14,205.66'; 'pay Defendants the remaining 85%'; '$80,498.72 within thirty (30) days'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In March 2026 the court found fees of $94,704.38 reasonable and ordered local counsel to pay 15% ($14,205.66) and the lead lawyer 85% ($80,498.72).","causal_attribution":"Established by the fees order."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Defendants' unopposed Motion for Partial Summary'; 'summary judgment on their eighth counterclaim for breach of contract and ordered specific performance of the inheritance contract'; 'Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 228) is DENIED.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In June 2026 the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its grant of the defendants' unopposed motion for partial summary judgment, which had awarded specific performance of an inheritance contract on a breach-of-contract counterclaim.","causal_attribution":"Established by the reconsideration order; the orders do not say the counterclaim outcome resulted from the AI sanction."}],"effects":[{"label":"family plaintiffs' claims dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for briefs with AI-fabricated citations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"lead lawyer fined $15,500 and two lawyers ordered to pay $94,704.38 in fees","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.215.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.225.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, pdftotext); the background and fee-allocation sections were inspected.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.233.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, pdftotext); five-page order read in full.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used; the orders name none.","Who drafted the briefs: the court's finding is one of likelihood, and the plaintiffs gave no explanation.","Whether the fine and fees were paid, and the outcome of the order sent to the Oregon State Bar and of a later show-cause order to the lead lawyer.","Whether the counterclaim ruling was affected by the striking of the plaintiffs' briefs."],"geography":{"basis":"The briefs were filed in and the sanctions imposed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Where the briefs were drafted and where the parties live are not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's own orders establish that it dismissed the family plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and sanctioned their lawyers for briefs citing nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations, which the court attributes to the plaintiffs' misuse of generative AI and finds one plaintiff likely drafted with AI. The three orders were read.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's 12 December 2025 order describes the sanctions as being for the plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence, finds that three briefs cited fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations, records the plaintiffs' statement that the citations resulted from reliance on an automated legal citation tool, and finds that one plaintiff was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs (communicated_with). The AI output reached the court in those briefs, and the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and sanctioned their lawyers because of it (informed_decision_about). No product is named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Oregon federal court dismisses family plaintiffs' claims and fines their lawyer after briefs cited 15 nonexistent cases it attributes to generative AI misuse","summary":"On 12 December 2025 the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed with prejudice the claims of plaintiffs in a family dispute over their late mother's estate and family property, as a sanction for what the court called their misuse of generative artificial intelligence, and found their continual violations of the court's Local Rules an additional basis for the dismissal. Three of the plaintiffs' summary-judgment briefs cited fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations attributed to eight real authorities. The plaintiffs had said the inaccurate citations came from reliance on an automated legal citation tool. The court found that the plaintiffs shared responsibility with their lead lawyer and that one plaintiff, a frequent self-represented litigant, was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs. It struck the briefs, ordered the lead lawyer to pay $15,500 to the court and awarded the defendants their fees. In March 2026 it set those fees at $94,704.38, ordering the lead lawyer to pay 85% and local counsel 15%. In June 2026 it denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider a later ruling for the defendants on a counterclaim.","incidentDate":"2025-01-31","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-12","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-12-12","aiSystem":"Generative AI used to draft summary-judgment briefs, according to the court; the plaintiffs described it as an automated legal citation tool. No product is named in the orders","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's orders, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice because their briefs cited nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations that the court attributes to misuse of generative AI, which it found one plaintiff likely used to draft them; the lead lawyer was fined $15,500 and the two lawyers were ordered to pay $94,704.38 in fees.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Three people counted from the orders: the individual plaintiff whose claims were dismissed (found likely to have drafted the briefs with AI, so that AI use is a finding of likelihood and she is not counted as an established user), the lead lawyer (fined and ordered to pay 85% of fees) and local counsel (ordered to pay 15% of fees). The estate whose claim was also dismissed has beneficiaries the orders do not count; the LLC plaintiff is not a person.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.215.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Opinion and Order, ECF 215, case 1:21-cv-00157 (12 December 2025)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:05:45.14301+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:05:45.14301+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","oregon","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","claims-dismissed","client-responsibility"]},{"id":"2025-languageline-interpreters-say-ai-scheduling-software-cut-and-fragmented-their-shifts","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"The change coincided with LanguageLine switching to a new workforce management software, NiCE, which advertises itself as providing\"; \"smarter scheduling, accurate forecasting, and real-time intraday optimization\"; \"LanguageLine said that NiCE was\"; \"used to forecast volume and determine schedules\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"\"after LanguageLine introduced a new AI workforce management program in 2025\"; \"said in an email that the rollout of AI software to forecast volume and create schedules had landed during a difficult stretch for the industry\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"LanguageLine Solutions, an interpretation company, began using NiCE workforce management software in 2025; LanguageLine says NiCE is used to forecast call volume and determine schedules, NiCE markets its scheduling as AI-powered, and Capital & Main reports that a LanguageLine spokesperson said in an email that the rollout of AI software to forecast volume and create schedules had landed during a difficult stretch.","causal_attribution":"The company's own statements to both outlets establish that the software forecasts volume and sets schedules; the AI description comes from the vendor's marketing quoted by NPR, Capital & Main's paraphrase (not a direct quotation) of the spokesperson's email, and interpreters' statements. Both company statements are one origin."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"hours were cut and became fragmented and unpredictable after her employer experienced a business downturn and started using new scheduling software\"; \"show that her income from LanguageLine fell 18% from 2024 to 2025\"; \"though other workers' tax forms did show decreases of 5% to 34% from 2024 to 2025\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A Haitian Creole interpreter told NPR that in 2025 her hours were cut and became fragmented and unpredictable after the company had a business downturn and started using the new scheduling software; NPR reports that tax forms she provided show her LanguageLine income fell 18% from 2024 to 2025, and that other workers' tax forms showed decreases of 5% to 34%.","causal_attribution":"The interpreter's account and NPR's reading of tax forms. NPR itself ties the cuts to both a downturn and the new software; the share caused by the software is not established."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"what the company describes as mandatory involuntary time off, which showed up on their work schedules under the paycode\"; \"On Thursday I would have a regular schedule, and then by the end of my shift, I have AEX for Friday\"; \"When workers are put on AEX, they don't get paid.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Interpreters told NPR that the schedule changes included unpaid mandatory involuntary time off, shown under the paycode AEX, assigned with little notice, sometimes on the evening before or in the middle of a working day.","causal_attribution":"Workers' accounts to NPR; the company says it adjusted schedules to lower volumes."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"For instance, seven hours off\"; \"and then an hour and a half left in the evening for you to work\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"\"They say it’s AI powered, and you can see that,\"; \"It cuts up your shifts into strange, pointless segments that aren’t convenient for any live human being.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A Russian-English interpreter told both outlets that the schedules split the working day into short segments, for example seven hours off and then an hour and a half of work in the evening, and attributed this to the AI-powered system.","causal_attribution":"One interpreter interviewed by two outlets: one origin."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"Now it moved around, seemingly at random. Entire shifts were eliminated from her schedule with little notice.\"; \"giving her as few as 15 seconds between calls during busy hours\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A Spanish-language interpreter working from home in Texas told Capital & Main that after the 2025 AI workforce program her breaks moved around seemingly at random, entire shifts were eliminated from her schedule with little notice, and she had as few as 15 seconds between calls in busy hours.","causal_attribution":"Single interview."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"The introduction of NiCE, the AI-powered workforce software, has led to forced time off with little notice, workers said.\"; \"Sometimes they cut my hours, sometimes a full day,\"; \"Reduced hours means a reduced paycheck and reduced security,\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A Spanish-language interpreter in Florida told Capital & Main that the AI-powered software led to forced time off with little notice, with her hours, sometimes a full day, cut and her pay reduced.","causal_attribution":"Single interview; the link to the software is the workers' account."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"You start losing focus, start making mistakes.\"; \"income became so unstable that she quit in 2025\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A Polish-English interpreter told NPR the shortened gaps between calls were draining, and NPR reports that her income became so unstable that she quit in 2025.","causal_attribution":"Single interview as reported by NPR."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"have had to adjust schedules to accommodate lower-than-expected volumes\"; \"schedules have been more unpredictable than normal\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"\"attributed workers’ complaints about erratic schedules primarily to federal budget cuts\"; \"We acknowledge and regret the disruptions our interpreters have experienced\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"LanguageLine attributes the erratic schedules mainly to lower demand from federal budget cuts and an immigration crackdown, acknowledged that schedules had been more unpredictable than normal and regretted the disruptions, and says it has adjusted and operations are back to normal.","causal_attribution":"The company's statements; they dispute that the software is the main cause."}],"effects":[{"label":"cut, fragmented and short-notice schedules with unpaid involuntary time off","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"reported loss of income after hours were cut","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.npr.org/2026/05/03/nx-s1-5786926/jobs-labor-productivity-languageline-unionize","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English article of 3 May 2026 (with later corrections) read in full on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200); no translation required. NPR interviewed interpreters, saw one interpreter's tax forms and quotes LanguageLine's statement and NiCE's marketing.","independence_group":"npr-interpreter-interviews"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://capitalandmain.com/ai-hasnt-replaced-these-interpreters-but-it-has-degraded-their-working-conditions","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English article of 7 September 2026 read in full on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200); no translation required. Capital & Main interviewed about six interpreters and quotes a LanguageLine spokesperson. One interpreter was interviewed by both outlets; her accounts count as one origin.","independence_group":"capital-and-main-interpreter-interviews"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","finance"],"unknowns":["How far each cut followed from the software's forecasts rather than lower demand or management choices","How many interpreters lost hours or income; NPR and Capital & Main describe many workers without a count","Whether schedules stabilised after the company says it recalibrated the system","Which NiCE product and AI functions LanguageLine uses"],"geography":{"basis":"The interpreters described work for LanguageLine's US operation from their homes in New York (Brooklyn), Texas (El Paso) and Florida (s1, s2); Capital & Main says one worked as an interpreter from her home in El Paso. No court is involved.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on two independent sets of worker interviews (NPR, Capital & Main) and the company's statements to both. The company says NiCE AI software forecasts volume and sets schedules, which establishes an automated allocation; interpreters describe concrete adverse arrangements and income loss. The company disputes that the software caused the cuts, and that dispute is recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"LanguageLine told NPR that NiCE is used to forecast volume and determine schedules, NiCE markets AI-powered scheduling, and Capital & Main reports, paraphrasing a company spokesperson's email, a rollout of AI software to forecast volume and create schedules (c1). Interpreters describe the schedules the system produced: hours cut, shifts fragmented, unpaid involuntary time off at short notice and income loss (c2 to c7). The company says lower demand drove the cuts, so how far the software, rather than demand, decided each cut is disputed.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"LanguageLine interpreters say AI scheduling software cut and fragmented their shifts and imposed unpaid time off at short notice","summary":"Interpreters at LanguageLine Solutions told NPR (May 2026) and Capital & Main (September 2026) that after the company adopted NiCE workforce management software in 2025, which LanguageLine says forecasts volume and determines schedules and which, according to Capital & Main's account of a company spokesperson's email, is AI software, their hours were cut, shifts were split into fragments and unpaid involuntary time off arrived with little notice. NPR reports that one interpreter's LanguageLine income fell 18% from 2024 to 2025. LanguageLine attributes the disruption mainly to lower demand, acknowledged that schedules had been more unpredictable than normal, and says operations are back to normal.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-05-03","aiSystem":"NiCE workforce management software, which LanguageLine says it uses to forecast call volume and determine interpreters' schedules and which the vendor markets as AI-powered scheduling","aiProduct":"NiCE workforce management","aiCompany":"NiCE","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","professional_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Interpreters describe hours cut, fragmented shifts and unpaid involuntary time off at short notice after AI scheduling software was introduced; one interpreter's LanguageLine income fell 18% in 2025 per tax forms NPR saw, and another quit when her income became unstable.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":5,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Five interpreters each describe a scheduling consequence: the Haitian Creole interpreter (c2), the Russian-English interpreter (c4), the Texas and Florida Spanish-language interpreters (c5, c6) and the Polish-English interpreter (c7). Both outlets say more workers were affected without a count; the 161-worker union survey and the 200-signature petition are not counts of harmed people. The interpreters were subject to the schedules, not users of the software.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.npr.org/2026/05/03/nx-s1-5786926/jobs-labor-productivity-languageline-unionize","primarySourceLabel":"NPR, 3 May 2026: How algorithms wreaked havoc with these workers' schedules and cut their pay","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:15:55.025062+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:15:55.025062+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["workplace-ai","scheduling","interpreters","nice","languageline","union-organising"]},{"id":"2026-alabama-supreme-court-dismisses-family-trust-appeal-over-lawyer-ai-hallucinated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'filed briefs in this appeal that contain numerous invalid, inaccurate, and/or irrelevant citations to legal authorities'; 'They appear to be artificial-intelligence (\"AI\") \"hallucinations,\" i.e., fake authorities created by an AI system'; 'Most of the legal authorities in the briefs are misquoted or nonexistent'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appellants' lawyer filed briefs whose citations the court found numerous, invalid, inaccurate or irrelevant, most of them misquoted or nonexistent, and which the court said appear to be AI hallucinations.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'first use of an AI research tool that summarized commentary not readily available through standard legal databases'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, the lawyer attributed two misquotations to an AI research tool that summarised commentary.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's statement as quoted in the opinion."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall admitted that many of the legal authorities in his briefs do not exist and that he improperly used AI to obtain those authorities'; 'Hall also informed the Court that he had self-reported his actions to the Alabama State Bar'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At the 4 February 2026 show-cause hearing the lawyer admitted that many authorities in his briefs did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them, and said he had self-reported to the Alabama State Bar.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the hearing."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Because those briefs are grossly deficient under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal'; 'the dismissal of this appeal is imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts before us'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court dismissed the appeal because the briefs were grossly deficient, and said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall is hereby ordered to pay attorney fees and costs'; 'in the amount of $17,200'; 'Hall is ordered to pay double costs'; 'We also refer Hall to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court ordered the lawyer to pay $17,200 in attorney fees and costs and double costs of the appeal, and referred him to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'SELLERS, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I do not agree that dismissal of the appeal is appropriate as a sanction for the conduct of a lawyer'; 'I would affirm the judgment of the Mobile Circuit'; 'MENDHEIM, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I concur in the dismissal of this appeal'; 'His representation on appeal was of no benefit to them'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Justice Sellers, concurring in part and dissenting in part, disagreed that dismissal was an appropriate sanction for a lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits; Justice Mendheim, who concurred in the dismissal, wrote that the lawyer's representation on appeal was of no benefit to the clients.","causal_attribution":"Two separate opinions in the same record; neither is the court's holding."}],"effects":[{"label":"two appellants' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on AI-obtained authorities that were fake or misquoted","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 and double costs, barred from filing alone in the court and referred to the state bar","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from CourtListener's archived copy of this court PDF (storage.courtlistener.com, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext) because the court portal URL returned HTTP 403 to the agent; no translation was needed.","independence_group":"alabama-supreme-court-sc-2025-0106"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the lawyer used; the opinion names none.","Whether the dismissal changed the clients' substantive position; the trial court's summary judgment stands, the main opinion does not decide the merits, and one justice would have affirmed the judgment.","The outcome of the Alabama State Bar referral."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama on appeal from the Mobile Circuit Court. The appellants' residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the Supreme Court of Alabama's opinion establishes that it dismissed two appellants' appeal as a sanction after their lawyer filed briefs built on fabricated authorities that he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI, and that it sanctioned the lawyer and referred him to the state bar. The opinion was read in full.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found the briefs' authorities appeared to be AI hallucinations, the lawyer admitted at the show-cause hearing that he had improperly used AI to obtain authorities that do not exist, and his reply-brief footnote quoted by the court says an AI research tool misattributed quotations. The AI output reached the court through the briefs, and the court dismissed the clients' appeal because those briefs rested on fabricated authorities (informed_decision_about for the clients); the lawyer received the fabricated output from the tool (communicated_with) and was sanctioned.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Alabama Supreme Court dismisses two siblings' family-trust appeal as a sanction after their lawyer admits using AI that produced fake citations","summary":"On 24 April 2026 the Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed an appeal by two siblings in a family dispute over living trusts because their lawyer, W. Perry Hall, had filed briefs in which most of the legal authorities were misquoted or did not exist. The court said they appeared to be AI hallucinations, and at a show-cause hearing in February 2026 Hall admitted that many authorities did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them. The court ordered Hall to pay the opposing party's fees and costs of $17,200 and double appeal costs, barred him from filing in the court without a co-signing attorney and referred him to the Alabama State Bar. It said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts. One justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part, objected to dismissing the appeal as a sanction for the lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the judgment against the clients on the merits.","incidentDate":"2026-04-24","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-04-24","aiSystem":"An AI research tool that, according to the lawyer's reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, summarised legal commentary and misattributed quotations; the lawyer admitted using AI to obtain authorities that do not exist. No product is named in the opinion","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI research tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Supreme Court of Alabama, the siblings' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on authorities that were misquoted or did not exist, which he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI; the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 in fees and costs plus double appeal costs and was referred to the state bar.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One AI user: the appellate lawyer, sanctioned and referred to the bar. Two other people: the two appellants whose appeal was dismissed. The appellee, whose fees were reimbursed, is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","primarySourceLabel":"Supreme Court of Alabama, opinion in SC-2025-0106 (released 24 April 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","alabama","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","appeal-dismissed"]},{"id":"2026-ninth-circuit-immigration-lawyers-suspended-over-ai-hallucinated-citations-board-reciprocal-suspension","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sethi filed an opening brief in this case with multiple fabricated citations and quotations'; 'Sethi cited two cases that do not exist and never existed'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The opening brief filed for the asylum petitioners and signed by Sethi cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to real opinions that do not contain them.","causal_attribution":"The court's own finding in its order."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'to which Rounds said that AI “was not used.”'; 'Rounds finally conceded that it was “possible” that AI might have been used by the individual who drafted the briefs'; 'Sethi Law Group employs law school graduates, who are not yet licensed attorneys, to write briefs'; 'that no licensed attorney read the cases cited by the unlicensed brief writer'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At oral argument Rounds said AI was not used and later conceded it was possible that the person who drafted the briefs had used AI; the drafter was an unlicensed law graduate whose citations no licensed attorney read.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the oral argument and of the attorneys' response."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'that the errors were the product of unauthorized AI use by their Brief Writers and a failure to cite check'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Responding to the order to show cause, the attorneys conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by their brief writers and a failure to check citations.","causal_attribution":"The attorneys' concession as recorded by the court; no AI tool, prompt or output was identified."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Neither of them suspected the use of generative AI because the Firm prohibited its use and required the Brief Writers to check all their citations'; 'it is beyond belief that he knew for a fact that it was not used'; 'is owed to this repeated failure of candor'; 'We do not sanction Sethi and Rounds for the simple fact that they or'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The attorneys said that at the time of the motion to correct they did not suspect AI because the firm prohibited its use; the court found that Rounds could not have known AI was not used, said it was not sanctioning AI use as such, and attributed the severity of discipline to their repeated failure of candour.","causal_attribution":"The attorneys' explanation and the court's findings, both from the order."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sethi and Rounds are each personally sanctioned in the amount of $2,500'; 'Sethi and Rounds are hereby suspended from practice before this Court for a period of six months starting ten days after this Order is filed'; 'provide a copy of this Order to their clients'; 'serve a copy of this Order on the State Bar of California'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Ninth Circuit fined each attorney $2,500, suspended both from practice before the court for six months, ordered them to give the order to their clients in every pending case, and directed service of the order on the State Bar of California.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's order."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Board hereby suspends the respondent from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and DHS for 6 months, effective June 13, 2026.'; 'On July 1, 2026, the Board granted the Joint Petition for Immediate Suspension.'; 'previously issued unpublished on September 15, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Board of Immigration Appeals suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and DHS for six months, effective 13 June 2026, after granting an immediate suspension on 1 July 2026, and designated the decision as precedent after first issuing it unpublished on 15 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"Established by the Board's decision."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'the respondent contests the sufficiency of the evidence that he knew that certain errors in his filings were caused by the use of artificial intelligence'; 'the respondent’s claims of hardship to his clients are conclusory'; 'the application of our rules of attorney discipline to misconduct related to the use of AI is not an “outlier penalty,” as the respondent claims'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Before the Board, Sethi disputed that he knew AI had been used and argued that suspension would harm his clients and was an outlier penalty for AI-related misconduct; the Board rejected these arguments.","causal_attribution":"The respondent's arguments and the Board's ruling as stated in the decision."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The petition for review, which we granted'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court granted the asylum petitioners' petition for review.","causal_attribution":"The court's statement; it does not address any effect of the sanctions on the clients."}],"effects":[{"label":"two attorneys were fined and suspended from practice before a federal appeals court, and one was suspended from immigration practice, over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and false statements about them","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/03/24-4790.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from the court's own site (HTTP 200, PDF text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"ninth-circuit-order-24-4790"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463666/dl?inline","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from the court's own site (HTTP 200, PDF text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"bia-matter-of-sethi"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the brief writers used; the order records only the attorneys' concession that AI use was probable.","Whether the State Bar of California opened proceedings after the referral.","Whether the suspensions affected the attorneys' clients; the Board found the hardship claims conclusory and no source describes a harmed client.","The date the opening brief was filed; the inspected sources do not state it."],"geography":{"basis":"The briefs were filed in and sanctioned by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the reciprocal suspension was imposed by the US Board of Immigration Appeals; the order describes the firm as based in Orange County, California. The attorneys' residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a court decision about two attorneys informed by AI-generated fabricated authorities in their briefs: the Ninth Circuit's order fines and suspends two attorneys for filing briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and for repeatedly denying the AI source, and the Board of Immigration Appeals imposes a reciprocal suspension on one of them. Both records were read in full from the courts' own sites.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is two courts' response to AI use in filings: the Ninth Circuit order describes briefs with nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations, records the attorneys' concession that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's brief writers, and imposes fines and a six-month suspension for filing them and for repeatedly denying the AI source; the Board of Immigration Appeals imposed a reciprocal suspension on that basis. The court read the fabricated authorities in the briefs, identified them and based its discipline of the two attorneys on filing them and on their statements about their source, so the AI output informed a decision about them (informed_decision_about); no tool is named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Ninth Circuit fines and suspends two immigration lawyers over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and denials of AI use; immigration board follows","summary":"On 3 June 2026 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit fined immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds $2,500 each and suspended both from practice before the court for six months. Briefs filed in an asylum petition for review cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to opinions that do not contain them. In a motion to correct, the attorneys called the errors typographical, and at oral argument Rounds twice said AI was not used. In their response to the court's order to show cause, they conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's unlicensed brief writers and a failure to check citations. The court said the suspension was owed to their repeated failure of candour. The Board of Immigration Appeals then suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security for six months, effective 13 June 2026, and designated that decision as a precedent on 1 October 2026.","incidentDate":"2026-06-03","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-06-03","aiSystem":"Generative AI that, according to the attorneys' concession recorded by the Ninth Circuit, the firm's unlicensed brief writers probably used against firm policy; no tool is named in the order or the Board's decision","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Ninth Circuit's order, both attorneys were fined $2,500 and suspended from practice before the court for six months over briefs whose AI-hallucinated citations they had denied were AI errors; according to the Board of Immigration Appeals, one of them was then suspended from practice before the immigration courts, the Board and DHS for six months.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two attorneys, each named in the Ninth Circuit order as fined and suspended; the Board's reciprocal suspension concerns one of them. The asylum applicants are not counted: the court granted their petition for review and no source reports harm to them.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/03/24-4790.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, order in No. 24-4790 (3 June 2026): attorney discipline over AI-hallucinated citations","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:02:36.457192+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:02:36.457192+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","legal-profession","sanction","suspension","hallucinated-citations","immigration"]},{"id":"2026-espirito-santo-bank-app-facial-recognition-passed-with-photos-of-elderly-man-pix-theft","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Um homem de 39 anos foi preso suspeito de usar imagens do reconhecimento facial de um idoso de 81 anos para acessar a conta bancária da vítima e desviar R$ 6.080,00'; 'O mandado de prisão preventiva foi cumprido nesta segunda-feira (28).'; 'a prisão ocorreu após a conclusão do inquérito que apurou furto qualificado mediante fraude eletrônica.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A 39-year-old man was arrested on 28 September 2026 on a preventive warrant, after a Civil Police inquiry into qualified theft by electronic fraud, on suspicion of using facial-recognition images of an 81-year-old man to access his bank account and divert R$6,080.","causal_attribution":"Civil Police account relayed by Folha Vitória."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'o investigado teria convidado o idoso para ir até sua residência, sob a justificativa de produzir uma carteirinha que garantiria entrada gratuita no estabelecimento.'; 'ele teria retido o cartão bancário da vítima, que é analfabeta, além de obter dados pessoais e fotografar o rosto dela.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the police, the suspect, a security guard at a dance venue, invited the man to his home on the pretext of making a free-entry card, kept his bank card, obtained personal data and photographed his face; the victim is illiterate.","causal_attribution":"Civil Police account relayed by Folha Vitória."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'o homem teria usado as imagens para burlar o sistema de reconhecimento facial do aplicativo bancário e habilitar o acesso à conta em seu próprio celular.'; 'ele teria redefinido senhas de segurança, resgatado aplicações financeiras e feito transferências via Pix sem o conhecimento ou consentimento do idoso.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The police say he used the images to get past the banking app's facial recognition and enable access to the account on his own phone, then reset security passwords, redeemed investments and made Pix transfers without the victim's knowledge or consent.","causal_attribution":"Civil Police account relayed by Folha Vitória; no bank or app statement."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'o investigado tem registros anteriores por furto, estelionato, apropriação indébita, ameaça e delitos de trânsito'; 'ele cumpria pena em regime progressivo quando teria cometido o novo crime.'; 'o homem foi encaminhado ao sistema prisional e permanece à disposição da Justiça.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The police say the suspect had prior records for theft, fraud, misappropriation, threats and traffic offences, was serving a sentence under a progressive regime, and was taken to the prison system.","causal_attribution":"Civil Police account relayed by Folha Vitória."}],"effects":[{"label":"R$6,080 diverted from his bank account after the app's facial recognition was passed with photographs of his face","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.folhavitoria.com.br/policia/homem-e-preso-suspeito-de-usar-rosto-de-idoso-para-acessar-conta-e-desviar-r-6-mil-no-esr-r-6-mil-no-es/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-07 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Direct fetch returned HTTP 403; the article was read through an Internet Archive id_ capture of the same URL. The report relays the Espírito Santo Civil Police account.","independence_group":"es-civil-police-statement-2026-09-29"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://folhadoes.com/homem-e-preso-suspeito-de-usar-rosto-de-idoso-para-acessar-conta-e-desviar-r-6-mil-no-es/","kind":"news_report","access":"unavailable","language":"pt","translation_note":"Not read: folhadoes.com returned HTTP 403 on 2026-10-06 and 2026-10-07 and has no Internet Archive capture. Its headline matches Folha Vitória's and it relays the same police account; cited for existence only.","independence_group":"es-civil-police-statement-2026-09-29"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use","institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The bank and app whose facial recognition was passed, and whether the bank has commented.","When the meeting, the account access and the transfers took place.","Whether the R$6,080 was recovered.","Whether the suspect has been charged or tried.","How the photographs passed the liveness check, if any."],"geography":{"basis":"The police account places the meeting, the arrest and the regional police station in north-west Espírito Santo, Brazil; the victim is described as an elderly man there; the preventive arrest warrant was issued by a Brazilian court.","court_countries":["BR"],"event_countries":["BR"],"affected_person_countries":["BR"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case (made_decision_about) at low severity: the Espírito Santo Civil Police, relayed by Folha Vitória, say a suspect photographed an 81-year-old man's face, passed his banking app's facial recognition on another phone and diverted R$6,080 through password resets, redemptions and Pix transfers. One police account; the victim and suspect are not named; the bank is not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-07"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Civil Police, relayed by Folha Vitória, say the suspect used photographs of the victim's face to get past the banking app's facial recognition and enable access to the account on his own phone. The facial recognition check accepted the photographs as the account holder and granted access on another device; that authentication decision is what allowed the password resets, redemptions and Pix transfers. The bank, the app and the recognition vendor are not identified, and no bank statement is reported.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Police in Espírito Santo say a man photographed an 81-year-old's face, passed his bank app's facial recognition on his own phone and took R$6,080; arrested","summary":"Folha Vitória reported on 29 September 2026, citing the Espírito Santo Civil Police, that a 39-year-old man was arrested on 28 September on a preventive warrant after an inquiry into qualified theft by electronic fraud against an 81-year-old man in the north-west of the state. According to the police, the suspect, who worked as a security guard at a dance venue, invited the man to his home on the pretext of making a free-entry card, kept his bank card, obtained personal data and photographed his face. The police say he used the images to get past the facial recognition of the banking app and enable access to the account on his own phone, then reset security passwords, redeemed investments and made Pix transfers without the victim's knowledge, diverting R$6,080. The victim is described as illiterate. The police say the suspect had prior records and was serving a sentence under a progressive regime. Folha do ES and Tribuna Norte Leste carried the same police account but could not be read.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-29","aiSystem":"The facial-recognition check of the victim's banking app, which the Civil Police say the suspect passed with photographs of the victim's face to enable account access on his own phone (bank and app not named)","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"R$6,080 was diverted from an 81-year-old man's bank account after, according to the Civil Police, the suspect photographed his face and passed the banking app's facial recognition on his own phone, then reset passwords, redeemed investments and made Pix transfers (police account relayed by Folha Vitória).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the 81-year-old account holder whose R$6,080 was diverted (police account via Folha Vitória). The suspect is not counted. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"elderly","jurisdiction":"BR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.folhavitoria.com.br/policia/homem-e-preso-suspeito-de-usar-rosto-de-idoso-para-acessar-conta-e-desviar-r-6-mil-no-esr-r-6-mil-no-es/","primarySourceLabel":"Folha Vitória, 29 September 2026: man arrested on suspicion of using an elderly man's face to access his account and divert R$6,000 in ES","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-07T03:25:58.665809+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-07T03:25:58.665809+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","banking-app","biometric-bypass","pix","elderly-victim","financial-fraud","brazil","espirito-santo","made-decision-about"]},{"id":"2024-toledo-ohio-flock-alpr-misread-plate-gunpoint-stop-police-dog-bite-charges-dropped","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'TPD was alerted to a stolen license plate by a FLOCK camera. It turns out, that information was wrong.'; 'With guns drawn, officers tell the driver multiple times to get out of the truck.'; 'was then arrested and charged with resisting arrest and obstruction.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'begins to kneel, an officer releases the K-9 on him, the footage shows.'; 'a traffic stop involving a K-9 on April 11, 2024.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 11 April 2024 a Toledo police officer, alerted by a Flock camera to a stolen plate, stopped the man's pickup; officers drew their guns and ordered him out, a K-9 handler released a police dog on him, and he was arrested and charged with resisting arrest and obstruction.","causal_attribution":"Police report and released body-camera footage as reported by 13abc and ABC News; both outlets rely on the same department records."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The FLOCK camera captured an image that came back to a Chevy Malibu but is pictured on the back of a late model red Dodge Ram pickup truck.'; 'So it was a misread. But I stopped it.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'was a \"mishit\" or \"misread\" by the license plate reader'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'A camera made by the technology startup Flock Safety misread the \"7\" on'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The camera had misread the plate: the plate on the pickup was not the stolen plate, and the officer can be heard on body-camera audio calling it a misread.","causal_attribution":"Police records and body-camera audio as reported; Business Insider specifies the misread digit from police records."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'will receive a departmental reprimand for failing to visually verify the license plate with the information received from the license plate reader.'; 'determined officers who released a K-9 on a man during a traffic stop acted within TPD policy.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Toledo police chief found the dog deployment within policy and said the officer who made the stop would be reprimanded for failing to visually verify the plate with the information from the license-plate reader.","causal_attribution":"Police chief's statement as quoted by 13abc."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'he was bitten seven times on his forearm and elbow by the K-9 after being pulled over on April 11 and has been unable to work since.'; 'traumatized for real'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The man told ABC News that the dog bit him seven times on his forearm and elbow, that he had been unable to work since, and that he was traumatized.","causal_attribution":"His own account to ABC News."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The bite caused serious injuries to his arm, and he lost feeling in his fingers, he said.'; 'He sold his truck to keep up with his rent'; 'He was eventually evicted'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Business Insider reports that the bite caused serious arm injuries and loss of feeling in his fingers, that he quit his lawn-care business and forklift job, sold his truck and was evicted.","causal_attribution":"His own account to Business Insider."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'prosecutors dropped the all the charges, including the later addition of Failure to Comply.'; 'The information from the camera turned out to be wrong and the license plate was not stolen.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Prosecutors dropped all charges against him, including a later failure-to-comply charge, on 19 August 2024.","causal_attribution":"His attorneys as reported by 13abc."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'it is commonly known throughout the Toledo Police Department that the Flock system is unreliable and often misreads license plates.'; 'He settled the case in October for $35,000.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"He sued the officer and the city, alleging that the Flock system was known in the department to be unreliable, and settled the case for $35,000.","causal_attribution":"Lawsuit allegation and settlement as reported by Business Insider; the complaint and settlement record were not read."}],"effects":[{"label":"held at gunpoint, bitten by a police dog and arrested after a misread license-plate-camera alert flagged his plate as stolen","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"says he was traumatized and unable to work after the bites","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"reported lasting arm injury and loss of his business, truck and home","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.13abc.com/2024/04/15/body-cam-tpd-officers-releasing-k-9-man-during-traffic-stop/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-10-04 (13abc/WTVG, 15 April 2024). Reports the police report and released body-camera footage.","independence_group":"wtvg-13abc-toledo-police-records"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://abcnews.com/US/man-speaks-after-police-release-9-traffic-stop/story?id=109463145","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-10-04 (ABC News, 20 April 2024). Interview with the driver plus its own review of the police body-camera footage.","independence_group":"abc-news-interview"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.13abc.com/2024/05/31/tpd-investigation-finds-no-wrongdoing-use-k-9-man-during-traffic-stop/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-10-04 (13abc/WTVG, 31 May 2024). Quotes the Toledo police chief's statement on the internal review.","independence_group":"wtvg-13abc-toledo-police-records"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.13abc.com/2024/08/19/charges-dropped-against-man-toledo-police-released-k-9-during-traffic-stop-lawyer-says/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-10-04 (13abc/WTVG, 19 August 2024). Reports the dismissal from the man's attorneys.","independence_group":"wtvg-13abc-toledo-police-records"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.businessinsider.com/flock-safety-alpr-cameras-misreads-2026-3","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-10-04 (Business Insider, 9 March 2026); the page is marked subscriber-only but the full article text was present in the served page and its JSON-LD articleBody. Draws on police records, the lawsuit and an interview.","independence_group":"business-insider-records-review"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The lawsuit's court and case number; the complaint and settlement record were not read.","Whether the misread came from plate condition, a plate cover or the camera itself; no source gives a cause.","How long he was held in the county jail beyond Business Insider's statement that it was hours."],"geography":{"basis":"The stop took place in Toledo, Ohio, and the man is described as of Toledo (13abc, ABC News); the charges were brought and dropped by local prosecutors and his lawsuit was settled before a federal judge (13abc; Business Insider).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional-use case consistent with the held Flock misread rows: the police report, body-camera audio and the police chief's statement (13abc) establish that a Flock license-plate-reader alert misread the plate and prompted the stop; the man's own accounts to ABC News and Business Insider describe the injuries and losses. He is not named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-04"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The police report (as reported by 13abc) says officers were alerted to a stolen license plate by a Flock camera and that the information was wrong; on the body-camera audio the officer calls it a misread; the police chief reprimanded the officer for failing to visually verify the plate with the information received from the license-plate reader. Business Insider, citing police records, reports the camera misread a 7 as a 2 and describes the cameras as Flock's AI cameras. The plate match against a stolen-plate record is the automated system's claim about his truck; drawing guns, releasing the dog and the arrest were officers' decisions.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Toledo, Ohio: police stopped a man's pickup at gunpoint in April 2024 after a Flock license-plate camera misread his plate as stolen, released a police dog that bit him, and charged him; prosecutors dropped the charges and he later settled a lawsuit for $35,000","summary":"On 11 April 2024 Toledo police officers stopped a pickup truck after a Flock license-plate camera alerted them to a stolen plate. According to the police report and body-camera footage reported by 13abc and ABC News, the camera had misread the plate, which was not stolen. Officers drew their guns, ordered the driver out and to the ground, and a K-9 handler released a police dog as he began to kneel. The driver told ABC News he was bitten seven times on his forearm and elbow, was traumatized and could not work; he was arrested and charged with obstruction, resisting arrest and, later, failure to comply. Prosecutors dropped all charges in August 2024. The department found the dog deployment within policy and reprimanded the officer who made the stop for failing to visually verify the plate against the reader's information. Business Insider reported in March 2026 that police records show the camera read a 7 on the plate as a 2, that the man lost feeling in his fingers, gave up his lawn-care business and forklift work, sold his truck and was evicted, and that he had sued the officer and the city and settled in October for $35,000.","incidentDate":"2024-04-11","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-04-15","aiSystem":"Flock Safety automated license-plate-reader camera (described by Business Insider as one of Flock's AI cameras) that read the pickup's plate, matched the misread plate to a stolen-plate record and alerted a Toledo police officer","aiProduct":"Flock Safety license plate readers","aiCompany":"Flock Safety","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["physical_injury","loss_of_liberty","psychological_distress","financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The driver was held at gunpoint, bitten repeatedly by a police dog, arrested and jailed for hours and charged; he says he was traumatized and could not work, and Business Insider reports lasting arm injuries, the loss of his business and truck, and eviction (his accounts to ABC News and Business Insider). The charges were dropped.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the driver, held at gunpoint, bitten and arrested (13abc, ABC News, Business Insider). His cousin was a passenger; no source reports harm to the cousin. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OH","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_settled","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.13abc.com/2024/04/15/body-cam-tpd-officers-releasing-k-9-man-during-traffic-stop/","primarySourceLabel":"13abc (WTVG), 15 April 2024: Body cam of TPD officers releasing K-9 on man during traffic stop","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-04T03:31:44.811835+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-04T03:31:44.811835+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["flock","alpr","license-plate-reader","misread","wrongful-stop","gunpoint","police-dog","ohio","toledo","justice","made-claim-about","settlement"]},{"id":"2026-openai-ai-support-assistant-refused-chatgpt-pro-refund-requested-minutes-after-renewal-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'my ChatGPT Pro plan renewed for $200'; 'I forgot to cancel beforehand and did not intend to renew'; '13:32:55'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'approximately six minutes after the charge'; 'Tbilisi, UTC+4'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says their ChatGPT Pro plan renewed for $200 on 3 October 2026 after they forgot to cancel, and that they requested a refund in the Help Center about six minutes after the charge.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The AI declined without giving a reason specific to my account'; 'This case is closed. Create a new case to receive support.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The Help Center assistant gave a generic refusal without identifying which eligibility requirement I failed'; 'When I asked for escalation, the case was closed'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The poster says the Help Center AI assistant declined the refund without a reason specific to their account and, when they asked for escalation, the chat showed the case as closed.","causal_attribution":"Poster attributes the refusal to an AI assistant; whether the decision followed fixed policy rules or human configuration is not known."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I opened another case specifically requesting a human billing specialist. Same generic refusal.'; 'another refusal arrived, explicitly marked as generated with AI support'; 'That also received an AI-generated refusal'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A second chat specifically asking for a human produced the same refusal'; 'also received responses explicitly labeled as AI-generated'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The poster says a second chat asking for a human billing specialist produced the same refusal, and that two email requests received refusals marked as AI-generated.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'seven-day discretionary refund policy is conditional, not an automatic entitlement'; 'I still have no explanation specific to my case and no confirmed human review'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'I also explicitly agreed that refunded subscription access would end'; 'I find this an appalling way to treat a paying customer'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster acknowledges that the refund policy is discretionary and conditional, says they agreed that refunded access would end, and says they still had no case-specific explanation or confirmed human review.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."}],"effects":[{"label":"refund of an unwanted $200 renewal refused by an AI support assistant without a case-specific reason (poster's account)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"requests for a human review closed or answered by further AI-generated refusals (poster's account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1wwjs10/i_requested_a_chatgpt_refund_6_minutes_after_a/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-04: full self-text and the thread's 6 comments (none by the poster), retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID. The attached screenshots were not retrieved. The poster handle is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-chatgpt-pro-refund-poster"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1wwjyfk/chatgpt_pro_renewal_refund_request_within_minutes/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-04: full self-text and the thread's 15 comments (none by the poster), retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID. Same poster as s1, posted about eleven minutes later and linking s1; not independent.","independence_group":"reddit-chatgpt-pro-refund-poster"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Whether the poster was eligible for a refund under OpenAI's discretionary policy, including any usage in the minutes after renewal.","Whether any human reviewed or set the refusals, and whether a later human review or bank chargeback recovered the $200.","Where the poster lives; the timeline is given in Tbilisi time only."],"geography":{"basis":"The poster gives their timeline in Tbilisi time (UTC+4) but does not say where they were or live; no country is recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter's public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of an AI support system refusing a refund and blocking escalation to a human, described with attribution and without corroboration. The poster's handle is not recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-04"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The poster says the Help Center refusals came from an AI assistant and that the email replies were explicitly labelled as generated with AI support; the screenshots they describe were not retrieved. Whether a human reviewed or set the refusal is not known.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","made_decision_about"]},"name":"First-person forum account: a ChatGPT Pro subscriber says OpenAI's AI support assistant refused a refund they requested about six minutes after an unwanted $200 renewal, closed the case when they asked for escalation, and answered further chat and email requests for a human review with more AI-generated refusals","summary":"In public posts to r/ChatGPT and r/OpenAI on 3 October 2026, a person says their ChatGPT Pro subscription renewed for $200 that day after they forgot to cancel, and that they cancelled auto-renewal and requested a refund in OpenAI's Help Center about six minutes after the charge. They say the Help Center's AI assistant declined without giving a reason specific to their account, and that when they asked for escalation the chat showed that the case was closed. A second chat asking specifically for a human billing specialist produced the same refusal, they write, and two email requests, one with five redacted screenshots, received replies marked as generated with AI support. The poster acknowledges that OpenAI's seven-day refund policy is discretionary and conditional, and says the unresolved problem is that they received no case-specific explanation and no confirmed human review. OpenAI's handling is described only by the poster, and the account is uncorroborated.","incidentDate":"2026-10-03","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-03","aiSystem":"OpenAI Help Center AI support assistant (chat) and AI-generated email support replies handling a ChatGPT Pro refund request","aiProduct":"OpenAI Help Center assistant","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The poster says OpenAI's AI support assistant refused a refund of an unwanted $200 ChatGPT Pro renewal that they requested within minutes, closed the case when they asked for escalation, and that further chat and email requests for a human review produced only AI-generated refusals, leaving them without the $200, a case-specific reason or human review (first-person account, uncorroborated).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the poster. A commenter who says they had the same refund problem is not counted. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1wwjs10/i_requested_a_chatgpt_refund_6_minutes_after_a/","primarySourceLabel":"r/ChatGPT, 3 October 2026: \"I requested a ChatGPT refund 6 minutes after a $200 renewal. The AI rejected it and closed the case.\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-04T03:22:06.262385+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-04T03:22:06.262385+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","openai","chatgpt","ai-customer-support","refund","billing","no-human-review","made-decision-about","communicated-with"]},{"id":"2025-us-neh-humanities-grant-mass-termination-chatgpt-dei-screening","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"The Mass Termination is DECLARED unlawful,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"was unlawful because it was undertaken in violation of the First Amendment","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the resulting terminations were ultra vires","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the termination, in early April 2025, of more than 1,400 grants,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing, implementing, or giving any effect to the Mass Termination.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 7 May 2026 the court declared the April 2025 mass termination of NEH grants (more than 1,400 grants, over $100 million) unlawful, unconstitutional and ultra vires, and permanently enjoined its enforcement.","causal_attribution":"The declaration rests on the First Amendment, equal protection and lack of statutory authority. It does not rest on a finding that ChatGPT was inaccurate."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Does the following relate at all to DEI? Respond factually in less than 120 characters. Begin with ‘Yes.’ or ‘No.’ followed by a brief explanation.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"did not provide ChatGPT with a definition of “DEI”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"it enlisted the help of ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"two employees of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) used ChatGPT to determine whether previously approved National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants should be canceled","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"A DOGE staff member used ChatGPT with a standardized prompt asking whether each grant description related at all to DEI, without defining DEI for the model.","causal_attribution":"The opinion recites deposition testimony and the spreadsheet. The prompt text is a quotation of the court record."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"thereby combining DOGE’s AI-generated classifications with NEH staff recommendations.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"did not know ChatGPT had been used","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The ChatGPT outputs were combined with NEH staff ratings into the lists used to select grants for termination, and the NEH acting chair testified to not knowing ChatGPT had been used.","causal_attribution":"The court ties the ChatGPT-generated rationales to the lists presented to the NEH chair. The acting chair's account is deposition testimony as recited by the court."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"were terminated on that basis and that basis alone.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Of the 1,163 grant proposals DOGE analyzed via ChatGPT for DEI-related content, 1,057 were flagged, and just 42 were kept","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The opinion states that 1,057 grants were identified as DEI-related through the DOGE review process and terminated on that basis alone.","causal_attribution":"The opinion attributes the identification to a process that combined keyword searches and ChatGPT rationales. The opinion says ChatGPT rationales were generated in a second-stage review of grants NEH staff had labelled \"N/A\" and were merged with NEH ratings. It does not apportion the 1,057 between NEH ratings and ChatGPT. Fortune attributes all 1,057 flags to ChatGPT from a spreadsheet exhibit."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Yes. This description highlights how the plastics industry influenced municipal government officials to favor plastics","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Nevertheless, ChatGPT classified the project as “DEI,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The utter lack of reasoning behind so many of its “rationales”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court describes ChatGPT classifying projects as DEI on the basis of short descriptions, including a project on the plastics industry and municipal building codes, with rationales the court found lacking.","causal_attribution":"The court characterises the outputs. Whether each terminated grant was flagged by ChatGPT is not stated for the individual plaintiffs."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The individual plaintiffs are scholars and writers who received NEH grants for specific research and writing projects and whose awards were terminated before the completion of their funded work.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"allege concrete professional, financial, and scholarly harms","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"That funding was terminated effective April 2, 2025, resulting in the loss of the fellowship itself.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"individual grantees whose awards were terminated suffered a concrete economic injury sufficient to confer Article III standing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Seven individual grantees whose NEH awards were terminated before completion allege professional, financial and scholarly harm, including lost funding, and in one case loss of a fellowship that depended on NEH funding.","causal_attribution":"The harms are the plaintiffs' allegations as summarised by the court, and the standing holding is recited from the court's earlier preliminary injunction opinion. The link between ChatGPT and the termination of these seven specific awards is not stated in the inspected passages."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"DOGE officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select, or direct the termination of NEH grants","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court declared that DOGE officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select or direct the termination of NEH grants.","causal_attribution":"A legal declaration in the judgment."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Yes. Improving HVAC systems enhances preservation conditions for collections, aligning with the goal of providing greater access to diverse audiences. #DEI,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"We were able to recoup about 70% of the original award through the grant termination clause,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A North Carolina history museum's $349,000 HVAC grant was flagged by ChatGPT as DEI and terminated after the project had begun, and the museum director says it recouped about 70% of the award through the termination clause.","causal_attribution":"Organisation-level example from one outlet and one interview. It is not counted as harm to a person."}],"effects":[{"label":"Individual grantees lost or had interrupted NEH funding when their awards were terminated in a mass termination that relied on a ChatGPT DEI screen","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/NEH.sj_.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"sdny-opinion-2026-05"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/research/2026/03/11/how-doge-gutted-neh-22-days","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://fortune.com/2026/03/19/doge-cancelled-350000-hvac-grant-dei-lawsuit-elon-musk/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.artforum.com/news/doge-allegedly-used-chatgpt-to-cancel-humanities-grants-1234745040/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","education","public_services"],"unknowns":["Whether ChatGPT reviewed or flagged the specific grants of the seven individual plaintiffs is not stated in the passages inspected.","The dates on which ChatGPT was used are not stated beyond the second stage of review beginning on 12 March 2025 and terminations sent 1 to 3 April 2025. The incident dates are the bounded series between those points.","The number of individual people (as opposed to organizations) whose awards were terminated is not stated.","The opinion separates grants marked \"DEI\" from grants terminated without a DEI mark (its Biden-Era Subclass). It does not say which group any of the seven individual plaintiffs' grants belonged to.","Whether funding has been restored is unknown. The judgment states it does not require immediate payment.","Appeal status of the May 2026 judgment is unknown.","The New York Times article listed in the AIID entry returned HTTP 403 and was not read. The opinion is 143 pages and was read through its factual sections, the standing recital and the judgment, not every legal section."],"geography":{"basis":"The opinion describes terminations by the US federal agency NEH and by DOGE staff of grants to scholars, writers and institutions, and describes the individual plaintiffs as holding positions at US universities. The court is a US federal district court (S.D.N.Y.).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"A federal court opinion (7 May 2026), Inside Higher Ed and Fortune were read. Claims about the court record are documented by the opinion. Individual grantee harms are the plaintiffs' allegations as summarised by the court. Individual plaintiffs and DOGE staff are not named in public fields.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The federal court opinion finds that a DOGE staff member submitted grant descriptions to ChatGPT with a DEI yes/no prompt and that the outputs were folded into the lists used to select grants for termination. The opinion does not state whether each of the seven individual plaintiffs' grants was reviewed or flagged by ChatGPT.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: National Endowment for the Humanities grants terminated after DOGE staff used ChatGPT to flag projects as DEI-related","summary":"In March and early April 2025 (the opinion gives no date for the ChatGPT step), a DOGE staff member working with the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) submitted short grant descriptions to ChatGPT with a prompt asking whether each project related at all to DEI, and the answers were combined with NEH staff ratings into lists of grants to terminate. More than 1,400 NEH grants (over $100 million) were terminated in notices sent 1 to 3 April 2025. A federal district court found the mass termination unlawful in May 2026 and described the ChatGPT step in its findings. Seven individual grantees who sued report lost or interrupted funding for their research and writing projects. The opinion does not state whether ChatGPT reviewed those seven grants.","incidentDate":"2025-03-12","incidentEndDate":"2025-04-03","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-08","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used through a standardized DEI yes/no prompt","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court opinion describes seven individual grantee plaintiffs whose NEH awards were terminated before completion, and reports their allegations of lost funding, interrupted research and leave from employment taken in reliance on the awards. Individual counts beyond these seven are not established in the inspected sources.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"unclear","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":7,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"The court opinion names seven individual grantee plaintiffs whose awards were terminated. It states the terminations reached more than 1,400 grants awarded to scholars, writers, research institutions and other humanities organizations, and does not give a count of individual people. The opinion does not state whether these seven grants were flagged by ChatGPT. Organizations, members of plaintiff associations and the wider class are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/NEH.sj_.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"S.D.N.Y. opinion and order granting summary judgment, 7 May 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:29.039734+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.404135+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2026-serra-es-personal-trainer-facial-biometrics-fraudulent-vehicle-financing","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Segundo a Polícia Civil, o personal foi convencido a fazer um reconhecimento facial para supostamente transferir a titularidade do automóvel. A vítima só descobriu que o carro não pertencia ao suspeito semanas após a negociação.'; 'Com o valor da motocicleta e o financiamento, o prejuízo total causado passou de R$ 100 mil.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'teria dito à vítima que seria necessário realizar um procedimento de reconhecimento facial para transferir a titularidade do automóvel. A biometria teria sido utilizada posteriormente para a contratação fraudulenta de um financiamento de veículo em nome da vítima.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'A biometria, porém, teria sido usada posteriormente para contratar um financiamento de veículo em nome do personal trainer, sem autorização dele.'; 'Somando o valor da motocicleta e do financiamento feito de forma fraudulenta, o prejuízo ultrapassou R$ 100 mil, segundo a investigação.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"According to the Espírito Santo Civil Police, the suspect offered a car in exchange for the personal trainer's motorcycle, persuaded him during the negotiation to complete a facial-recognition procedure on the pretext that it was needed to transfer the car's ownership, and later used the biometric to contract a vehicle financing in the victim's name without authorisation; weeks later the victim found the car was a rental; the combined loss exceeded R$100,000.","causal_attribution":"Police account (one chain, delegado Fabiano Alves) as reported by four outlets; the victim's own account is relayed only through the police."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Um homem foi preso por aplicar um golpe de mais de R$ 100 mil em um personal trainer na Serra, na Grande Vitória, na terça-feira (22).'; 'O preso foi encaminhado ao Centro de Triagem no Complexo Penitenciário Rodrigo Figueiredo da Rosa. Ele permanece à disposição da Justiça.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'ocorreu na última terça-feira (22) no cumprimento a um mandado judicial.'; 'Em julho do ano passado, ele foi preso pela Defa em São Paulo'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'foi preso na terça-feira (22). As informações, divulgadas pela Polícia Civil, foram publicadas pelo portal A Gazeta.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A 27-year-old suspect was taken into preventive detention in Serra on 22 September 2026 under a judicial warrant in a Defa estelionato investigation, taken to the Centro de Triagem of the Rodrigo Figueiredo da Rosa complex, and remains at the disposal of the courts; police say he had been detained in São Paulo in July 2025 in a 'love scam' case.","causal_attribution":"Police statement as reported; A Tribuna gives the arrest as 'terça-feira (24)', an evident dating error against the other reports."}],"effects":[{"label":"a vehicle financing was contracted in the victim's name after his facial biometric was captured on a false pretext, adding to the loss of his motorcycle; combined loss above R$100,000","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://g1.globo.com/es/espirito-santo/noticia/2026/09/24/golpista-troca-carro-alugado-por-moto-e-deixa-personal-trainer-com-divida-de-r-100-mil-na-serra.ghtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt-BR","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (G1 Espírito Santo, 24 September 2026; Portuguese). Police account with the delegado's quotes. Reviewer translation; no human translator.","independence_group":"pces-defa-statement"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://extra.globo.com/blogs/radar-brasil/post/2026/09/suspeito-de-estelionato-e-preso-em-golpe-com-fraude-de-reconhecimento-facial-para-financiamento-de-carro-em-es.ghtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt-BR","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (Extra, Radar Brasil blog, 25 September 2026; Portuguese). Same police statement; notes the victim's identity was not disclosed. Reviewer translation.","independence_group":"pces-defa-statement"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.correio24horas.com.br/brasil/personal-trainer-troca-moto-por-carro-alugado-e-golpista-usa-biometria-facial-da-vitima-para-financiar-r-100-mil-0926","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt-BR","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (Correio, Salvador, 25 September 2026; Portuguese). Relays the police information as published by A Gazeta (A Gazeta itself returned 403). Reviewer translation.","independence_group":"pces-defa-statement"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://eshoje.com.br/seguranca/policia/2026/09/personal-trainer-r-100-mil/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt-BR","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (ES Hoje, 24 September 2026; Portuguese). Same police statement. Reviewer translation.","independence_group":"pces-defa-statement"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use","others_use"],"contexts":["finance","privacy"],"unknowns":["When the exchange and the financing took place ('weeks' before the arrest; no dates given).","Which financing provider and which facial-recognition or identity-verification system was involved, and how a biometric captured for one purpose came to authorise a loan (the bodies say only that it was used).","Whether the financing has been cancelled or the victim remains liable; the exact loss.","The suspect's account and any charges filed.","The victim's age and residence beyond Serra."],"geography":{"basis":"The negotiation, the victim and the arrest are placed in Serra, Espírito Santo (G1 'na Serra, na Grande Vitória'; Extra 'no município de Serra, no Espírito Santo'); the arrest was under a judicial warrant and the suspect is at the disposal of the courts in Espírito Santo.","court_countries":["BR"],"event_countries":["BR"],"affected_person_countries":["BR"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case: the state Civil Police say a facial-recognition biometric captured from the victim on a false pretext was used to contract a vehicle financing in his name, a consequential identity decision about a person; four outlets carry the one police chain. How the biometric was used is not reported and is recorded as unknown. The victim is unnamed and the suspect is not named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-26"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Civil Police say the victim's facial-recognition biometric, captured during the negotiation on the pretext of a title transfer, was later used to contract the financing in his name (delegado Fabiano Alves via G1, Extra, Correio, ES Hoje). The bodies do not say how the biometric was used, for example whether a financing provider's automated face-verification check accepted it; the made_decision_about relation rests on that reading of a biometric identity check and is recorded with this caveat.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Serra, Espírito Santo: a personal trainer who swapped his motorcycle for what turned out to be a rented car was told to complete a facial-recognition check 'to transfer the car's title'; police say the biometric was then used to contract a vehicle financing in his name, leaving a loss above R$100,000 (suspect arrested 22 September 2026)","summary":"The Espírito Santo Civil Police (Defa, the fraud and forgery unit) said a 27-year-old man was arrested on a warrant in Serra on 22 September 2026, suspected of defrauding a personal trainer of more than R$100,000. According to the police, the suspect offered a car in exchange for the victim's motorcycle; during the negotiation he persuaded the victim to perform a facial-recognition procedure, saying it was needed to transfer the car's ownership; the biometric was later used to contract a vehicle financing in the victim's name without his authorisation, and weeks after the exchange the victim discovered that the car he had received did not belong to the suspect and was a rental. The loss, combining the motorcycle and the fraudulently contracted financing, exceeded R$100,000. The suspect, who police say had been arrested in São Paulo in July 2025 in a 'love scam' case, was taken to the Centro de Triagem at the Rodrigo Figueiredo da Rosa prison complex and remains at the disposal of the courts. The financing provider and the facial-recognition system are not identified, and the reports do not say how the captured biometric was used to pass the financing.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-24","aiSystem":"Facial-recognition (biometric) capture that the police say was later used to contract a vehicle financing in the victim's name; the financing provider, the verification system and the way the biometric was used are not reported","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The victim lost his motorcycle to a rental-car swap and, according to the police, was left with a vehicle financing contracted in his name through his own facial biometric, for a combined loss above R$100,000 (PCES statement via G1, Extra, Correio and ES Hoje).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One victim, the personal trainer (police statement via G1, Extra, Correio, ES Hoje). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"BR-ES","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://g1.globo.com/es/espirito-santo/noticia/2026/09/24/golpista-troca-carro-alugado-por-moto-e-deixa-personal-trainer-com-divida-de-r-100-mil-na-serra.ghtml","primarySourceLabel":"G1 Espírito Santo, 24 September 2026: golpista troca carro alugado por moto e deixa personal trainer com dívida de R$ 100 mil na Serra","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-26T04:07:12.519263+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:53.010934+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","biometrics","identity-fraud","financing","scam","brazil","espirito-santo","made-decision-about"]},{"id":"2026-evans-santos-v-draftkings-ai-personalization-gambling-addiction","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"EVANS VS DRAFTKINGS INC. ETAL\"; \"Filing Date: Friday , July 24th, 2026\"; \"Case ID: 260702927\"; \"Case 2:26-cv-07168 Document 1-3 Filed 09/16/26\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"docketNumber \"2:26-cv-07168\", court \"paed\", dateFiled \"2026-09-16\", \"NOTICE OF REMOVAL by CROWN PA GAMING, INC., DRAFTKINGS INC.\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Christopher Evans filed a product-liability complaint against DraftKings Inc. and Crown PA Gaming in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on 24 July 2026 (Case ID 260702927); the defendants removed it to the E.D. Pa. on 16 September 2026 as 2:26-cv-07168.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court record (state docket report and federal removal filing)."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHESTER COUNTY\"; \"29 Jul 2026 03:54 PM\"; \"MICHAEL SANTOS,\"; \"2026-07200-TT\"; \"Case 2:26-cv-07176 Document 1-3 Filed 09/16/26\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"docketNumber \"2:26-cv-07176\", court \"paed\", dateFiled \"2026-09-16\", \"NOTICE OF REMOVAL by FANDUEL INC., FLUTTER ENTERTAINMENT, PLC, BETFAIR INTERACTIVE US LLC, FANDUEL GROUP PARENT LLC, FANDUEL PA LLC\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Michael Santos filed a complaint against DraftKings, Crown PA Gaming, FanDuel Inc. and FanDuel's affiliates in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas on 29 July 2026 (2026-07200-TT); the FanDuel defendants removed it to the E.D. Pa. on 16 September 2026 as 2:26-cv-07176.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court record."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"He began using the DraftKings applications in or around August 2017\"; \"Plaintiff has wagered over $2,100,000.00 with net losses of approximately $81,000.00\"; \"constantly received targeted promotions, personalized push notifications, and incentives like prop bets and free credits intended to repetitively lure him back into the gambling applications\"; \"also had a VIP account manager, who would send him promotional offers, bonuses, and perks\"; \"He soon began suffering from depression and anxiety and stopped going outside altogether in favor of gambling all day\"; \"creating financial strain that has placed him into debt and resulted in the repossession of his vehicle\"; \"resulted in his wife separating from him\"; \"was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Evans pleads that since about August 2017 he wagered over US$2,100,000 on DraftKings' apps with net losses of about US$81,000, constantly received targeted promotions and personalised push notifications and had a VIP account manager, developed depression and anxiety and was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020, stopped going outside, fell into debt, had his vehicle repossessed and separated from his wife.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegations in a pending complaint; untested."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"has wagered over $1,164,000.00 with net losses of approximately $58,000.00\"; \"has wagered nearly $7,000 on FanDuel with losses of nearly $1,500\"; \"constantly received targeted advertisements, personalized push notifications, and incentive-based emails from DraftKings intended to repetitively lure him back into the gambling app\"; \"despite Plaintiff expressly stating he did not want to continue gambling\"; \"max out multiple credit cards and accrue debt so significant that it forced him to sell his house\"; \"has received formal diagnoses of depression and anxiety\"; \"drove Plaintiff MICHAEL SANTOS to suicidal ideation\"; \"voluntarily placed himself on a self-exclusion list with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Santos pleads that he wagered over US$1,164,000 on DraftKings with net losses of about US$58,000 and nearly US$7,000 on FanDuel with losses of nearly US$1,500, received targeted advertisements, personalised push notifications and incentive emails, had a VIP manager who kept offering bonus bets after he said he wanted to stop, maxed out multiple credit cards and was forced to sell his house, received diagnoses of depression and anxiety, experienced suicidal ideation, and self-excluded with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegations in a pending complaint; untested."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"Defendants utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users and continuously lure them back to their sports gambling apps\"; \"data science and machine learning to help optimize conversion\"; \"recommendation engines\"; \"Defendants operate sophisticated AI-powered engagement platforms that, on information and belief, employ the precise personalization mechanisms the study identifies as risk-generating\"; \"Limit or eliminating artificial intelligence to track individual\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"\"Defendants utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users\"; \"Limiting or eliminating artificial intelligence to track individual\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Both complaints allege that the defendants combine artificial intelligence with tracking of personalised user data to addict users and lure them back, that DraftKings' 10-K discloses machine-learning recommendation engines, and, on information and belief, that the defendants operate AI-powered engagement platforms; both ask the court to limit or eliminate the use of artificial intelligence to track individual users.","causal_attribution":"The contents of the pleadings are established by the record; the truth of the AI allegations is not."}],"effects":[{"label":"two plaintiffs plead gambling addiction, six-figure wagering with net losses of about US$81,000 and US$58,000, debt, family breakdown, depression and suicidal ideation, attributed to AI-driven personalization","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662095/gov.uscourts.paed.662095.1.3.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-17 and 2026-09-19: Exhibit A to the notice of removal in Evans v. DraftKings Inc., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07168 (47 pages: the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas docket report and the complaint of 24 July 2026), from the CourtListener RECAP archive.","independence_group":"evans-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662118/gov.uscourts.paed.662118.1.3.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-19: Exhibit A to the notice of removal in Santos v. DraftKings Inc., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07176 (53 pages: the complaint filed and attested in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas on 29 July 2026), from the CourtListener RECAP archive.","independence_group":"santos-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74801358/evans-v-draftkings-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket metadata read on 2026-09-19 through the CourtListener v4 search API (saved as cl-evans.json): case name, docket number 2:26-cv-07168, court E.D. Pa., filed 2026-09-16, cause 28:1332 diversity product liability, removal notice by Crown PA Gaming and DraftKings.","independence_group":"courtlistener-evans-docket"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74803784/santos-v-draftkings-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket metadata read on 2026-09-19 through the CourtListener v4 search API (saved as cl-santos3.json): docket number 2:26-cv-07176, court E.D. Pa., filed 2026-09-16, removal notice by FanDuel Inc., Flutter Entertainment, Betfair Interactive US, FanDuel Group Parent and FanDuel PA.","independence_group":"courtlistener-santos-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","health","relationships","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether AI or machine-learning systems, rather than human account managers and conventional marketing, generated the promotions and notifications the plaintiffs describe; the 'AI-powered engagement platforms' allegation is pleaded on information and belief.","The defendants' responses; no answer, motion or ruling is recorded as of 2026-09-19.","When Santos began gambling on the apps and his current financial position.","Whether the plaintiffs also gambled on other operators' products."],"geography":{"basis":"Both plaintiffs are Pennsylvania residents (Philadelphia; Coatesville, Chester County) per the complaints; suits filed in Pennsylvania state courts and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case: two pending complaints, read in full from the court record, allege that an operator's AI-driven personalization and engagement systems fostered gambling addiction with quantified losses, debt, family breakdown, psychiatric diagnoses and suicidal ideation. Filing facts are documented; the harms and the AI involvement are the plaintiffs' allegations and are recorded as such. Plaintiffs are identified only by the public case captions.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaints allege that the defendants' AI and machine-learning personalization systems tracked the plaintiffs' play and targeted them with promotions and notifications, and quote DraftKings' 10-K on machine-learning recommendation engines; the 'AI-powered engagement platforms' allegation is pleaded on information and belief. Nothing in the record yet establishes that AI systems made the targeting decisions about these two users, so the relation (a system making decisions about the person) is recorded as alleged.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Pennsylvania: two men sued DraftKings (one also FanDuel) alleging that AI-driven personalization, targeted promotions and VIP handling fostered gambling addiction; they plead net losses of about US$81,000 and US$58,000, debt, family breakdown, depression and, in one case, suicidal ideation","summary":"Christopher Evans (Philadelphia; complaint filed 24 July 2026 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas) and Michael Santos (Coatesville, Chester County; complaint filed 29 July 2026 in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas) sued DraftKings and its Pennsylvania affiliate; Santos also sued FanDuel and its parents. Both product-liability complaints, filed by the same law firm, allege that the defendants' sports-betting, daily-fantasy and casino apps are designed to addict, and that the companies 'utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users', operating 'AI-powered engagement platforms' (pleaded on information and belief) and, per DraftKings' 10-K as quoted, 'data science and machine learning' recommendation engines. Evans pleads that since about August 2017 he wagered over US$2.1 million with net losses of about US$81,000, received constant targeted promotions and personalised push notifications and a VIP account manager, developed depression and anxiety and was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020, stopped going outside, fell into debt, had his vehicle repossessed and separated from his wife. Santos pleads over US$1.164 million wagered on DraftKings with net losses of about US$58,000 plus small FanDuel losses, targeted advertising and a VIP manager who kept offering bonus bets after he said he wanted to stop, maxed-out credit cards, the forced sale of his house, diagnoses of depression and anxiety, suicidal ideation, and self-exclusion with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023. Both cases were removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 16 September 2026 (2:26-cv-07168 and 2:26-cv-07176). The allegations are untested.","incidentDate":"2017-08-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-07-24","aiSystem":"DraftKings' and FanDuel's sportsbook, daily-fantasy and online-casino apps and their alleged AI and machine-learning personalization, recommendation and engagement systems (as pleaded; the complaints quote DraftKings' 10-K on 'data science and machine learning' and 'recommendation engines')","aiProduct":"DraftKings and FanDuel apps","aiCompany":"DraftKings Inc. (and Crown PA Gaming); FanDuel Inc. and affiliates (Flutter Entertainment) in the Santos suit","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","psychiatric_deterioration","relationship_disruption","property_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"As pleaded: gambling addiction with net losses of about US$81,000 (Evans) and about US$58,000 plus small FanDuel losses (Santos), debt, a repossessed vehicle and marital separation (Evans), maxed-out credit cards, a forced house sale, diagnosed depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation (Santos), attributed by the plaintiffs to the defendants' AI-driven personalization and engagement design.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":2,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two named plaintiffs, each pleading his own gambling addiction and losses as a user of the apps. Exact count of two; family members mentioned in the complaints are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662095/gov.uscourts.paed.662095.1.3.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Evans v. DraftKings Inc. et al., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07168, Notice of Removal Exhibit A (Philadelphia CCP complaint filed 24 July 2026), via CourtListener RECAP","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-20T03:19:52.470392+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:36.906135+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["gambling","sports-betting","algorithmic-personalization","engagement-design","product-liability","lawsuit","united-states","pennsylvania","draftkings","fanduel","institutional-use"]},{"id":"2026-boca-raton-lyft-ai-damage-claim","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It was a $75 damage fee from Lyft.'; 'said they didn’t leave a mess in the Lyft, contrary to what a Lyft customer service representative told'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'the $75 charge came after his daughters were accused of leaving a mess inside the vehicle'; 'a fraud alert from my phone from Chase saying that I have an unrecognized charge from Lyft'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'took a Lyft home from the beach on Saturday, May 16'; 'he had been charged a $75 damage fee, in addition to the rideshare cost, for an alleged mess the driver claimed the teens had left behind in the car'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On Saturday 16 May 2026, after his teenage daughters' Lyft ride home from the beach in Boca Raton, Florida, a father received a bank fraud alert for a $75 Lyft damage fee charged on top of the fare; Lyft customer service told him the driver had reported that the riders left a mess in the car.","causal_attribution":"The father's account in three separate interviews (one origin); the ride date is stated by ABC. The accounts differ on who rode: WPBF says his two daughters, WPTV his daughters and a friend, ABC one daughter and a friend. Lyft's own records of the charge were not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'She goes, ‘Dad, that's AI, you could see the Gemini logo on the bottom right-hand side of one of the photos,’'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'depicts the interior of a car with what appears to be a beverage and french fries spilled across the backseat and carpet'; 'spotted an AI logo in the bottom righthand corner of the photo, which she said tipped her off that the image was allegedly AI-generated'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'And she points to it, and it's the AI hologram on the photo, and I'm like, oh my God, you're right.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The photo that Lyft customer service sent the father as the driver's proof depicted a car interior with what appeared to be a spilled drink and french fries, and one daughter pointed out a Gemini logo in its bottom right-hand corner, which the family took as showing the image was AI-generated.","causal_attribution":"The family's identification of the logo, reported by the father and the daughter; ABC's description of the photo as supplied by the father. No independent examination of the image or of the driver's account was reported; the attribution to Gemini rests on the family's reading of the watermark."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'we verify everything with the drivers, and the driver, you know, sent us pictures. And I said, well, I asked them to send me the pictures'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'which initially sided with the driver. He then asked for the evidence'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Lyft customer service told the father that it verifies damage reports with drivers and that the driver had sent pictures; WPTV reports that Lyft initially sided with the driver until he asked for the evidence.","causal_attribution":"The father's account of his chat with Lyft customer service (one origin); Lyft's statements describe its review process only in general terms."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the Lyft rep agreed that the images were created using AI, apologized, and blocked the driver from their app'; 'declined the charge'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'he says Lyft agreed and apologized. The company reimbursed the family and permanently removed the driver from the platform.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'which ultimately agreed with the pair's assessment that the photo was fake and apologized'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The father says that after he pointed out the logo, the Lyft representative agreed the images were AI-made, apologised and blocked the driver; WPBF reports that he declined the charge, and WPTV reports that the company reimbursed the family.","causal_attribution":"The father's account of Lyft's reaction (one origin). Lyft's agreement that the image was AI-generated is reported by the father; the company's statements do not say so. Whether the charge was reversed or repaid is reported differently (declined per WPBF; reimbursed per WPTV; reimbursement offered per Lyft)."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'We have reviewed the rider’s concerns, offered reimbursement, unpaired the rider and driver, and addressed the matter directly with the driver.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'We have reviewed the rider's concerns, offered reimbursement, and permanently removed the driver from the platform.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'In a statement to ABC News on Tuesday, a Lyft spokesperson said'; 'offered reimbursement, and permanently removed the driver from the platform.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A Lyft spokesperson told WPBF that the company had reviewed the rider's concerns, offered reimbursement, unpaired the rider and driver and addressed the matter with the driver; in later statements to WPTV and ABC News the spokesperson said the driver had been permanently removed from the platform.","causal_attribution":"Company statements quoted by the three outlets (one origin: the Lyft spokesperson). The statements confirm an offered reimbursement and action against the driver; they do not say the photo was AI-generated."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'posted his story on a Boca community Facebook page, getting several responses from other people who have had similar experiences'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'he said several people shared that they had encountered similar experiences'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'just take a picture of the car when you get out of the car'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The father posted about the episode on a community Facebook page and says several people responded that they had encountered similar experiences; he now asks his daughters to photograph the car when they leave a ride.","causal_attribution":"The father's account; the responses are not quantified or verified."}],"effects":[{"label":"a father was charged a disputed $75 damage fee and his teenage daughters were accused of leaving a mess; Lyft initially upheld the charge on a driver's photo the family says was AI-generated","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.wpbf.com/article/lyft-driver-ai-falsely-accuse-damaging-car/71341981","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-08 and again on 2026-10-14 from the Internet Archive capture 20260915020212 (the live page returned HTTP 451 on both dates; the capture, not the publisher's site, was read); updated 18 May 2026. WPBF's own interview with the father plus a Lyft spokesperson statement given to WPBF. The family-account claims in this report share one origin (the father's interviews) with the WPTV and ABC reports, so they are not treated as independent corroboration.","independence_group":"wpbf"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.wptv.com/news/local-news/our-community/boca-raton-delray-beach/boca-raton-father-catches-lyft-driver-using-ai-to-fake-car-damage-driver-removed","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-08 and again on 2026-10-14 (live, HTTP 200; datePublished 21 May 2026). WPTV's own interview with the father plus a Lyft spokesperson statement given to WPTV; the page notes that portions of the story were assisted by AI tools and reviewed by a WPTV journalist. Family-account claims share one origin (the father) with the other two reports.","independence_group":"wptv"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://abcnews.com/GMA/News/father-daughter-speak-after-lyft-driver-accused-ai/story?id=133144373","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-08 and again on 2026-10-14 (live, HTTP 200; dated 20 May 2026). ABC News / Good Morning America interview with the father and one daughter plus a Lyft spokesperson statement given to ABC News. Family-account claims share one origin (the family's interviews) with the other two reports; the daughter's own remarks concern her recognition of the logo and her reaction.","independence_group":"abc"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","finance"],"unknowns":["Whether the image was in fact AI-generated has not been examined by anyone other than the family; Lyft's statements do not address it and the driver's account is not reported.","Whether the $75 charge was reversed or repaid: the father says he declined it, WPTV reports the family was reimbursed, and Lyft says it offered reimbursement.","Who rode: the accounts differ between two daughters (WPBF), the daughters and a friend (WPTV) and one daughter and a friend (ABC).","The driver is not named and no police report or legal action is reported.","How many other riders encountered similar claims is not quantified beyond the father's description of responses to his post.","When the driver sent the photo to Lyft: the reports say customer service told the father the driver had sent pictures and that Lyft initially sided with the driver, but not whether the photo accompanied the original damage report or was supplied only after the father disputed the charge."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: a Lyft ride home from Red Reef Park in Boca Raton, Florida (WPTV; WPBF dateline Boca Raton). Affected people: ABC describes the father as 'of Florida' and WPBF and WPTV as a Boca Raton man. No court.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Relation-backfill full review (2026-10-14) under the 2026-10-06 informed_decision_about clarification: a father's attributed account, given in three separate interviews, that a Lyft damage-fee charge was upheld on a driver-supplied photo his daughter identified as AI-generated by its Gemini logo, with Lyft's statements confirming an offered reimbursement and the driver's removal. The AI output informed Lyft's handling of the charge about the father; when the driver supplied it is unknown. All claims are reported because the family account is one origin and the company statements do not confirm the AI generation. Low severity; no death; the father's name and the minors' names and ages are kept out of the public text.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The output: the photo Lyft sent the father as the driver's proof of a mess, which ABC describes as showing a spilled drink and french fries on a car's back seat and which the family says carried a Gemini logo in the corner (c2). The human use: Lyft customer service told the father that it verifies damage reports with drivers and that the driver had sent pictures, and WPTV reports that Lyft initially sided with the driver (c3). The consequence: a $75 damage fee charged to the father's card (c1), which Lyft upheld on the driver's pictures until the family pointed out the logo. No report says whether the driver supplied the photo with the original damage report or only after the father disputed the charge, so the output is recorded as informing the company's handling of the charge, with the timing unknown. The AI generation rests on the family's reading of the watermark as relayed in their interviews; the father says Lyft agreed, but Lyft's own statements only confirm an offered reimbursement and action against the driver, so the involvement is recorded as reported. The AI did not communicate with the family; its output informed the company's charge decision about the father (informed_decision_about).","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Boca Raton father says a Lyft driver's damage-fee photo was AI-generated; Lyft says it offered reimbursement and removed the driver","summary":"A Boca Raton, Florida father told WPBF, WPTV and ABC News that after his teenage daughters took a Lyft home from the beach (on Saturday 16 May 2026, according to ABC News), he was charged a $75 damage fee because the driver reported that the riders had left a mess. Lyft customer service told him the driver had sent pictures. One daughter pointed out a Gemini logo in the corner of the photo, which the family took as showing it was AI-generated. The father says Lyft then agreed, apologised and blocked the driver. Lyft's statements say it reviewed the rider's concerns, offered reimbursement and, per its later statements, permanently removed the driver; they do not say the photo was AI-generated.","incidentDate":"2026-05-16","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-05-18","aiSystem":"AI image generation; the family says the driver's damage photo carried a Google Gemini logo","aiProduct":"Gemini (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A father was charged a $75 Lyft damage fee, which he disputed, and his teenage daughters were accused of leaving a mess in the car; Lyft initially upheld the charge on a driver-supplied photo the family says was AI-generated; Lyft says it offered reimbursement and removed the driver, and whether the charge was repaid or reversed is reported differently.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Three people at minimum: the father, who was charged the disputed $75 fee, and at least two teenage riders accused of leaving a mess (two daughters per WPBF; daughters and a friend per WPTV; one daughter and a friend per ABC). None used the AI tool, so all are counted under other people harmed. People who answered the father's Facebook post are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.wpbf.com/article/lyft-driver-ai-falsely-accuse-damaging-car/71341981","primarySourceLabel":"WPBF 25 News, 18 May 2026: Lyft driver uses AI to falsely accuse Boca Raton man's daughters of damaging car","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-17T03:27:40.160475+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:00:25.536894+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-generated-image","damage-fee-dispute","rideshare","lyft","gemini","united-states","florida","consumer","everyday-life"]},{"id":"2026-newby-adelphi-ai-detector-vacated","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'In November 2024, Newby submitted a paper on Christianity and Islam'; 'Oelze gave the paper a grade of zero, according to court filings, in part because he thought it was AI-generated'; 'According to the lawsuit, Adelphi relied in part on AI detection software'; 'Turnitin's AI detector marked the essay as fully AI-written, but Newby ran it through two other detectors that said it was written by a human, court records show'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Adelphi University says an AI detection software flagged 19-year-old Orion Newby's work and claims the paper was \"too advanced\" for the first-year student'; 'That paper earned him a zero'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In November 2024 Newby submitted a paper on Christianity and Islam for the fall 2024 World Civilizations 1 class; the professor graded it zero in part because he thought it was AI-generated, and Adelphi, per the lawsuit, relied in part on AI-detection software — court records show Turnitin's detector marked the essay as fully AI-written while two other detectors scored it human.","causal_attribution":"The detector results and the lawsuit's contents are attributed to court filings as carried by Newsday; the professor's suspicion is attributed to court filings and ABC7."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'University officials ordered Newby to attend a plagiarism workshop — which, while considered a \"nondisciplinary\" punishment, could have resulted in suspension or expulsion if he was found to have committed a second offense'; 'The university's denial of Newby's appeal left the family \"no choice\" but to sue'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Adelphi told him he had to take an anti-plagiarism course, and until he did, he couldn't enroll in other classes. That's when his family sued.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Newby was ordered to attend a plagiarism workshop — a 'nondisciplinary' punishment that could have led to suspension or expulsion on a second offense — was told he could not enroll in other classes until he complied, and his appeal was denied; the family sued in October 2025.","causal_attribution":"Both chains independently carry the workshop order and the enrollment block (Newsday from the ruling stage, ABC7 from the filing stage)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'state Supreme Court Judge Randy Sue Marber in Nassau County wrote on Jan. 28. The school must expunge his record, the judge ruled'; 'were \"without valid basis and devoid of reason\"'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Inside Higher Ed's relay describes a 'federal judge' — erroneous; Judge Marber's state Supreme Court decision controls.","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 28 January 2026, New York State Supreme Court Judge Randy Sue Marber in Nassau County ruled that Adelphi's finding and its denial of his appeal were 'without valid basis and devoid of reason' and ordered the school to expunge his record.","causal_attribution":"The ruling is documented by Newsday's report quoting the decision; the IHE forum error is recorded explicitly. The decision text itself was not fetched (Newsday's account is the inspected record)."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'treated since he was about 2 years old for learning and neurological disabilities that include language and auditory processing disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder'; 'He had worked on it with a tutor from Bridges to Adelphi, the university's $5,000-a-semester program'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Newby has learning differences... issues specifically with language processing. At Adelphi, he's in a special program with extra support'; 'I told him I worked 15 to 20 hours with tutors'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Newby has been treated since about age two for learning and neurological disabilities — language and auditory processing disorders and ADHD — and wrote the paper with a tutor from Bridges to Adelphi, the university's own $5,000-a-semester disability-support program, working 15-20 hours with tutors.","causal_attribution":"The disability and support details come from his mother's and his own accounts, carried by both chains."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The family has spent six figures on legal costs, she said'; Lesko passages ('bellwether example'; 'I can't tell you how many parents have reached out to us with similar issues').","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The family spent six figures on legal costs; attorney Mark Lesko called the ruling a 'bellwether example' and said many parents had contacted him with similar issues.","causal_attribution":"The mother's and the attorney's accounts; the 'many parents' figure is unquantified and no other persons are counted."}],"effects":[{"label":"false AI-plagiarism accusation with academic and financial consequences until a court ordered expungement","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"recovery: court cleared his record; he continues at Adelphi as a second-year history major","claim_id":"c3","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.newsday.com/long-island/education/adelphi-university-ai-plagiarism-lawsuit-oh07enyz","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2026-02-09T10:00Z; 48 paragraphs).","independence_group":"newsday"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://abc7ny.com/post/adelphi-student-long-island-sues-university-allegations-he-used-ai-write-essay/17980409/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2025-10-10T20:54Z).","independence_group":"abc7"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2026/02/11/adelphi-student-wins-ai-plagiarism-lawsuit","kind":"trade_press_relaying_newsday","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (2026-02-11). Relays Newsday; its 'federal judge' phrase is erroneous — Judge Marber sits in the state Supreme Court, and the claim records the discrepancy.","independence_group":"newsday"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education","justice","accessibility"],"unknowns":["The decision text was not fetched; the ruling is recorded through Newsday's account quoting the judge.","The similarity scores Turnitin returned and the university's full decision letter are not public in the inspected sources.","Whether Adelphi changed its AI-detection or appeals policies afterward is not reported.","The first-person Times account (28 Aug 2026) is paywalled and was not inspected; his later reflections are therefore not claimed.","The workshop's completion status after the ruling (moot after expungement) is not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: Adelphi University, Garden City, New York. Affected person: Newby, a student there living in Lido Beach, NY. Court: New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County.","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 detector-driven false accusation with court-vacated sanctions. Newby and his parents spoke publicly; his disability is recorded because it is central to the case's facts (the university's own support program produced the writing process the detector misread), not as a label.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawsuit records that Adelphi relied in part on AI-detection software; court records show Turnitin's detector marked the essay as fully AI-written while two other detectors scored it human (Newsday). The university's process, not the tool alone, produced the sanction — recorded in the harm mechanism.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Adelphi accused Orion Newby of AI plagiarism after a detector flagged his paper; a Nassau County judge ordered the finding expunged","summary":"Orion Newby, an Adelphi University first-year student with language and auditory processing disabilities, received a zero in November 2024 on a World Civilizations paper after the professor suspected it was AI-generated and the university relied in part on AI-detection software; he was ordered to attend a plagiarism workshop and his appeal was denied, leaving him one finding from suspension or expulsion. Newby — who had written the paper with 15-20 hours of tutor support through the university's own disability program — said the detectors flagged his citations, and two other detectors scored the paper as human. After the family sued, New York State Supreme Court Judge Randy Sue Marber in Nassau County ruled on 28 January 2026 that Adelphi's finding and its denial of his appeal were 'without valid basis and devoid of reason' and ordered his record expunged. The family spent six figures on legal costs.","incidentDate":"2024-11-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-01-28","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-10-10","aiSystem":"Turnitin AI-detection software (and the university's reliance on it)","aiProduct":"Turnitin AI-text detector","aiCompany":"Turnitin","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm","financial_loss","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A false AI-plagiarism finding brought a zero, a plagiarism-workshop order one step from suspension, sleepless nights, and a year-plus fight costing six figures to clear his record — despite two other detectors scoring the paper human and the writing help coming from the university's own disability program.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: Newby, the subject of the detector-driven accusation (court ruling and Newsday/ABC7 reporting). Other students mentioned by his attorney ('many parents have reached out') are unquantified and not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.newsday.com/long-island/education/adelphi-university-ai-plagiarism-lawsuit-oh07enyz","primarySourceLabel":"Newsday (9 Feb 2026) — the ruling, the judge's words, the family and attorney accounts, the disability and Bridges program detail","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T09:31:23.493757+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:46.697576+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-decision-about","made-claim-about","ai-detector","turnitin","education","disability","court-win","new-york"]}]}