{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-27T07:09:51.432Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"financial_loss","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":6,"coverage":{"cases":6,"countries":3,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":2,"minors":0,"coreRelations":3,"contextualRelations":6,"mixedRelations":3,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-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":"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":"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":"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":"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"]}]}