{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-27T07:09:50.524Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"financial_loss","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2026","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":7,"coverage":{"cases":7,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":3,"minors":1,"coreRelations":4,"contextualRelations":7,"mixedRelations":4,"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":"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":"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":"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-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":"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"]}]}