{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-10T09:44:14.710Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"gpt","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":10,"coverage":{"cases":10,"countries":3,"languages":6,"unknownLocation":5,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":1,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":2,"minors":0,"coreRelations":4,"contextualRelations":10,"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":"2025-uk-upper-tribunal-asylum-appeal-chatgpt-grounds-fake-cases-invented-quotes-sra-self-report","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"the grounds of appeal were completely infected by the use of AI. In addition to the citation of fake cases, and paragraphs from cases which are not contained in those judgments, the Grounds of Appeal also quote paragraphs from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal which do not appear in that decision.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was pure invention, which was not to be found anywhere in Judge Balroop’s decision, yet criticism of it formed the basis for one aspect of ground (3) in the grounds of appeal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"In this case, Mr Badar identified at least 18 separate errors in the grounds of appeal and withdrew three of the four grounds.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appellant's then solicitors drafted grounds of appeal that her counsel accepted were completely infected by the use of AI, citing fake cases and paragraphs not contained in the cited judgments and quoting passages from the First-tier Tribunal decision that do not appear in it; the tribunal found one purported quotation to be pure invention.","causal_attribution":"Established by the tribunal's own findings and its record of counsel's concession in the published decision. The Gazette repeats the decision and adds no independent origin."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Both were produced by a junior member of staff, namely a paralegal, using ChatGPT, which itself raises significant concerns about client confidentiality and legal privilege.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This occurred because Sarker Solicitors did not check the accuracy of the grounds of appeal, did not consider the grant of permission and did not check the accuracy of the skeleton argument.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"They accepted that AI was used to generate the grounds of appeal filed in the FtT and the skeleton argument filed in the UT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The grounds of appeal and skeleton argument were drafted by an unnamed paralegal working for east London firm Sarker Solicitors.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The tribunal found that both the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument were produced by a junior member of staff, a paralegal, using ChatGPT, and that the firm did not check their accuracy; the solicitors had accepted that AI was used to generate both documents.","causal_attribution":"The product identification and the failure to check are the tribunal's findings in the decision, recorded with the solicitors' acceptance that AI generated the documents. The Gazette's statement that the drafter was an unnamed paralegal relays the decision (same independence group)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"A hearing was listed before Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Hobbs on 17 September 2025 to consider whether Judge Balroop had erred in law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Judge Hobbs adjourned the hearing, with directions which included the following:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We note that issues (2) to (4), which occupied a great deal of time at the hearing before us, only arose because of Sarker Solicitors’ inappropriate use of AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant withdrew the original grounds (1), (2) and (4).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"However, ground (3) discloses no error of law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant’s appeal therefore fails.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The judge declined to set aside permission to appeal but dismissed the appeal in any case. The Home Office was invited to file and serve any wasted costs application on Sarker Solicitors within 28 days.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The error-of-law hearing listed for 17 September 2025 was adjourned, three of the five issues at the final hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of the solicitors' use of AI, the appellant withdrew three of her four original grounds, and her appeal failed after her remaining and amended grounds were found to disclose no error of law.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history and disposition are directly established by the decision. The decision attributes the adjournment and the wasted hearing time to the solicitors' misuse of AI, and states separately that the surviving ground failed on its merits, so the dismissal itself is not attributed to the AI output."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and so we will say nothing about the professional conduct issues involved.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The respondent shall file and serve on Sarker Solicitors any wasted costs application, or confirmation that costs are not being pursued, within 28 days of this decision being sent to the parties.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Two individuals involved in filing court documents using ChatGPT which were riddled with mistakes and invented quotes have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and directs the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm within 28 days; no costs decision has been taken.","causal_attribution":"The self-reports and the costs directions are stated in the decision itself. The Gazette repeats them from the decision (same independence group), so the claim is documented, not corroborated. Whether the two individuals are the paralegal and the supervising solicitor is not stated."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"It would be misleading to describe them as having been caused by AI, rather than by the solicitors’ misuse of AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI, rather than a mere mis-citation of particular cases.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The tribunal said it would be misleading to describe the irregularities as caused by AI rather than by the solicitors' misuse of AI, while describing the case as one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal's own qualification, preserved as contrary evidence on causation: the decision places responsibility with the solicitors, and the Home Office's characterisation (at best negligent, at worst reckless) is relayed in the decision as a submission."}],"effects":[{"label":"Appellant's protection appeal pursued on AI-generated grounds containing fake cases and invented quotations; hearing adjourned and three of four grounds withdrawn","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Two individuals self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; wasted costs application against the firm invited","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2025-002601","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ut-decision-ui-2025-002601"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/duo-self-report-to-sra-over-grounds-of-appeal-infected-with-ai/5128148.article","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ut-decision-ui-2025-002601"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The date on which the paralegal generated the grounds of appeal is not stated; it falls between the First-tier decision of 23 April 2025 and the hearing listed for 17 September 2025.","Whether the two individuals who self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority are the paralegal and the supervising solicitor is not stated, and the outcome of any SRA consideration is unknown.","Whether the Home Office pursued wasted costs, and any amount, was not decided in the published decision.","What prompts were given to ChatGPT, and whether client material was entered into it, is not described; the tribunal only notes that the use raises confidentiality and privilege concerns.","Whether the appellant's appeal would have succeeded on properly drafted grounds cannot be known; the tribunal found the surviving and amended grounds disclosed no error of law."],"geography":{"basis":"The decision is an Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision heard at Field House, London, in an appeal against a UK Home Office refusal; the solicitors are described by the Gazette as an east London firm. The appellant is a Namibian national whose appeal concerns her removal from the UK, so her country is recorded as GB on the basis of the proceedings in which she was harmed, and Namibia is not recorded because no harm occurred there.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"The published Upper Tribunal decision (tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk, UI-2025-002601) and the Law Society Gazette report of 8 October 2026 were read in full on 2026-10-09. The decision records what ChatGPT generated (fake cases, misattributed paragraphs, invented quotations from the First-tier judge) and ties that output to the adjourned hearing, the wasted hearing time, the withdrawn grounds, the regulator self-reports and the costs directions. The appellant is anonymised by tribunal order and is described only by nationality and appeal type; the firm is named because the operative costs directions are addressed to it; the paralegal is unnamed. The tribunal's statement that the solicitors' misuse, not AI, caused the irregularities is preserved.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Upper Tribunal's published decision finds that the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument filed on the appellant's behalf were produced by a paralegal using ChatGPT, and describes what that output contained: citations of fake cases, paragraphs not found in the cited judgments, and purported quotations from the First-tier judge's decision that the tribunal calls pure invention. The decision connects that output to the harm: the September 2025 hearing was adjourned after the Home Office queried the citation errors, three of the five issues at the final hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of the solicitors' use of AI, the appellant withdrew three of four grounds, and the tribunal invited a wasted costs application and noted two self-reports to the regulator. The FtT judge granted permission on those grounds while noting the misquotations, and the Upper Tribunal's decisions not to set aside permission and to refuse the new grounds were taken in the express context of the misrepresentations. The tribunal itself states that the irregularities were caused by the solicitors' misuse of AI rather than by AI, and the decision records the solicitors' own acceptance that AI was used. The firm's acceptance and the tribunal's findings come from one record, so the status is supported rather than corroborated by an independent source.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["acted_on_behalf","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"UK Upper Tribunal: solicitors' ChatGPT-drafted grounds in an asylum appeal cited fake cases and invented quotes; two individuals self-report to the SRA","summary":"A published Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision issued on 21 September 2026 records that the grounds of appeal and skeleton argument in a Namibian national's protection appeal were produced by a paralegal at her then solicitors using ChatGPT. The tribunal recorded her counsel's acceptance that the grounds cited fake cases, quoted passages absent from those judgments and attributed to the First-tier judge sentences he never wrote, and itself called one purported quotation pure invention. The September 2025 error-of-law hearing was adjourned, the appellant later withdrew three of her four original grounds, her remaining and amended grounds were found to disclose no error of law, and the tribunal directed the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; the Law Society Gazette reported the decision on 8 October 2026.","incidentDate":"2025-09-17","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-21","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-06","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, used by a paralegal to generate grounds of appeal and a skeleton argument (as found in the Upper Tribunal decision)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The tribunal records that the appellant's error-of-law hearing in September 2025 was adjourned, that three of the five issues at the eventual hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of her solicitors' inappropriate use of AI, that she withdrew three of her four original grounds, and that her appeal fails. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and directs the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm; no costs decision has been taken.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the appellant, whose appeal proceeded on AI-generated grounds she did not draft (the decision describes her as the appellant throughout). The paralegal who used ChatGPT and the supervising solicitor face professional consequences of their own conduct (self-report to the SRA, possible wasted costs) and are not counted as harmed persons; the two self-reporting individuals are not named as the paralegal and the solicitor in the decision.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"chatbot","primarySourceUrl":"https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2025-002601","primarySourceLabel":"Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), UI-2025-002601, decision issued 21 September 2026, published 6 October 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:28:56.311373+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:28:56.311373+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":[]},{"id":"2026-patient-reports-chatgpt-recording-at-clinic-without-consent","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"recording","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Original post’s first paragraph: the question about AI notes, the objection and the description of ChatGPT already recording.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The patient reports that the nurse’s phone showed ChatGPT already recording when the patient declined AI note-taking.","causal_attribution":"The recording and product identification are the patient’s account. No device evidence or independent confirmation was inspected."},{"id":"objection","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Original post’s final sentence describing lack of notice and the nurse’s response.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The patient says there had been no notice of the recording and the nurse dismissed their objection.","causal_attribution":"The described adverse experience is loss of control over recording and consent; no legal finding or onward data transfer is inferred."},{"id":"clarification","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Author reply pdhsn3l describing the phone on the counter with Chrome open to ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Author reply pdhtd2k, opening and final sentences about already recording and insisting it be disabled.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In replies to the same thread, the patient says the phone displayed ChatGPT in Chrome and that recording had already begun when the nurse entered, before asking consent.","causal_attribution":"The same author adds these observations. Their illustrative introduction with name/reason placeholders is not treated as an actual consultation transcript. Server transmission and later handling remain unknown."}],"effects":[{"label":"The patient reports that the nurse’s phone showed ChatGPT already recording when the patient declined AI note-taking.","claim_id":"recording","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1ww4yn4/today_i_was_radicalized/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Original English post body read directly and through its Arctic Shift capture. The archive gives created_utc 1790974521 (2 October 2026, 20:55 UTC). The author says the appointment was today; timezone is unknown, so only October is recorded for the event. Replies by the same author remain one reporting chain.","independence_group":"reddit-original-patient-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1ww4yn4/comment/pdhsn3l/","kind":"forum_comment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Original English author reply inspected in the Arctic Shift thread capture. The reply author matches the original poster. It adds detail, not independent corroboration.","independence_group":"reddit-original-patient-account"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1ww4yn4/comment/pdhtd2k/","kind":"forum_comment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Original English author reply inspected in the Arctic Shift thread capture. The reply author matches the original poster. It adds detail, not independent corroboration.","independence_group":"reddit-original-patient-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["health","privacy"],"unknowns":["Exact local event day and clinic location; the archived post timestamp is 2 October 2026 UTC.","Independent confirmation of the account and the clinic’s response.","What information was captured, the recording duration and whether it was deleted.","Whether information was transmitted, retained or used for training.","The software configuration, account type and any legal finding."],"geography":{"basis":"The original account gives no event location. References to a privacy law and the language do not establish a country.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Reviewed first-person account of an actual recording reportedly occurring in an identified AI service before consent. Published with attribution and explicit limits under the approved input-privacy boundary; no independent corroboration or finding of illegality is claimed.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The patient identifies ChatGPT as already recording at the appointment when they objected to AI note-taking. Under the approved input-privacy boundary, the reported capture itself supplies the relation and consent harm. This does not establish transmission to a server, retention, training, specific captured content, the account type or illegality. The author’s own replies specify that the phone displayed ChatGPT in Chrome and recording had already begun when the nurse entered, before consent was requested.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"Patient reports a nurse was already recording with ChatGPT when they declined AI notes","summary":"In a public Reddit account, a patient says a nurse asked whether AI could take notes at a medical appointment. After the patient objected, the nurse picked up a phone that the patient described as showing ChatGPT already recording. The patient describes the recording as occurring without prior notice and says their objection was dismissed. In replies, the author says the phone had Chrome open to ChatGPT and recording had started when the nurse entered the room, before asking consent. This is an uncorroborated first-person account. It does not establish what was captured, whether anything was sent to a server, retained or used for training, or whether a law was broken. The clinic’s location, account type and response are unknown.","incidentDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-02","aiSystem":"ChatGPT on a nurse’s phone, identified by the patient in a public first-person account as already recording at a medical appointment.","aiProduct":"ChatGPT (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_autonomy"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The patient reports loss of control over recording of their medical appointment: the phone was allegedly already recording before consent, and their objection was dismissed. No server disclosure or clinical harm is established.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One patient reports their own consent and privacy experience. No other patients, staff or commenters are counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1ww4yn4/today_i_was_radicalized/","primarySourceLabel":"Reddit, 2 October 2026: patient’s account of recording at a medical appointment","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:59.923465+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:59.923465+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["privacy","consent","clinical-notes","first-person-account"]},{"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-us-uk-hachette-cancels-shy-girl-novel-after-ai-authorship-allegations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The Hachette Book Group said Thursday that it has canceled the publication of horror novel","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"where it was first released in November.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The US release of a horror novel has been cancelled by its publisher over concerns that AI was used to help write it.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Wildfire (in the UK) have decided to no longer continue publishing their edition","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The title has also been removed from online retailers including Amazon","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"But it took until last Thursday for Hachette to pull the book from its website","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"March 19 , the New York Times landed a big story about allegations that a hyped horror novel called Shy Girl","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Hachette Book Group said on Thursday 19 March 2026 that it had cancelled the US publication of the horror novel Shy Girl by Mia Ballard (Orbit imprint) and would not continue the UK edition (Wildfire imprint, first released in November 2025). The Guardian reports the title was also removed from online retailers including Amazon.","causal_attribution":"The cancellation is Hachette’s own announcement, relayed by several outlets. Sources link it to allegations of AI use and to a review by the publisher. Whether AI was in fact used is unresolved (claim c7)."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"readers on platforms such as Goodreads and Reddit had questioned whether sections of the text bore hallmarks of AI-generated prose.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"A widely shared Reddit thread drew hundreds of comments","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"amassed more than 1.2m views","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"one reviewer on the GoodReads website claimed the book appeared to be \"written by ChatGPT\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"In January, a Reddit post from a user who claimed to be a book editor generated significant discussion around","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"published online on January 19 by","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Readers alleged online that the novel’s text read as AI-generated: reviews on Goodreads, a widely shared Reddit thread, a January Reddit post by a user who said they were a book editor, and a YouTube video posted in January 2026 that had more than 1.2 million views.","causal_attribution":"Online opinion and analysis by readers. It is not evidence about who produced the text. Sources differ on when the earliest accusations appeared (see unknowns)."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"78.4 percent of the document is AI Generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"I soon confirmed this with two other services.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"Originality and GPTZero","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"found evidence that 78 percent of the book is AI-generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"that large parts of Shy Girl appeared to show patterns characteristic of A.I.-generated writing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"to use these reports only for guidance, not as proof of guilt","relation":"context","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"A.I. detection software, while improving, has been shown to be fallible at best","relation":"context","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"AI-detection results were reported as part of the case. A publishing consultant’s first-person account says a copy of the UK edition scored 78.4 percent AI-generated on the Pangram detector, that two other detection services gave confirming results, and that the consultant brought the findings to the New York Times. Futurism reports that the CEO of Pangram ran a test and found evidence that 78 percent of the book is AI-generated. Slate reports that the New York Times verified claims that large parts of the book appeared to show patterns characteristic of AI-generated writing.","causal_attribution":"Detector scores describe statistical patterns in a text. They do not establish who produced the text or whether a generative model was used. Detector reliability is contested in the sources, and the New York Times article that carried the verification was not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"following an investigation into the origins of the book.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the publisher confirmed it had halted publication after an internal review.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Although the publisher claimed the decision came after a thorough review of the text","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"lengthy investigation in recent weeks","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"remains committed to protecting original creative expression and storytelling","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Hachette said its decision followed a review or investigation of the book and cited its commitment to protecting original creative expression and storytelling. The Wall Street Journal report says the cancellation followed an investigation into the origins of the book, and Futurism relays a Hachette statement to the Journal that both its US and UK imprints conducted a lengthy investigation in recent weeks.","causal_attribution":"Publisher statements about its own process. The sources inspected do not report what the review or investigation found about AI use."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"concerns the day before the announcement.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"shortly after the New York Times approached the publisher with evidence of AI use.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"one Times article said that Hachette pulled the book within a day of first notification by the Times","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The New York Times asked Hachette about the AI concerns the day before the announcement, and the cancellation followed shortly after the Times approached the publisher with evidence of AI use. A consultant’s first-person account says a Times article reported that Hachette pulled the book within a day of first notification by the Times.","causal_attribution":"Timing reported by outlets that rely on the New York Times report, which was not read directly. The sequence shows what preceded the announcement and does not show what Hachette concluded."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"has denied using AI to write the book","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"hired to edit the original self-published version of the novel had used AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"my mental health is at an all time low and my name is ruined for something I didn","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Ballard has denied personally using AI to write the novel.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"my mental health is at an all time low and my name is ruined for something I didn","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"pursuing legal action","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"did not personally use AI","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"please do your research on editors before trusting them with your work","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"}],"assertion":"Ballard denied personally using AI to write the novel in an email to the New York Times and, per The Independent, in an email to the Wall Street Journal, and told the New York Times that an acquaintance hired to edit the original self-published version had used AI. Ballard wrote: \"This controversy has changed my life in many ways and my mental health is at an all time low and my name is ruined for something I didn’t even personally do\", and said legal action was being pursued.","causal_attribution":"The author’s own statements about the author’s own conduct and its effects. Ballard spoke publicly under that name in emails to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal quoted by several outlets. The acquaintance is not named in the sources and no response from that person is reported."},{"id":"c7","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"found evidence that 78 percent of the book is AI-generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"78.4 percent of the document is AI Generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"has denied using AI to write the book","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A.I. detection software, while improving, has been shown to be fallible at best","relation":"context","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"Whether, by whom and to what extent generative AI produced the text of the published novel is disputed. Detector results and reader analyses point to substantial AI-generated prose. Ballard denies personal use and attributes any AI use to a hired editor. No source inspected reports the editor’s account, an independent verification of authorship, or a finding by the publisher.","causal_attribution":"Causal attribution of the consequence to AI use rests on allegations and detector output that the author disputes. The consequence (cancellation) is a publisher decision responding to those allegations."}],"effects":[{"label":"Publisher cancelled the US edition and discontinued the UK edition of the author’s novel after allegations that it was AI-generated","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Author reports damage to name and severely worsened mental health after the controversy","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.wsj.com/business/media/publisher-pulls-shy-girl-horror-novel-after-ai-allegations-c7944702","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"wsj-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y9d44jj24o","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/mar/20/hachette-horror-novel-shy-girl-suspected-ai-use-mia-ballard","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/21/publisher-pulls-horror-novel-shy-girl-over-ai-concerns","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/novel-pulled-author-accused-ai","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://slate.com/culture/2026/03/shy-girl-mia-ballard-novel-a-i-book-horror-reddit-hachette-canceled.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"slate-shy-girl-reporting"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://thewalrus.ca/new-york-times-ai-generated-shy-girl-mia-ballard/","kind":"first_person_account","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"consultant-first-person-account"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/100037-while-ai-discourse-rages-publishing-has-more-questions-than-answers.html","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/horror-novel-reportedly-pulled-publication-133355085.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"wsj-shy-girl-report"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Whether generative AI produced any of the text, who used it and to what extent is unresolved. The author denies personal use and attributes any AI use to a hired editor. No source inspected reports that editor’s account, an independent authorship check, or what Hachette found.","The Wall Street Journal page was read as a truncated Wayback extract (three paragraphs, paywall). The New York Times article that first reported the story could not be read (HTTP 403 live and in Wayback captures). Statements attributed to the Times are read through BBC, The Guardian, TechCrunch, Futurism and Publishers Weekly.","Sources differ on when the first online accusations appeared. The Guardian says questions began in early 2026, and Futurism dates a Reddit post to January. Futurism also says accusations have swirled around the book since its self-published run last year, Slate says the rumblings began in January and even earlier, and a first-person account by a publishing consultant says the first accusations appeared online five or six months before Hachette’s July 2025 acquisition announcement and that a Reddit thread was a year old in early February 2026. No inspected source reports a consequence for the author from those earlier accusations. This record dates the event to the publisher’s decision on 19 March 2026, the first reported consequence for the author.","Detector reliability and the tested copy are contested. A Wall Street Journal opinion column on the reliability of the Pangram report was not read, and a summary of it on Wikipedia is not cited.","The author says legal action is being pursued. The target and any filing are not established by the sources inspected. A newsletter’s report of a $1 million lawsuit against Hachette had no filing or second source and is not relied on.","The US publication date is reported differently (April in BBC and Slate, 19 May in the Wall Street Journal). UK sales are reported as about 1,800 (Guardian, citing NielsenIQ) and almost 2,000 (BBC) copies. Neither is used as a harm count.","Whether existing UK copies were withdrawn or destroyed is not consistently reported. The Guardian says the title was removed from online retailers and would no longer be distributed in the UK.","The accusers on Reddit and YouTube, the consultant and the hired editor are not described individually beyond their role in the reporting."],"geography":{"basis":"Hachette cancelled the US release and discontinued the UK edition (BBC). The BBC describes the author as a US author, and The Independent, citing a Google Books author profile, reports a US residence. No court is involved in the sources inspected.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US","GB"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The publisher’s cancellation, its stated review, the online allegations, the AI-detector results and the author’s denial were read from the Wall Street Journal (truncated), BBC, The Guardian, TechCrunch, Futurism, Slate, Publishers Weekly, The Independent (via AOL) and a consultant’s first-person account. The author is named because the author spoke publicly under that name in emails to two newspapers. Every AI-related claim is attributed and AI involvement is recorded as disputed. The event is dated to the publisher’s decision on 19 March 2026, the first reported consequence for the author. Earlier reader accusations are recorded as context.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"AI-text detectors (Pangram, and per one first-person account Originality and GPTZero) scored the UK edition as largely AI-generated, and readers alleged the prose showed hallmarks of AI. The author denies personally using AI and says an acquaintance hired to edit the self-published version used it. Hachette cited a review of the text and its stance on original creative expression and did not state, in the sources inspected, what the review found. Detector reliability is contested.","status":"disputed"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US and UK: Hachette cancels the US edition of the novel Shy Girl and discontinues the UK edition after allegations it was AI-generated, with the author denying personal use of AI","summary":"On 19 March 2026 Hachette Book Group said it had cancelled the US publication of the horror novel Shy Girl by Mia Ballard (Orbit imprint) and would not continue the UK edition (Wildfire imprint, first released in November 2025). Reports say the decision followed an investigation by Hachette and came a day after the New York Times asked the publisher about online allegations that the text was largely AI-generated. The allegations came from readers on Goodreads, Reddit and YouTube and from AI-detector results, including a 78.4 percent AI-generated score on the Pangram detector that a publishing consultant says two other services confirmed. Ballard denied personally using AI in emails to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and told the New York Times that an acquaintance hired to edit the original self-published version used AI. Ballard wrote that \"my name is ruined\" and \"my mental health is at an all time low\", and said legal action was being pursued. Hachette’s public statements cite its commitment to original creative expression. The sources inspected do not report what its investigation found. Whether AI generated any of the text, and who used it, is unresolved.","incidentDate":"2026-03-19","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-19","aiSystem":"Alleged generative-AI text production in the novel (the author denies personal use and attributes any AI use to a hired editor), and AI-text detectors (Pangram, and per one account Originality and GPTZero) whose scores were used to allege AI authorship","aiProduct":"Pangram AI-text detector","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"disputed","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Hachette cancelled the US publication and discontinued the UK edition of the author’s novel. The author wrote to the New York Times that \"my mental health is at an all time low and my name is ruined for something I didn’t even personally do\" (relayed by BBC and The Guardian). The author denies personally using AI.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the author, reports harm (cancelled publication, damage to name and severely worsened mental health). The hired editor, readers who bought the book and the publisher are not counted as harmed persons.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/mar/20/hachette-horror-novel-shy-girl-suspected-ai-use-mia-ballard","primarySourceLabel":"The Guardian (20 Mar 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:16:09.707267+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:57.941496+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]},{"id":"2025-us-neh-humanities-grant-mass-termination-chatgpt-dei-screening","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"The Mass Termination is DECLARED unlawful,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"was unlawful because it was undertaken in violation of the First Amendment","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the resulting terminations were ultra vires","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the termination, in early April 2025, of more than 1,400 grants,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing, implementing, or giving any effect to the Mass Termination.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 7 May 2026 the court declared the April 2025 mass termination of NEH grants (more than 1,400 grants, over $100 million) unlawful, unconstitutional and ultra vires, and permanently enjoined its enforcement.","causal_attribution":"The declaration rests on the First Amendment, equal protection and lack of statutory authority. It does not rest on a finding that ChatGPT was inaccurate."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Does the following relate at all to DEI? Respond factually in less than 120 characters. Begin with ‘Yes.’ or ‘No.’ followed by a brief explanation.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"did not provide ChatGPT with a definition of “DEI”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"it enlisted the help of ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"two employees of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) used ChatGPT to determine whether previously approved National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants should be canceled","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"A DOGE staff member used ChatGPT with a standardized prompt asking whether each grant description related at all to DEI, without defining DEI for the model.","causal_attribution":"The opinion recites deposition testimony and the spreadsheet. The prompt text is a quotation of the court record."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"thereby combining DOGE’s AI-generated classifications with NEH staff recommendations.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"did not know ChatGPT had been used","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The ChatGPT outputs were combined with NEH staff ratings into the lists used to select grants for termination, and the NEH acting chair testified to not knowing ChatGPT had been used.","causal_attribution":"The court ties the ChatGPT-generated rationales to the lists presented to the NEH chair. The acting chair's account is deposition testimony as recited by the court."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"were terminated on that basis and that basis alone.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Of the 1,163 grant proposals DOGE analyzed via ChatGPT for DEI-related content, 1,057 were flagged, and just 42 were kept","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The opinion states that 1,057 grants were identified as DEI-related through the DOGE review process and terminated on that basis alone.","causal_attribution":"The opinion attributes the identification to a process that combined keyword searches and ChatGPT rationales. The opinion says ChatGPT rationales were generated in a second-stage review of grants NEH staff had labelled \"N/A\" and were merged with NEH ratings. It does not apportion the 1,057 between NEH ratings and ChatGPT. Fortune attributes all 1,057 flags to ChatGPT from a spreadsheet exhibit."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Yes. This description highlights how the plastics industry influenced municipal government officials to favor plastics","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Nevertheless, ChatGPT classified the project as “DEI,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The utter lack of reasoning behind so many of its “rationales”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court describes ChatGPT classifying projects as DEI on the basis of short descriptions, including a project on the plastics industry and municipal building codes, with rationales the court found lacking.","causal_attribution":"The court characterises the outputs. Whether each terminated grant was flagged by ChatGPT is not stated for the individual plaintiffs."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The individual plaintiffs are scholars and writers who received NEH grants for specific research and writing projects and whose awards were terminated before the completion of their funded work.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"allege concrete professional, financial, and scholarly harms","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"That funding was terminated effective April 2, 2025, resulting in the loss of the fellowship itself.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"individual grantees whose awards were terminated suffered a concrete economic injury sufficient to confer Article III standing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Seven individual grantees whose NEH awards were terminated before completion allege professional, financial and scholarly harm, including lost funding, and in one case loss of a fellowship that depended on NEH funding.","causal_attribution":"The harms are the plaintiffs' allegations as summarised by the court, and the standing holding is recited from the court's earlier preliminary injunction opinion. The link between ChatGPT and the termination of these seven specific awards is not stated in the inspected passages."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"DOGE officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select, or direct the termination of NEH grants","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court declared that DOGE officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select or direct the termination of NEH grants.","causal_attribution":"A legal declaration in the judgment."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Yes. Improving HVAC systems enhances preservation conditions for collections, aligning with the goal of providing greater access to diverse audiences. #DEI,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"We were able to recoup about 70% of the original award through the grant termination clause,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A North Carolina history museum's $349,000 HVAC grant was flagged by ChatGPT as DEI and terminated after the project had begun, and the museum director says it recouped about 70% of the award through the termination clause.","causal_attribution":"Organisation-level example from one outlet and one interview. It is not counted as harm to a person."}],"effects":[{"label":"Individual grantees lost or had interrupted NEH funding when their awards were terminated in a mass termination that relied on a ChatGPT DEI screen","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/NEH.sj_.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"sdny-opinion-2026-05"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/research/2026/03/11/how-doge-gutted-neh-22-days","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://fortune.com/2026/03/19/doge-cancelled-350000-hvac-grant-dei-lawsuit-elon-musk/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.artforum.com/news/doge-allegedly-used-chatgpt-to-cancel-humanities-grants-1234745040/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","education","public_services"],"unknowns":["Whether ChatGPT reviewed or flagged the specific grants of the seven individual plaintiffs is not stated in the passages inspected.","The dates on which ChatGPT was used are not stated beyond the second stage of review beginning on 12 March 2025 and terminations sent 1 to 3 April 2025. The incident dates are the bounded series between those points.","The number of individual people (as opposed to organizations) whose awards were terminated is not stated.","The opinion separates grants marked \"DEI\" from grants terminated without a DEI mark (its Biden-Era Subclass). It does not say which group any of the seven individual plaintiffs' grants belonged to.","Whether funding has been restored is unknown. The judgment states it does not require immediate payment.","Appeal status of the May 2026 judgment is unknown.","The New York Times article listed in the AIID entry returned HTTP 403 and was not read. The opinion is 143 pages and was read through its factual sections, the standing recital and the judgment, not every legal section."],"geography":{"basis":"The opinion describes terminations by the US federal agency NEH and by DOGE staff of grants to scholars, writers and institutions, and describes the individual plaintiffs as holding positions at US universities. The court is a US federal district court (S.D.N.Y.).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"A federal court opinion (7 May 2026), Inside Higher Ed and Fortune were read. Claims about the court record are documented by the opinion. Individual grantee harms are the plaintiffs' allegations as summarised by the court. Individual plaintiffs and DOGE staff are not named in public fields.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The federal court opinion finds that a DOGE staff member submitted grant descriptions to ChatGPT with a DEI yes/no prompt and that the outputs were folded into the lists used to select grants for termination. The opinion does not state whether each of the seven individual plaintiffs' grants was reviewed or flagged by ChatGPT.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: National Endowment for the Humanities grants terminated after DOGE staff used ChatGPT to flag projects as DEI-related","summary":"In March and early April 2025 (the opinion gives no date for the ChatGPT step), a DOGE staff member working with the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) submitted short grant descriptions to ChatGPT with a prompt asking whether each project related at all to DEI, and the answers were combined with NEH staff ratings into lists of grants to terminate. More than 1,400 NEH grants (over $100 million) were terminated in notices sent 1 to 3 April 2025. A federal district court found the mass termination unlawful in May 2026 and described the ChatGPT step in its findings. Seven individual grantees who sued report lost or interrupted funding for their research and writing projects. The opinion does not state whether ChatGPT reviewed those seven grants.","incidentDate":"2025-03-12","incidentEndDate":"2025-04-03","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-08","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used through a standardized DEI yes/no prompt","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court opinion describes seven individual grantee plaintiffs whose NEH awards were terminated before completion, and reports their allegations of lost funding, interrupted research and leave from employment taken in reliance on the awards. Individual counts beyond these seven are not established in the inspected sources.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"unclear","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":7,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"The court opinion names seven individual grantee plaintiffs whose awards were terminated. It states the terminations reached more than 1,400 grants awarded to scholars, writers, research institutions and other humanities organizations, and does not give a count of individual people. The opinion does not state whether these seven grants were flagged by ChatGPT. Organizations, members of plaintiff associations and the wider class are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/NEH.sj_.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"S.D.N.Y. opinion and order granting summary judgment, 7 May 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:29.039734+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.404135+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-krafton-unknown-worlds-executives-terminated-after-chatgpt-takeover-strategy","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton breached the EPA by terminating the Key Employees without valid Cause and by improperly seizing operational control of Unknown Worlds.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Date Decided: March 16, 2026","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Krafton agreed the studio would remain independent and that its leadership would retain operational control and could only be fired for cause, according to the ruling","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 16 March 2026 the Delaware Court of Chancery entered judgment that Krafton breached the acquisition agreement by terminating the three Key Employees without valid Cause and by improperly seizing operational control of the studio.","causal_attribution":"Phase One judgment on the contract claims. The court reserves damages for a second phase and does not decide whether the earnout was wrongfully impaired."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"a “dismissal with cause” would not eliminate the earnout obligation","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"turned to ChatGPT for help.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Now, chatgpt starts to answer that it is difficult to cancel the earn-out.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"When the AI chatbot responded that the earnout would be “difficult to cancel,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that after the Head of Corporate Development at Krafton warned the CEO that a dismissal with cause would not eliminate the earnout obligation, the CEO turned to ChatGPT, and that the CEO told the Head of Corporate Development in a Slack message that ChatGPT answered the earnout would be difficult to cancel.","causal_attribution":"Findings of fact drawn from Slack messages and trial testimony. The chat itself was deleted."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"The AI chatbot prepared a “Response Strategy to a ‘No-Deal’ Scenario,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Lock down Steam/console publishing rights and access rights over code/build pipeline","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Preemptive Framing - Repeat that protecting quality and fan trust is the highest priority","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Systematic materials for legal defense - Prepare contract interpretation memorandums, log all communications","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Team retention - Operation of retention packages for key personnel and rapid backfill pipelines","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Over the next month, Krafton followed most of ChatGPT’s recommendations.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Over the next month, Krafton followed most of ChatGPT’s recommendations,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court found that ChatGPT prepared a \"Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario\" recommending, among other steps, preemptive public framing, locking down publishing rights and access to the build pipeline, legal defense materials and team retention, and that Krafton followed most of these recommendations over the next month.","causal_attribution":"The opinion lists the strategy items and the steps Krafton took. The listed strategy does not include dismissing the executives. The dismissal decision is Krafton's."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton locked down Steam publishing rights to ensure Unknown Worlds could not publish Subnautica 2.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This severed Unknown Worlds’ practical ability to launch Subnautica 2.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On June 12, Krafton posted a message on the Unknown Worlds and Subnautica websites.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the Unknown Worlds team were shocked, since they had “nothing to do with” the message","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On July 1, 2025, Krafton sent termination letters to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The letters identified a single ground for dismissal","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that Krafton locked Unknown Worlds out of its Steam publishing rights, which the court found severed the studio's practical ability to launch its game, posted a message on the studio websites without the studio's involvement, and on 1 July 2025 sent termination letters citing a single ground.","causal_attribution":"Court findings of fact. The opinion links the lockdown to ChatGPT's recommendation and does not state that ChatGPT recommended the July terminations."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton’s newly manufactured justifications for the terminations are pretextual.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"had secretly entered semi-retirement and that all three leaders had executed massive downloads of company data","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found Krafton's later justifications for the terminations (semi-retirement of two founders and data downloads) were pretextual.","causal_attribution":"Judicial finding after an expedited trial. Krafton's arguments are its litigation positions."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"is hereby reinstated as CEO of Unknown Worlds","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"authority over the early access launch of Subnautica 2","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the base earnout Testing Period is equitably extended by 258 days","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court reinstated the CEO of Unknown Worlds, enjoined Krafton from impeding the studio CEO's authority over the game's early access launch, and extended the base earnout Testing Period by 258 days.","causal_attribution":"Specific performance remedy. The court declined to return the two founders to their earlier roles."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"had deleted specific, relevant ChatGPT logs.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This particular chat was deleted.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The CEO admitted at trial to deleting relevant ChatGPT logs, including the particular chat in which the earnout question was put to the chatbot.","causal_attribution":"A limit on the record. It bears on what the chatbot said, not on the court's findings about the terminations."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"formed an internal task force, dubbed “Project X.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The task force’s mandate was to either negotiate a “deal” on the earnout or execute a “Take Over” of Unknown Worlds.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"formed an internal taskforce, dubbed Project X.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The task force’s mandate was to either negotiate a ‘deal’ on the earnout or execute a ‘takeover’ of Unknown Worlds,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The court found that, at ChatGPT's suggestion, the Krafton CEO formed an internal task force, Project X, whose mandate was either to negotiate a deal on the earnout or to execute a takeover of Unknown Worlds.","causal_attribution":"Finding of fact in the opinion, relayed by the Guardian and IGN. The task force's mandate is Krafton's; the opinion attributes only the suggestion to form it to ChatGPT."},{"id":"c9","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"began to explore options, including firing the Key Employees.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that the Krafton CEO had begun exploring options, including firing the Key Employees, before the 2 June 2025 warning and the ChatGPT consultation that followed it.","causal_attribution":"Contrary evidence on causation: the idea of dismissal preceded the chatbot consultation."},{"id":"c10","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"It also suggested a “key summary of responses” Krafton could deliver to the Key Employees:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Krafton’s seizure of Steam and other systems forced","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"to the negotiating table, and they began to discuss a solution.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"It might actually be easier to just do a takeover.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"responded: “Set a date.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that ChatGPT's strategy also suggested a key summary of responses Krafton could deliver to the Key Employees, that Krafton's seizure of Steam and other systems forced the studio's CEO to the negotiating table, and that when negotiations stalled Krafton's Head of Strategy wrote on 27 June 2025 that it might be easier to just do a takeover, to which the Krafton CEO replied to set a date.","causal_attribution":"Findings of fact from Slack messages and trial testimony. They connect the ChatGPT-recommended lockdown to the negotiations and the takeover decision; the takeover decision itself is the Krafton executives'."},{"id":"c11","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"have reached a mutual settlement and agreed to dismiss all pending legal proceedings,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Krafton said in a regulatory filing Wednesday that the company and the lead developers behind the globally popular Subnautica video game franchise decided to drop their court fight over controversial earn out bonuses.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"officially settled the dispute and decided to withdraw all pending lawsuits as of Tuesday, the filing read.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Krafton said in a statement to IGN that Krafton, Unknown Worlds and the three executives had reached a mutual settlement and agreed to dismiss all pending legal proceedings, and Yonhap, via The Korea Times, reported a Krafton regulatory filing on Wednesday 1 July 2026 saying the dispute was settled and all pending lawsuits withdrawn as of Tuesday 30 June 2026.","causal_attribution":"Both outlets relay Krafton's own announcement (a statement to IGN and a regulatory filing), one origin. The settlement terms beyond dismissal are not published by Krafton."},{"id":"c12","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"had stepped down, leaving the company to look for a new boss.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"The entire staff of Subnautica 2 developer Unknown Worlds will get their bonuses after parent company Krafton reached a settlement with studio leadership.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"IGN, citing Bloomberg, reported that the studio's CEO stepped down as part of the settlement and that the studio's entire staff would receive their bonuses.","causal_attribution":"Second-hand report (IGN relaying Bloomberg); Krafton's statement does not confirm these terms."},{"id":"c13","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton said in a statement that it disagreed with the ruling and was evaluating its options and remained focused on delivering the best possible game for fans.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Krafton said in a statement after the ruling that it disagreed with the ruling and was evaluating its options.","causal_attribution":"Krafton's litigation position as reported by the Guardian."}],"effects":[{"label":"Three studio executives terminated without valid Cause and removed from operational control during a takeover campaign that followed a CEO's ChatGPT strategy","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=392880","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"delaware-chancery-opinion-2026-03"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/18/subnautica-2-publisher-krafton-ceo-reinstated-ai-chatgpt-failed-bid-avoid-paying-bonus","kind":"journalistic","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"delaware-chancery-opinion-2026-03"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.ign.com/articles/subnautica-2-developers-entire-staff-get-their-bonuses-after-krafton-agrees-to-settlement-but-ceo-steps-down","kind":"journalistic","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"krafton-settlement-announcement-2026-07"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/business/companies/20260701/krafton-unknown-worlds-settle-legal-dispute-over-bonuses","kind":"journalistic","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"krafton-settlement-announcement-2026-07"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["The date of the CEO's first ChatGPT use is not given beyond the sequence in the opinion (a legal warning on 2 June 2025 followed by the ChatGPT consultation). The incident date is the month.","The content of the deleted ChatGPT chat is unknown.","Whether ChatGPT recommended or was asked about terminating the executives is not stated in the opinion; the opinion records that the Krafton CEO had explored firing them before consulting it.","Phase Two (damages and earnout impairment) was never decided: the parties settled in July 2026, and the settlement terms beyond dismissal of all proceedings are known only from IGN's account of a Bloomberg report.","Whether Krafton appealed the March 2026 opinion before the settlement is not stated in the inspected sources.","Where the executives lived and worked is not stated in the inspected passages; the Korea Times describes the studio as a U.S. game studio and the opinion as a California corporation, which does not locate the lockout or the terminations.","The end of the harmful series is not a single date: termination letters were sent on 1 July 2025 effective 31 July, and the court counted the studio CEO's ouster as lasting until 16 March 2026."],"geography":{"basis":"The opinion is from the Delaware Court of Chancery (court country US). It describes Krafton as a South Korean company and the studio as a California corporation, and the Korea Times calls the studio a U.S. game studio; none of the inspected sources states where the executives were when locked out and terminated, so event and affected-person countries are left unknown rather than inferred from incorporation or headquarters.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"The full Delaware Court of Chancery opinion was read for the ChatGPT passages, the termination chronology, the holding and the remedy; the Guardian's report of the ruling and the IGN and Korea Times/Yonhap reports of the July 2026 settlement were read in full. Claims drawn from the opinion are court findings and are documented; Krafton's statements and the settlement terms are reported and attributed. The AI output (the chatbot's strategy and task-force suggestion), Krafton's use of it (the Steam lockdown as ChatGPT recommended) and the consequence for the three executives (loss of operational control and termination found to be without valid Cause) are cited separately. The affected executives are described by role.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-10"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Output: the court opinion finds that Krafton's CEO consulted ChatGPT after being warned that a dismissal with cause would not eliminate the earnout, that the chatbot answered the earnout would be difficult to cancel, that at ChatGPT's suggestion the CEO formed the Project X task force whose mandate was a deal or a takeover of the studio, and that ChatGPT prepared a \"Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario\" recommending, among other steps, locking down Steam and console publishing rights and build-pipeline access and a key summary of responses to deliver to the Key Employees. Use: the court finds that over the next month Krafton followed most of ChatGPT's recommendations and that, as ChatGPT recommended, it locked down the studio's Steam publishing rights. Consequence: the court finds the lockdown severed the studio's practical ability to launch its game and forced its CEO to the negotiating table, that the takeover and the 1 July 2025 terminations followed when negotiations stalled, and holds that Krafton breached the agreement by improperly seizing operational control from the Key Employees and terminating them without valid Cause. Limits: the strategy the opinion quotes does not list dismissing the executives, the CEO had explored firing them before consulting ChatGPT, and the first chat log was deleted, so the chatbot's first replies are known only through Slack messages.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Delaware court finds Krafton fired three Unknown Worlds executives without valid cause in a takeover that followed its CEO's ChatGPT strategy","summary":"A Delaware Court of Chancery opinion of 16 March 2026 finds that in June 2025 the CEO of Krafton, after being warned that a dismissal with cause would not eliminate a contingent earnout obligation, consulted ChatGPT. The chatbot answered that the earnout would be difficult to cancel, suggested an internal task force (Project X) whose mandate was to negotiate a deal or execute a takeover of the studio, and prepared a \"Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario\" that recommended locking down the studio's Steam and console publishing rights and build-pipeline access. The court found that Krafton followed most of these recommendations over the next month: it locked the studio out of its Steam publishing rights, which severed the studio's practical ability to launch its game and forced the studio's CEO to the negotiating table, posted a message on the studio's websites, and on 1 July 2025 sent termination letters to the studio's two founders and its CEO. The court held that Krafton breached the acquisition agreement by terminating the three executives without valid Cause and by improperly seizing operational control, reinstated the studio's CEO and extended the earnout period by 258 days. The opinion records that the Krafton CEO had begun exploring options including firing the executives before consulting ChatGPT, and does not find that ChatGPT recommended the terminations. Krafton said it disagreed with the ruling. On 1 July 2026 Krafton announced a mutual settlement with the studio and the three executives dismissing all pending proceedings; IGN, citing Bloomberg, reported that the studio's CEO stepped down as part of it.","incidentDate":"2025-06-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-16","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court found three studio executives were terminated without valid Cause and had operational control taken from them in a campaign that followed most of a ChatGPT-prepared strategy; one was reinstated by court order in March 2026 and the dispute was settled in July 2026.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"unclear","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The opinion finds three Key Employees (two founders and the CEO) were terminated without valid Cause. Former shareholders represented by the plaintiff, studio staff and players are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"assistant","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=392880","primarySourceLabel":"Delaware Court of Chancery opinion, Fortis Advisors v. Krafton, C.A. No. 2025-0805-LWW, 16 March 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:25.863533+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T03:20:34.158615+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025","informed-decision"]},{"id":"2025-ar-esquel-criminal-judgment-annulled-judge-generative-ai-draft","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"decidió el miércoles anular de oficio una sentencia dictada el 4 de junio pasado","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"anular de oficio una sentencia porque el juez la delegó en un ChatGPT","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"La sentencia anulada había condenado al imputado a dos años y seis meses de prisión efectiva por robo simple","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 4 June 2025 a criminal judge in Esquel convicted a defendant of simple robbery and sentenced the defendant to two years and six months of effective imprisonment, and the Penal Chamber of Esquel later annulled that judgment.","causal_attribution":"Sources give the annulment as the chamber's response to the judge's AI use."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Aquí tienes el punto IV reeditado, sin citas y listo para copiar y pegar","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"el magistrado utilizó la IA generativa, ni más ni menos, que en un aspecto central de la resolución en crisis como es la resolución de las nulidades de dos pruebas esenciales en el proceso","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"el juez de primera instancia incluyó accidentalmente una frase que revela el uso de un asistente de Inteligencia Artificial (IA) generativa","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The judgment contained the phrase “Aquí tienes el punto IV reeditado, sin citas y listo para copiar y pegar”, which the chamber took to show generative-AI use, including on the rulings on the nullity of two essential pieces of evidence.","causal_attribution":"The chamber's finding, as quoted in the press, connects the phrase to AI use. The full ruling text was not read."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"anular tanto la sentencia como el juicio que la precedió","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"declaración de nulidad de la sentencia y del juicio que la precede, con todo lo que ello significa para los justiciables","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"ordenando que el proceso se realice nuevamente con la intervención de otro magistrado","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"el tribunal ordenó reenviar el caso a otro juez penal, prohibiendo al Ministerio Público Fiscal exhibir en el nuevo juicio los videos omitidos en el anterior","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A raíz de esto deberá realizarse nuevamente el juicio, con otro juez","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The chamber annulled the judgment and the preceding trial and ordered a new trial before another judge, and barred the prosecution from showing at the new trial the videos omitted at the first.","causal_attribution":"The annulment is attributed by the chamber to the judge's undisclosed and unsupervised AI use, which the chamber said prevented control of the judge's reasoning."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"remitir las actuaciones al Superior Tribunal de Justicia de Chubut (STJ), que deberá investigar el alcance ético y disciplinario de la conducta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"pudo haber incumplido los recaudos de confidencialidad exigidos por el Acuerdo Plenario N° 5435 del STJ, al incluir nombres de las partes, testigos y peritos en el texto procesado por el asistente","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The chamber referred the matter to the Chubut Superior Court of Justice to investigate the judge's conduct and said the judge may have breached that court's confidentiality rules by including the names of parties, witnesses and experts in the text processed by the assistant.","causal_attribution":"The confidentiality point is the chamber's stated possibility and was not established as fact."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"presumiblemente ChatGPT","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"el juez la delegó en un ChatGPT","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Press coverage identifies the assistant as ChatGPT (La Nación as presumed, Perfil without qualification).","causal_attribution":"The ruling as quoted refers to a generative-AI assistant. The product name comes from the press."}],"effects":[{"label":"Conviction and trial annulled and retrial ordered; the chamber cites serious consequences for the parties","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/el-juez-de-esquel-que-uso-chat-para-redactar-una-sentencia-sera-investigado-nid17102025/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Full body read in the original Spanish (17 October 2025) by the reviewing agent without a human translator. Reports the appellate ruling; whether the journalist saw the ruling text is not stated.","independence_group":"esquel-camara-ruling"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://documento.errepar.com/actualidad/justicia-anulada-se-invalida-un-fallo-por-el-uso-indebido-de-la-ia-20251016143159365","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Article body is embedded in the page data and was decoded into bodies/gh-4-body.txt (16 October 2025). Read in Spanish without a human translator. It quotes the ruling. The linked full text of the ruling (documento.errepar.com/jurisprudencia/...) is gated and was not read.","independence_group":"esquel-camara-ruling"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.perfil.com/noticias/nea/inteligencia-artificial-anulan-sentencia-porque-un-juez-uso-un-chatgpt-y-una-frase-lo-delato.phtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Full body read in Spanish (17 October 2025) without a human translator. It relays a statement of the Ministerio Publico Fiscal of Chubut and quotes the ruling.","independence_group":"esquel-camara-ruling"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The full text of the ruling was not read (the Errepar copy is gated), so all findings are as reported by three outlets that share the same underlying ruling.","The share of the judgment written by the assistant is unknown. The chamber said the pasted text leaves a gap too wide to tell.","The specific AI product is not established. No chat log was seen.","The annulment date of 15 October 2025 is derived from La Nación's 'el miércoles' (article of 17 October 2025) and the metadata of a gated Errepar ruling page; no cited article states the date.","The outcome of the Superior Court review and the date of the new trial are not reported in the sources read.","The defendant's own view of the annulment and any effect of the delay on the defendant or on other parties to the case is not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"The court is the Penal Chamber of Esquel in Chubut province, and La Nación calls the ground for the annulment unprecedented in Argentine justice. The defendant's residence and where the judge used the assistant are not stated.","court_countries":["AR"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Three Spanish-language outlets report the same appellate ruling, which annulled a criminal judgment and trial after a pasted assistant phrase exposed undisclosed generative-AI use. The chamber's stated consequences for the parties (annulment and a repeated trial) are reported, and the effect on the defendant is not. The outlets share one reporting chain, so claims are attributed.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The appellate chamber, as quoted by three outlets, found a pasted chat phrase in the ruling and concluded that a generative-AI assistant was used. The chamber described delegation of the decision as probable. The product name ChatGPT is stated by one outlet as presumed and by another without qualification.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Argentina: appellate chamber annuls a robbery judgment and trial after the trial judge left a generative-AI chat phrase in the ruling","summary":"On 4 June 2025 a criminal judge in Esquel, Chubut province, convicted a defendant of simple robbery and imposed two years and six months of effective imprisonment. On 15 October 2025 the Penal Chamber of Esquel annulled the judgment and the trial, ordering a new trial before another judge. The chamber found that the ruling contained a pasted phrase from a generative-AI assistant (“Aquí tienes el punto IV reeditado, sin citas y listo para copiar y pegar”), that the AI had been used on the rulings on the nullity of two essential pieces of evidence, and that the judge had not exercised human supervision or recorded the use. Perfil's headline describes the assistant as ChatGPT and La Nación's text as presumably ChatGPT; the quoted ruling and the prosecution office statement refer only to a generative-AI assistant. The chamber referred the judge's conduct to the Chubut Superior Court of Justice for ethical and disciplinary review.","incidentDate":"2025-06-04","incidentEndDate":"2025-10-15","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-10-16","aiSystem":"Generative AI assistant (reported as ChatGPT)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Per press reports of the appellate ruling, the trial and conviction were annulled because of the judge's undisclosed generative-AI use and the case must be tried again before another judge. The chamber described serious consequences of this for the parties, the public and the State. The effect on the defendant is not reported and the annulment may favour the defendant.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"unquantified","affectedCountEvidence":"The chamber refers to serious consequences of the annulment for 'los justiciables' (the parties to the proceeding), the public and the State without a count. No inspected source reports harm to the defendant specifically, and annulment of a conviction may be favourable to the defendant.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/el-juez-de-esquel-que-uso-chat-para-redactar-una-sentencia-sera-investigado-nid17102025/","primarySourceLabel":"La Nación, 'El juez de Esquel que usó Chat para redactar una sentencia será investigado', 17 October 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T12:42:03.091102+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:55.894793+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-stephens-county-oklahoma-judge-chatgpt-fake-citations-paternity-order","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Wheeler denied a request from one of the parents' attorneys to have the other parent undergo a psychological test—and in his order denying the request, he pointed to multiple previous Oklahoma cases he said backed him up.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The 2025 order in a child paternity case'; 'He came under scrutiny after he reprimanded attorney [the attorney] last November in an order in the paternity case for asking for a psychological evaluation of the child’s father.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The issue came to light after a request for a mental evaluation was denied and a subsequent court order was filed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In November 2025, in a child paternity and custody case, Judge Wheeler issued an order denying a request by one parent's attorney for a psychological evaluation of the other parent, citing Oklahoma cases he said supported the decision.","causal_attribution":"Court history as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR and described by the mother; the order itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge told the OSBI he only used ChatGPT for research and created the order himself, DA Jason Hicks wrote. The judge, however, also “indicated that at least two of the case citations included in his order and produced by ChatGPT do not exist.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Stephens County District Attorney Jason Hicks says Wheeler admitted to OSBI agents he cited \"at least two\" cases ChatGPT fed him that \"do not exist.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Hicks wrote that Wheeler acknowledged using case citations generated by ChatGPT and that at least two citations included in the order did not exist.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler used OpenAI's ChatGPT for research while drafting the order, which cited two cases that do not exist, according to state records.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"According to the district attorney's 17 August 2026 letter, the judge told the OSBI that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and indicated that at least two case citations in the order, produced by ChatGPT, do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The judge's own statement to investigators as relayed in the district attorney's letter; all four reports rely on that letter, which was not read. The judge's attorney declined to comment."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge issued the reprimand “for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics” and cautioned that future similar filings may be subject to further sanctions.'; '[The attorney] challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February. He told justices that Wheeler based his order on two cases, Cummings v. Cimarron Elevator Co. and Hawkins v. Linhart, that do not exist.'; '[The attorney] dismissed his challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. Wheeler is no longer involved in the paternity case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'She said her attorney at the time challenged the ruling and began reviewing the legal authorities cited in the order.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The order reprimanded the attorney who had asked for a psychological evaluation of the child's father 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics' and warned of further sanctions; that attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, saying it relied on two nonexistent cases, and dismissed the challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. The mother told News 9 that her attorney at the time challenged the ruling.","causal_attribution":"The Oklahoman's account of the court filings and the mother's account to News 9; the Supreme Court filings were not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'[The mother] said learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child.'; '“Then it became very concerning to me that somebody would do something like that over a child custody case,” she said.'; '“He then turned around and decided to recuse himself from my case,” she said. “He called my attorney that I had at the time and apologized to him.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The mother told News 9 that learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child, and that the judge later recused himself from her case and apologised to her attorney.","causal_attribution":"The mother's first-person account in a broadcast interview."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints.'; 'The OSBI also looked into allegations “that Judge Wheeler offered to amend the order in exchange for a dismissal of a writ seeking relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court” and that he “eavesdropped on jury deliberations,” the DA disclosed in the letter.'; 'Prosecutors in the AG’s office “thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution,” the AG’s press secretary, Leslie Berger, said on Sept. 2.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The Criminal Justice Division of the Attorney General’s Office thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary possess ultimate jurisdiction over disciplinary actions for allegations of inappropriate behavior by judges regardless of whether the behavior constitutes a violation of a criminal statute.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Council on Judicial Complaints, including allegations that he offered to amend the order in exchange for dismissal of the writ and that he eavesdropped on jury deliberations; the attorney general's office said the evidence did not support criminal prosecution and that judicial discipline rests with the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary.","causal_attribution":"District attorney's letter and attorney general's statement as reported; no disciplinary finding has been made."}],"effects":[{"label":"the mother faced an order denying a psychological-evaluation request, with the judge citing authorities reported to have been generated by ChatGPT","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the attorney who requested the evaluation was reprimanded in the order and sought relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court before the order was vacated","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the mother describes learning of the fabricated citations in her child custody case as alarming","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Oklahoman's report (USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect) as republished by Minnesota Lawyer; read in full from the Wayback capture of 10 September 2026 because the live page returned 403. Its ChatGPT-admission passages relay the district attorney's letter; its account of the reprimand, the Supreme Court challenge and the vacatur draws on court filings and the attorney. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/oklahoma-judge-admitted-citing-fake-030000000.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"KFOR (Oklahoma City) report syndicated on AOL, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its account of the ChatGPT admission relays the same district attorney letter. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.news9.com/oklahoma-city-news/stephens-county-mother-speaks-out-after-judge-accused-of-using-chatgpt-in-custody-case","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"News 9 (Griffin Media) interview with the mother, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its description of the ChatGPT admission also relays the district attorney's letter; the mother's own account is independent of it. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/09/stephens-county-judge-faces-discipline-over-chatgpt-written-court-order/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Hoodline rewrite of the Reuters report, read in full on 2026-09-29. Reuters relays the same district attorney letter. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["The text of the order and whether the nonexistent citations were decisive for denying the evaluation and for the reprimand.","Whether any disciplinary proceeding follows from the Council on Judicial Complaints referral.","The current state of the custody case after the vacatur and the judge's departure from it.","The exact day in November 2025 on which the order was issued."],"geography":{"basis":"The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9 locate the order and proceedings in Stephens County, Oklahoma, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court. These establish the event and court countries as US. News 9 calls the interviewee a Stephens County mother but gives no explicit residence evidence for either counted person, so affected_person_countries is unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"This reported event connects specific ChatGPT-generated citations to an adverse order issued by a human judge. The Oklahoman and KFOR describe their use in the order, The Oklahoman reports the attorney's reprimand and successful challenge, and News 9 carries the mother's account. The AI admission is reported through one district attorney's letter, not independently verified model output. The family and attorney remain unnamed. No broader custody consequence or disciplinary finding is inferred.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9 relay a district attorney's letter saying the judge acknowledged using ChatGPT for research and incorporating at least two nonexistent citations it produced into his order. The cited authorities were presented in support of the human judge's denial of a requested evaluation and his reprimand of the attorney. This supports informed_decision_about for the affected mother and attorney. It does not establish that ChatGPT itself decided custody or communicated with either of them. The underlying letter and order were not inspected, and whether the citations determined the outcome is unknown.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Prosecutor: judge used ChatGPT citations in Oklahoma custody order later vacated","summary":"In November 2025 Stephens County Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler issued an order in a child paternity and custody case that denied one parent's request for a psychological evaluation of the other parent and reprimanded the requesting parent's attorney 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics'. The attorney challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, telling the justices that it relied on two cases that do not exist; the challenge was dismissed in March after Wheeler vacated the order, and he is no longer on the case. According to a 17 August 2026 letter from the Stephens County district attorney, Wheeler told the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and that at least two citations in it produced by ChatGPT do not exist. The mother in the case told News 9 that learning the order's citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because it concerned the custody of a child. The attorney general's office declined criminal prosecution; judicial discipline remains possible.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-09","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used by the judge for legal research while preparing the order","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the district attorney's letter as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR, a judge acknowledged that his custody-case order contained at least two nonexistent citations supplied by ChatGPT. The order denied a request for a psychological evaluation and reprimanded the requesting attorney. The attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court before it was vacated. The mother described the discovery as alarming in a News 9 interview. The order and letter have not been inspected directly.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people affected through the judge's use of ChatGPT: the mother, whose request for a psychological evaluation was denied by the order and who describes the discovery as alarming (News 9), and the attorney who requested the evaluation and was reprimanded in the order and challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court (The Oklahoman). The child and the other parent are not counted because no harm to them is reported. The judge, the AI user, is not counted: he faces a possible disciplinary process but no sanction has been reported and the complaint bundled other allegations.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OK","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","primarySourceLabel":"The Oklahoman via Minnesota Lawyer, 9 September 2026: judge used ChatGPT citations in custody order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:18.787549+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:44.069668+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["justice","family-court","judge","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","institutional-use","oklahoma"]},{"id":"2026-norway-barnevakten-chatgpt-teen-mode-applied-to-adult","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'En av Barnevaktens medarbeidere fikk plutselig beskjed fra Chatgpt om at kontoen nå var i tenåringsmodus.'; 'Systemet skrur det på hvis oppførselen til brukeren indikerer at alderen er under 18 år.'; 'Denne gangen var det altså en voksen person som opplevde at tenåringsmodus ble slått på uten å ha bedt om det.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One of Barnevakten's staff members, an adult, was suddenly told by ChatGPT that their account was now in teen mode, which the system switches on when a user's behaviour indicates an age under 18 and which reduces sensitive content; the switch happened without a request because age is estimated afterwards from conversation topics and times of use.","causal_attribution":"Organisation's own account of a colleague's experience; the age-estimation mechanism is the organisation's description of the provider's pages."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hvis voksne opplever å havne i tenåringsmodus som de ikke ønsker, kan de gå gjennom en alderskontroll for å bevise at de er over 18 år.'; 'Chatgpt benytter selskapet Persona til å bekrefte alderen din.'; 'Opp til tre år nevnes som en mulighet.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The described way out of teen mode is an age check run by Persona that, depending on the country, asks for a real-time selfie and a government-issued ID; Barnevakten considers the process's privacy protections unclear, noting Persona's terms mention retention of up to three years.","causal_attribution":"Organisation's account and assessment; Persona's terms were not inspected."}],"effects":[{"label":"an adult's ChatGPT account was switched into teen mode by an automated age estimate, restricting content, with an identity check through a third-party verifier as the described way out","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.barnevakten.no/chatgpt-skrudde-pa-tenaringsfilter-for-en-voksen-person/","kind":"other","access":"read","language":"nb-NO","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-24 (Barnevakten, published 23 September 2026, categories Alderskontroll, KI, Sosial på nett; html lang=nb-NO). Norwegian; passages quoted in the original and paraphrased in English by the reviewer.","independence_group":"barnevakten"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether the staff member completed the identity check or remained in teen mode, and for how long.","What the account holder had discussed that triggered the estimate.","Whether the switch caused any concrete loss beyond the content restriction.","Where the staff member lives or was when the account was switched (not stated; the organisation's country is not used).","When the account was switched into teen mode; the article of 23 September 2026 gives no date."],"geography":{"basis":"Unknown after review. The account is published by Barnevakten, a Norwegian organisation, about one of its own staff members, but the article states neither where the staff member lives nor where they were when the account was switched. The organisation's country is not used as the event or residence location. No proceeding.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a low-severity everyday-assistance case in which an AI product made a decision about a person: an automated age estimate placed an adult in a restricted mode and the route out required an identity check. Single organisational source (the publisher's own account of its staff member), claims recorded as reported; the staff member is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The account reports ChatGPT's own message that the account was now in teen mode, and describes the provider's stated behaviour-based age estimation; the message and the mode are the product's own actions as described by the account holder's organisation.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","communicated_with"]},"name":"A Norwegian child-safety organisation reports that ChatGPT's behaviour-based age estimation switched an adult staff member's account into teen mode without a request, restricting content and offering an identity check through a third-party verifier as the way out (Barnevakten, 23 September 2026)","summary":"Barnevakten, a Norwegian child-safety organisation, reported on 23 September 2026 that one of its staff members was suddenly told by ChatGPT that their account was now in teen mode. ChatGPT's own pages, as described by Barnevakten, say the system turns the filter on when a user's behaviour indicates an age under 18, reducing sensitive or potentially harmful content (graphic violence, viral challenges, sexual or violent role-play, extreme beauty ideals) and offering parental controls and a study mode. Because there is no age check at sign-up, the system estimates age afterwards from conversation topics and times of use, and Barnevakten notes that such guesses can be wrong. An adult who wants out of teen mode can go through an age check run by the company Persona, which depending on the country asks for a real-time selfie and a government ID; Barnevakten questions whether that process is privacy-safe (Persona's terms mention retention of up to three years) and advises using only age checks one trusts. The account's own experience is limited to the unexpected switch and the verification route; no further consequence is described.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-09-23","aiSystem":"ChatGPT: behaviour-based age estimation and teen-mode content restrictions; age verification through Persona","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"An adult's ChatGPT account was placed in a restricted teen mode by an automated age estimate the account holder had not asked for, and the described route back to full access was an identity check with a third-party verifier which, depending on the country, asks for a real-time selfie and a government ID, whose data-retention terms the organisation considers unclear. The account describes no further consequence.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: 'En av Barnevaktens medarbeidere' (one of Barnevakten's staff members). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.barnevakten.no/chatgpt-skrudde-pa-tenaringsfilter-for-en-voksen-person/","primarySourceLabel":"Barnevakten, 23 September 2026: Chatgpt skrudde på tenåringsfilter for en voksen person","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-24T03:50:32.226789+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:47.10961+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["chatgpt","age-verification","teen-mode","norway","automated-decision","privacy","persona"]},{"id":"2026-brazil-openai-report-user-detained-without-charge","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","causal_attribution":"Police account carried by two independent chains (BBC interviews; G1 with civil-police material)."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): He was held in pre-trial detention for 54 days; on 13 August 2026 a court granted habeas corpus because, after more than 50 days, the police inquiry had not been concluded and no charge had been filed, and imposed an electronic ankle monitor and a ban on approaching or contacting his son and the child's mother; no charges had been brought and the investigation continues.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): He was held in pre-trial detention for 54 days; on 13 August 2026 a court granted habeas corpus because, after more than 50 days, the police inquiry had not been concluded and no charge had been filed, and imposed an electronic ankle monitor and a ban on approaching or contacting his son and the child's mother; no charges had been brought and the investigation continues.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"He was held in pre-trial detention for 54 days; on 13 August 2026 a court granted habeas corpus because, after more than 50 days, the police inquiry had not been concluded and no charge had been filed, and imposed an electronic ankle monitor and a ban on approaching or contacting his son and the child's mother; no charges had been brought and the investigation continues.","causal_attribution":"Court decision as reported by the BBC (single chain; the Spanish version is the same report)."},{"id":"c3","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Police say the reported messages were corroborated by material found during the arrest. The man denied intending harm and his lawyer disputed whether any concrete step had been taken.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Police say the reported messages were corroborated by material found during the arrest. The man denied intending harm and his lawyer disputed whether any concrete step had been taken.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Police say the reported messages were corroborated by material found during the arrest. The man denied intending harm and his lawyer disputed whether any concrete step had been taken.","causal_attribution":"Police and defence accounts as quoted by the BBC; the dispute concerns intent, not the detention."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): OpenAI provided investigators with the user's details and the messages he sent but not ChatGPT's replies; it did not answer the BBC's question why and said it may notify law enforcement when it detects a credible and imminent risk of harm to others; G1 reported that OpenAI's process combines automated systems and human moderators who may contact outside bodies, as happened in this case, and that the police chief called it the third such case in Brazil.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): OpenAI provided investigators with the user's details and the messages he sent but not ChatGPT's replies; it did not answer the BBC's question why and said it may notify law enforcement when it detects a credible and imminent risk of harm to others; G1 reported that OpenAI's process combines automated systems and human moderators who may contact outside bodies, as happened in this case, and that the police chief called it the third such case in Brazil.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): OpenAI provided investigators with the user's details and the messages he sent but not ChatGPT's replies; it did not answer the BBC's question why and said it may notify law enforcement when it detects a credible and imminent risk of harm to others; G1 reported that OpenAI's process combines automated systems and human moderators who may contact outside bodies, as happened in this case, and that the police chief called it the third such case in Brazil.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"OpenAI provided investigators with the user's details and the messages he sent but not ChatGPT's replies; it did not answer the BBC's question why and said it may notify law enforcement when it detects a credible and imminent risk of harm to others; G1 reported that OpenAI's process combines automated systems and human moderators who may contact outside bodies, as happened in this case, and that the police chief called it the third such case in Brazil.","causal_attribution":"OpenAI statements and investigators' accounts as reported; the absence of the replies is stated by investigators to the BBC."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Police say the conversations ran for about two months and an alert reached Brazilian authorities in June 2026, three days before the arrest.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Police say the conversations ran for about two months and an alert reached Brazilian authorities in June 2026, three days before the arrest.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Police say the conversations ran for about two months and an alert reached Brazilian authorities in June 2026, three days before the arrest.","causal_attribution":"BBC account (single chain)."}],"effects":[{"label":"held 54 days in pre-trial detention without charge after OpenAI reported his messages; released under electronic monitoring and a ban on contacting his son and the child's mother","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"police say the report let them arrest him a day before the date on which they believed the plan against the child would be carried out","claim_id":"c1","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c8dn1l7vr6ro","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt-br","translation_note":"Read live in Portuguese on 2026-09-23 (BBC News Brasil, Iara Diniz, 14 August 2026): messages seen by the BBC, police chief and defence-lawyer interviews, the habeas corpus release and precautionary measures. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"bbc"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/cxnvlg14e1p8o","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Read live in Spanish on 2026-09-23 (BBC News Mundo, 16 September 2026): Spanish text produced by AI translation from an English-language BBC original and reviewed by a BBC journalist before publication (stated in the article); same reporting chain as s1, which is preferred where the two diverge. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"bbc"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://g1.globo.com/tecnologia/noticia/2026/06/27/como-chatgpt-identificou-plano-de-pai-para-matar-o-filho-e-levou-alerta-para-autoridades.ghtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt-BR","translation_note":"Read live in Portuguese on 2026-09-23 (G1, 27 June 2026): arrest on 19 June, the OpenAI to FBI to Ministry of Justice to state police chain, message images from the civil police, OpenAI statement, police chief to TV Gazeta. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"g1-globo"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/459083/pai-e-preso-apos-planejar-morte-do-filho-no-chatgpt-veja-analise","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read live in Portuguese on 2026-09-23 (Migalhas, 26 June 2026): summary attributed to an earlier G1/TV Gazeta report of 26 June, with lawyers' analysis; same Globo chain as s3. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"g1-globo"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships","privacy"],"unknowns":["What ChatGPT replied during the two months of conversations (OpenAI did not provide the replies).","Whether charges will be brought after the forensic results and phone examination.","Whether he in fact contacted a hired killer, as he told ChatGPT.","The exact date OpenAI made its report to the FBI.","His identity (withheld by the BBC; not sought here)."],"geography":{"basis":"Arrest at his home in rural [identifying or operational detail withheld], [identifying or operational detail withheld] (BBC, G1, Migalhas); he lives there; habeas corpus granted by the Brazilian court handling the pre-trial detention (BBC: a Justiça). OpenAI's report went via the FBI in the United States, which is not an event location.","court_countries":["BR"],"event_countries":["BR"],"affected_person_countries":["BR"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case: an AI operator's report about a user, generated by ChatGPT safety systems, led to 54 days of pre-trial detention without charge, ended by habeas corpus. Two independent reporting chains (BBC; Globo) support the arrest and its cause; the release and its terms rest on the BBC. The police account that the report prevented a planned killing is preserved as context and intent is recorded as disputed. Nobody is named; the child is not identified. The charter states that this class needs no separate ruling.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"He conversed with ChatGPT for about two months; OpenAI's safety systems flagged the conversations and the company reported them to the FBI, which passed them to Brazilian authorities (BBC, G1, with the police chief's account). OpenAI did not provide ChatGPT's replies, so what the chatbot said is unknown.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Brazilian man detained without charge after OpenAI reported messages; he denies intending harm","summary":"BBC reporting describes a Brazilian man detained for 54 days after OpenAI reported messages to the FBI and Brazilian authorities. Police described a credible threat; he denied intending harm. A court released him without charges under protective conditions. The report did not include ChatGPT’s replies.","incidentDate":"2026-06-19","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-13","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-06-26","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI); OpenAI's automated detection and human moderation systems, which generated the report","aiProduct":"ChatGPT and OpenAI moderation","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The user was held in pre-trial detention for 54 days without charge on the strength of his ChatGPT messages as reported by OpenAI, then released under electronic monitoring and a no-contact order covering his son and the child's mother while the investigation continues. Police say the report was corroborated at the scene and prevented a planned killing; he and his lawyer dispute any intent. The consequence to him is undisputed; whether it was warranted is contested.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the ChatGPT user who was detained (BBC, G1). The child and the child's mother are not counted as harmed. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"BR","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c8dn1l7vr6ro","primarySourceLabel":"BBC News Brasil — report on the case","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-23T03:45:57.312143+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T11:09:49.574842+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["chatgpt","openai","brazil","espirito-santo","law-enforcement-report","pre-trial-detention","fbi","institutional-response","communicated-with","made-claim-about"]}]}