{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T15:34:56.255Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"hallucination","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":22,"coverage":{"cases":22,"countries":6,"languages":5,"unknownLocation":10,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":3,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":8,"minors":0,"coreRelations":12,"contextualRelations":9,"mixedRelations":2,"unknownRelations":3,"relationPending":2,"relationUnknown":1},"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":"2024-nanjing-courts-rule-baidu-ai-answer-falsely-saying-a-lawyer-was-sentenced-to-prison-defamed-him-written-apology-ordered","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'2024年9月30日，在百度搜索中搜索'; '被判处有期徒刑三年'; '的穿着律师袍的照片展示在回答内容当中'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'当他点开百度的推荐语句时，“AI智能回答”依然给出“三年有期徒刑”的虚假内容'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the first-instance judgment as quoted by the press, on 30 September 2024 Baidu search's AI smart answer, asked how many years the lawyer had been sentenced to, stated that he had been sentenced to three years' imprisonment for a criminal offence and displayed his photograph in a lawyer's robe.","causal_attribution":"The courts' findings as reported; the AI answer is the operator's own generated output."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'通过百度推广咨询热线、北京政务热线和多个邮箱反复投诉'; '上述核心谣言却从未彻底清除'; '严重干扰了'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer says he complained repeatedly to Baidu through hotlines and email without the core false content being fully removed, and that it seriously disrupted his work and life.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's own account to Jiaohuidian."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'系被告百度公司对搜索内容通过 AI 技术将文字内容与图片加工合成'; '百度公司主观上存有过错，该搜索发布内容的行为造成了原告的名誉受损'; '百度公司采用书面道歉信的形式向原告道歉为宜'; '未能提交证据证明，故对该项诉求不予支持'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'南京江北新区人民法院一审认定百度构成名誉侵权'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Jiangbei New Area People's Court found that Baidu's AI answer combined text and the lawyer's picture through AI into false, disparaging content aimed at him, that Baidu was at fault and that this was defamation; it ordered a written apology and rejected the claims for losses and emotional damages for lack of evidence.","causal_attribution":"The court's finding as quoted from the judgment; the judgment itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'所有的人工智能都会产生幻觉'; '采用了大量的诱导性提问，而这给人工智能产生一种错误的幻觉'; '2026年3月12日，南京中院二审驳回了百度公司上诉，维持了一审判决。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'南京市中级人民法院二审驳回上诉，维持原判'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Baidu argued that AI hallucinations are unforeseeable and that the lawyer used leading questions; the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court dismissed its appeal on 12 March 2026.","causal_attribution":"Baidu's argument and the appellate result as reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'终审判决生效后，百度公司未在法定期限内履行道歉义务'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'通过执行，百度最终进行了书面道歉'; '为此百度深表歉意'; '百度申请了再审，目前还未确定再审是否通过'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"After Baidu did not apologise within the deadline, the lawyer applied for enforcement; in September 2026 he said he had received Baidu's written apology through enforcement, and that Baidu had applied for a retrial.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's account and the quoted apology text."}],"effects":[{"label":"false AI search answer stating that a practising lawyer had been sentenced to prison, shown with his photograph, which a court found lowered his social standing","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/t/2026-05-09/doc-inhxfxrp7102110.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-10-22 from the publisher page. Translated by the research agent (an AI); quotations are Chinese originals and English renderings are the agent's translations. The report quotes the first-instance judgment and the appeal hearing; ThePaper later attributes the original reporting to Red Star News.","independence_group":"red-star-news-baidu-ai-lawyer-case"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://jsnews.jschina.com.cn/jsyw/202605/t20260512_s6a033847e4b04d95bbc5ad9a.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-10-22 from the publisher page. Translated by the research agent (an AI); quotations are Chinese originals and English renderings are the agent's translations. Jiaohuidian (Xinhua Daily group) reported the case from its own interview with the lawyer and the court outcome.","independence_group":"jiaohuidian-baidu-ai-lawyer-case"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_34124925","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-10-22 from the publisher page. Translated by the research agent (an AI); quotations are Chinese originals and English renderings are the agent's translations. A Red Star News report on ThePaper's account platform, so it shares the Red Star group.","independence_group":"red-star-news-baidu-ai-lawyer-case"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The exact wording and dates of both judgments; they were not inspected directly.","Whether Baidu's retrial application has been accepted.","How many people saw the false answer."],"geography":{"basis":"The courts are in Nanjing, China, and the affected person is a lawyer practising in Nanjing. The sources do not say where the searches were made, so no event country is recorded.","court_countries":["CN"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["CN"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete case in which an AI search answer stated a false criminal sentence about a named practising lawyer and a court, upheld on appeal, found the operator liable for defamation and ordered a written apology. The court findings are reported through two independent press chains; the judgments were not inspected.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The first-instance judgment, as quoted in the press, finds that Baidu search's AI smart answer itself generated the statement that the lawyer had been sentenced to three years' imprisonment and combined it with his photograph, and that this AI-generated content lowered his social standing. The appellate court upheld that finding. Baidu did not deny that its AI produced the answer; it argued that AI hallucinations are unforeseeable.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Nanjing courts rule Baidu's AI search answer falsely saying a lawyer was sentenced to prison defamed him; written apology ordered and upheld on appeal","summary":"A practising lawyer in Nanjing, China, found in September 2024 that Baidu search's 'AI smart answer' (AI 智能回答) feature, asked how many years he had been sentenced to, answered that he had been sentenced to three years in prison for a criminal offence and showed his photograph in a lawyer's robe. According to the first-instance judgment as quoted in the press, the answer was produced on 30 September 2024. The lawyer says he complained repeatedly to Baidu by letter, hotline and email without the content being fully removed, and he sued. The Jiangbei New Area People's Court in Nanjing found that Baidu had combined text and his picture through AI into false, disparaging content aimed at him, that Baidu was at fault, and that this was defamation; it ordered a written apology and rejected his claims for lost income and emotional damages for lack of evidence. Baidu argued that AI hallucinations could not be foreseen. The Nanjing Intermediate People's Court dismissed Baidu's appeal on 12 March 2026. The lawyer applied for enforcement when no apology came, and in September 2026 said he had received Baidu's written apology; Baidu has applied for a retrial.","incidentDate":"2024-09-30","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-05-09","aiSystem":"Baidu search's AI smart answer (AI 智能回答), a generative answer feature shown above search results in the Baidu app and website","aiProduct":"Baidu AI smart answer","aiCompany":"Baidu","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Courts in Nanjing found that Baidu's AI search answer falsely stating a lawyer had been sentenced to prison, shown with his photograph, lowered his social standing and was defamation; they ordered a written apology.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the lawyer about whom the AI answer made the false statement and whom the courts found defamed. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/t/2026-05-09/doc-inhxfxrp7102110.shtml","primarySourceLabel":"Sina Finance, 9 May 2026: Baidu AI said a lawyer was sentenced; court finds infringement and orders a written apology","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T03:14:56.60197+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T03:14:56.60197+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-search-answer","defamation","court-ruling","false-criminal-allegation","hallucination"]},{"id":"2026-developer-says-meta-muse-agent-sent-unprompted-message-about-checking-email-meta-blamed-bug-that-caused-hallucination","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I downloaded Meta's Muse about four weeks ago. I stopped using it three days later.'; 'Three days after downloading Muse, I hopped out of the shower, and I saw a random message pop up from the app.'; 'I can't check your email right now — Gmail isn't connected on my end, so I have no way to look for that Anthropic message.'; 'I hadn't asked for the agent to check my mailbox or messaged it in two days.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The developer says they downloaded Meta's Muse agent about four weeks before the essay of 15 October 2026 and that three days after installing it, and two days after last messaging it, the agent sent an unprompted message saying it could not check the developer's email for an 'Anthropic message' because Gmail was not connected.","causal_attribution":"The developer's account of the agent's message; Meta's later statement (c4) attributes it to a bug that made the model hallucinate."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I didn't give it any additional permissions on my device besides permission to access my Facebook, Threads, and Instagram accounts. I never connected it to control anything external, like my email or phone number.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The developer says the agent had been given access only to Facebook, Threads and Instagram and was never connected to email or a phone number.","causal_attribution":"The developer's account."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I thought my email might've been hacked.'; 'The whole thing really shook me.'; 'I reported the incident to Meta.'; 'But I disconnected permissions on my Facebook, Instagram, and Threads accounts'; 'I don't use it anymore'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The developer says they thought their email might have been hacked and were shaken, reported the incident to Meta, disconnected the agent's permissions and stopped using it.","causal_attribution":"The developer connects the fear and the withdrawal of access to the agent's message."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'When contacted about this story, a spokesperson for Meta pointed Business Insider to its response on'; 'We investigated with urgency and determined that this was caused by a bug introduced in the product that caused the model to hallucinate and was NOT a security or privacy issue.'; 'The bug has now been fixed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A Meta spokesperson pointed Business Insider to Meta's reply on the developer's Threads post, which said Meta determined that a bug introduced in the product caused the model to hallucinate, that it was not a security or privacy issue, and that the bug had been fixed.","causal_attribution":"The vendor's own statement as quoted by Business Insider."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'No damage was done, but what caught me off guard most was that I hadn't done anything to prompt this.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The developer says no damage was done.","causal_attribution":"The developer's own qualification, kept as counterevidence on the extent of harm."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Today, Meta is introducing Muse, a secure, private personal AI agent that proactively helps with people's goals and suggests ideas.'; 'Muse is rolling out in the US on iOS, Android, and muse.'; 'September 8, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Meta introduced Muse on 8 September 2026, rolling out in the United States on iOS and Android.","causal_attribution":"Meta's own dated announcement; it bounds the earliest date of the message."}],"effects":[{"label":"fear that an email account had been hacked after an unprompted agent message, leading the user to withdraw the agent's access","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.businessinsider.com/stopped-using-meta-muse-after-strange-message-from-ai-agent-2026-10","kind":"first_person_account","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-19 from the publisher page; no translation was needed and the research agent (an AI) read the text directly. The essay is the developer's account as told to and edited by Business Insider, with an editor's note quoting Meta's statement.","independence_group":"business-insider-muse-as-told-to"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://about.fb.com/news/2026/09/introducing-muse-personal-ai-agent/","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-19 from Meta's newsroom; no translation was needed. Used only for the product's introduction date.","independence_group":"meta-newsroom-muse-launch"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The exact date of the message: the developer says Muse was downloaded about four weeks before the essay of 15 October 2026 and the message came three days later, which with Muse's introduction on 8 September 2026 places it in September 2026.","What the bug was and whether other users received similar messages.","The content of the screenshots and of the Threads exchange, which were not inspected.","Whether Meta's investigation reached a further finding beyond the statement quoted."],"geography":{"basis":"Business Insider describes the developer as based in a city in the United States, which places the affected person in the United States; the message arrived in a phone app and no event country is inferred from residence.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse experience with an AI agent: the agent's own unprompted message is quoted, the user describes fearing a hacked email account and withdrawing the agent's access, and the vendor attributes the message to a bug that made the model hallucinate. Claims are attributed to the developer's as-told-to account and to Meta's statement.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The essay quotes the Muse agent's own unprompted message saying it could not check the user's email for an 'Anthropic message' because Gmail was not connected, and Meta's statement says a bug introduced in the product caused the model to hallucinate. The user connects that message to fearing the email account had been hacked, reporting the incident and disconnecting the agent's permissions.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Developer says Meta's Muse agent sent an unprompted message about checking an email account it could not access; Meta said a bug caused a hallucination","summary":"In an as-told-to essay published by Business Insider on 15 October 2026, a software developer says that three days after installing Meta's Muse agent, and two days after last using it, the agent sent an unprompted message saying it could not check the developer's email for an 'Anthropic message' because Gmail was not connected. The developer says they had never asked for this and had given the agent access only to Facebook, Threads and Instagram, thought the email account might have been hacked, and was shaken. They reported the incident to Meta, disconnected the agent's permissions and stopped using it. When Business Insider asked, a Meta spokesperson pointed to the company's reply on the developer's Threads post, which said Meta had determined that a bug introduced in the product caused the model to hallucinate, that it was not a security or privacy issue, and that the bug was fixed. The developer says no damage was done. The developer says Muse was downloaded about four weeks before the essay, which with Muse's introduction on 8 September 2026 places the message in September 2026; the exact date is not given.","incidentDate":"2026-09-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-15","aiSystem":"Meta Muse personal AI agent (phone app) connected to the user's Facebook, Threads and Instagram accounts","aiProduct":"Meta Muse agent","aiCompany":"Meta","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"In a Business Insider as-told-to essay, a software developer says an unprompted message from Meta's Muse agent about checking an email account it had no access to made them fear the account had been hacked and shook them; they reported it, disconnected the agent's permissions and stopped using it. Meta said a product bug made the model hallucinate.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the developer who received the agent's message and tells the story in the essay. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"agent","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.businessinsider.com/stopped-using-meta-muse-after-strange-message-from-ai-agent-2026-10","primarySourceLabel":"Business Insider, 15 October 2026: I tried Meta's Muse AI agent for 3 days, then it sent me a strange message (as-told-to essay)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-19T03:13:17.436223+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-19T03:13:17.436223+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-agent","unprompted-message","hallucination","vendor-acknowledged","as-told-to"]},{"id":"2026-arizona-appeals-court-strikes-self-represented-appellants-ai-hallucinated-citations-orders-fees-sanction","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In his opening brief with the Court of Appeals, he made eight citations. The court found that six of them were deficient; two were cases that “simply do not exist.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The self-represented appellant's opening brief made eight citations; the court found six deficient, including two cases that do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings as reported by the Arizona Mirror."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"readily acknowledged that he relied on generative AI to write his brief; he admitted he did nothing to independently verify the citations","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations he acknowledged relying on generative AI to write the brief and admitted doing nothing to verify the citations.","causal_attribution":"The appellant's own acknowledgement, recorded in the opinion and reported by the Arizona Mirror."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Accordingly, citing a hallucinated case in a legal filing is sanctionable conduct; traceable to dealing with the fake citations; appeal was also rejected because there were no supportive legal authorities for his claims once the inaccurate and false citations were stricken","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that citing a hallucinated case is sanctionable regardless of intent, ordered him to pay the portion of the other party's attorney's fees traceable to the fake citations, and rejected the appeal because no supportive authority remained once the citations were struck.","causal_attribution":"The court's ruling as reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The three-judge panel noted that court rules allow for more severe sanctions, including contempt charges and monetary fines.; isn’t a trained legal professional, it opted to narrowly sanction him","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court chose this narrow sanction over contempt or fines because he said he did not intend to deceive and is not a trained legal professional.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"brief citations struck, appeal rejected and fee sanction ordered","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://kiowacountypress.net/content/arizona-court-appeals-citing-fake-ai-generated-cases-can-get-you-sanctioned-no-matter-your","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 (HTTP 200); no translation was needed. Republication of the Arizona Mirror (States Newsroom) report.","independence_group":"arizona-mirror-report-jul-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which generative AI tool the appellant used.","The amount of the fee award, which depended on the other party's documentation."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in, and the sanction imposed by, the Arizona Court of Appeals in a Maricopa County probate appeal. Residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the Arizona Mirror's report of the Court of Appeals opinion of 15 July 2026: a self-represented appellant acknowledged relying on generative AI to write a brief that cited nonexistent cases, and the court struck the citations, rejected the appeal and ordered him to pay the fees they caused. The parties are private persons and are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-18"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The appellant acknowledged in a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations that he relied on generative AI to write his opening brief, which the court found cited two nonexistent cases and misstated others; the AI-generated text reached him (communicated_with), and the court read the fabricated citations, struck them, rejected the appeal for want of authority and imposed a fee sanction for them (informed_decision_about). The tool is not named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Arizona appeals court strikes a self-represented appellant's AI-hallucinated citations, rejects his probate appeal and orders him to pay fees as a sanction","summary":"In a published opinion of July 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals found that a self-represented appellant's opening brief in a probate dispute contained eight citations, six of them deficient, including two cases that do not exist. In a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations he acknowledged relying on generative AI to write the brief and said he did nothing to verify the citations. The court struck the inaccurate and false citations, rejected the appeal because no supportive authority remained, held that citing a hallucinated case is sanctionable whether or not it is intended, and ordered him to pay the share of the other party's attorney's fees traceable to the fake citations. Because he said he did not intend to deceive and is not legally trained, the court chose this narrow sanction over contempt or fines. It described the opinion as the first published Arizona ruling on generative AI hallucinations in filings.","incidentDate":"2026-07-15","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-07-19","aiSystem":"Generative AI, not identified in the report, that the appellant said he relied on to write his opening brief, which cited two nonexistent cases and misstated others","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court, the appellant's AI-drafted brief cited nonexistent cases; the citations were struck, the appeal was rejected and he was ordered to pay the share of the other party's attorney's fees caused by the fake citations.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used generative AI and was sanctioned.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AZ","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://kiowacountypress.net/content/arizona-court-appeals-citing-fake-ai-generated-cases-can-get-you-sanctioned-no-matter-your","primarySourceLabel":"Arizona Mirror (States Newsroom), republished by Kiowa County Press, July 2026: Arizona Court of Appeals on sanctions for fake AI-generated cases","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-18T03:14:48.762612+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-18T03:14:48.762612+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated-citations","self-represented-litigant","appeal","sanction","attorney-fees","arizona"]},{"id":"2026-business-user-says-chatgpt-dot-voice-assistant-answered-in-users-own-voice-during-recorded-meeting-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'have the premium business seat'; 'This week we started utilizing DOT'; 'One of the skills I put in the workflow was for the DOT to not talk'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says their team uses ChatGPT on a business subscription and began using Dot that week, including by phone to record and summarise meetings, with an instruction to stay silent unless asked.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I go to have a meeting with a store manager today'; 'why were you just repeating everything I said'; 'Why is your voice different now'; 'Sorry, I slipped into a different voice'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says that during a recorded meeting with a store manager the assistant repeated what was said and answered in a different voice, and pastes a transcript excerpt in which it apologises for slipping into a different voice.","causal_attribution":"The transcript excerpt is the poster's paste; no recording was available."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'IT WAS MY VOICE'; 'the replies all being in my voice was so creepy'; 'It RESPONDED to me LIKE ME'; 'because I did not authorize it to clone me'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says the voice was their own, in their cadence, and that they did not authorise the assistant to clone their voice.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account; the poster's identification of the voice is not independently confirmed."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'My manager and I were both freaked out, so we hung up and called back'; 'told me that it can't be my voice. But it was'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says they and the store manager were both freaked out and hung up, and that on calling back the assistant said it could not be the poster's voice.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account of both people's reaction."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I feel like it was a glitch / hallucination'; 'This has been an issue since the first voice mode'; 'Oh, I was not aware of this'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster suggests it may have been a glitch or hallucination; a commenter says voice modes have mimicked users' voices since the first voice mode, and the poster replies that they were not aware of this.","causal_attribution":"Records the poster's and a commenter's explanations; neither establishes the technical cause."}],"effects":[{"label":"voice assistant answered in the user's own voice during a recorded meeting without consent (poster's account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1x8nfri/swear_to_god_i_am_not_crazy/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-18: the post and 13 comments through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID and link ID, and the live thread (12 entries, one reply by the poster at 22:54 UTC on 17 October 2026) through Reddit's comment RSS feed at about 03:01 UTC on 18 October. The post includes a pasted transcript excerpt; no audio was available. The poster's handle is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-openai-dot-voice-poster"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether a recording of the meeting exists and whether the voice was in fact the poster's.","The technical cause, including whether the model imitated the poster's voice or replayed captured audio.","Whether the poster reported the event to the vendor and any vendor response.","The exact date of the meeting and the location of the business."],"geography":{"basis":"The post does not say where the poster, the business or the meeting is.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of a voice assistant answering in its user's own voice during a recorded meeting without consent, alarming the user and a colleague. Described with attribution and without corroboration, including the poster's own suggestion that it was a glitch; the business and the poster's handle are not recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-18"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The poster describes the assistant's own audio output: during a recorded meeting it repeated what was said and answered in a voice the poster identifies as their own, and the pasted transcript shows it apologising for slipping into a different voice. The poster connects that output to their and the manager's alarm and to an unauthorised imitation of their voice. The account is the poster's; no recording or vendor finding was available.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Business user says ChatGPT's Dot voice assistant began answering in the user's own voice during a recorded meeting, without consent (first-person account)","summary":"In a public post to r/OpenAI created on 17 October 2026, a person who says their small retail team uses ChatGPT on a business subscription writes that they had started that week to use Dot, ChatGPT's assistant, by phone call, including to record and summarise meetings. During a recorded meeting with a store manager, the poster says, the assistant repeated what was being said aloud and then answered in the poster's own voice and cadence; asked why its voice was different, it apologised for slipping into a different voice, and later said it could not be the poster's voice. The poster writes that they and the manager were both freaked out and hung up, that they did not authorise it to clone their voice, and that it may have been a glitch or hallucination. A commenter says voice modes have mimicked users' voices before; the poster replies that they were not aware of this. The poster still recommends the product. The account is uncorroborated and no recording or vendor response is reported.","incidentDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-17","aiSystem":"Dot, ChatGPT's assistant, used by phone call on a business subscription to take part in and record meetings (as named by the poster)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT Dot (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The poster says ChatGPT's Dot assistant answered in the poster's own voice during a recorded meeting without their authorisation, and that they and a store manager were both freaked out (first-person account, uncorroborated).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people: the poster, who was using the assistant, and the store manager in the meeting, whom the poster says was also freaked out. Both counts rest on the poster's account.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1x8nfri/swear_to_god_i_am_not_crazy/","primarySourceLabel":"r/OpenAI, 17 October 2026: \"Swear to God, I am Not Crazy.\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-18T03:07:59.091941+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-18T03:07:59.091941+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","voice-assistant","voice-imitation","workplace-ai","consent"]},{"id":"2026-south-africa-home-affairs-suspends-two-officials-over-apparent-ai-hallucinated-references-in-immigration-white-paper","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"is suspending two senior officials with immediate effect following the detection of apparent Artificial Intelligence (AI) “hallucinations” cited as references appended to the recently Cabinet-approved Revised White Paper on Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Department of Home Affairs said it was suspending two senior officials with immediate effect after detecting apparent AI hallucinations cited as references appended to the recently Cabinet-approved Revised White Paper on Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection.","causal_attribution":"The department's own statement."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"The precautionary suspension of a Chief Director in the relevant unit was carried out this afternoon, while the suspension of a Director involved in the drafting process will be effected on Monday.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The department on Thursday announced the suspension of two officials associated with a key policy document that recently underwent a revision.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A chief director was placed on precautionary suspension on 30 April 2026 and the suspension of a director involved in the drafting was to take effect the following Monday.","causal_attribution":"The department's statement of 30 April 2026 (a Thursday)."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"It seems that these references were generated and attached to the document after the fact, as they are not cited in the body of the text. Consequently, the Department has withdrawn the reference list, pending the finalisation of the independent probe","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the department's initial review, the references appear to have been generated and attached after the fact because they are not cited in the body of the text, and the department withdrew the reference list pending an independent probe.","causal_attribution":"The department's initial internal review, hedged ('appears', 'seems'); who generated the references is not stated."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"the Department has appointed two independent law firms to respectively manage the disciplinary process and review all policy documents produced by the Department dating back to 30 November 2022","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The department appointed two independent law firms, one to manage the disciplinary process and one to review all its policy documents since 30 November 2022, and said it would introduce AI checks and declarations in its internal approvals.","causal_attribution":"The department's statement."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"are not materially affected by the apparent AI hallucinations contained in the standalone reference list","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The department said the body of the White Paper continues to reflect the government's position and is not materially affected by the apparent AI hallucinations in the standalone reference list.","causal_attribution":"The department's own assessment."}],"effects":[{"label":"two senior officials placed on precautionary suspension with a disciplinary process","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.gov.za/news/media-statements/home-affairs-suspends-two-officials-over-ai-use-linked-revised-white-paper","kind":"government_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-17 (HTTP 200) on the South African Government website; dated 30 April 2026 in the page metadata.","independence_group":"dha-statement-30-april-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.citizen.co.za/news/home-affairs-officials-suspended-ai-hallucinations/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-17 (HTTP 200). Published 1 May 2026; reports and quotes the department's statement, so the same group.","independence_group":"dha-statement-30-april-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["work","public_services"],"unknowns":["Who used the AI tool, which tool it was, and when the reference list was generated.","Whether either suspended official used AI; the statement links the director to the drafting process only.","The outcome of the independent probe and the disciplinary process."],"geography":{"basis":"The White Paper is a document of South Africa's Department of Home Affairs, which suspended the two officials. Where the officials live is not used.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["ZA"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a consequential response to AI use: the Department of Home Affairs suspended two senior officials and opened a disciplinary process after its review found apparent AI-hallucinated references appended to a Cabinet-approved White Paper.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-17"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Consequential response: the department suspended two officials in response to what its initial internal review describes as apparent AI hallucinations in the references appended to the White Paper, which it says appear to have been generated and attached after the fact. The department does not say who used the AI tool or which tool it was, so no relation between the AI output and the suspended officials is established.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"South Africa's Home Affairs department suspends two senior officials after apparent AI-hallucinated references were found in its immigration White Paper","summary":"South Africa's Department of Home Affairs announced on 30 April 2026 that it was suspending two senior officials with immediate effect after apparent AI hallucinations were found among the references appended to its recently Cabinet-approved Revised White Paper on Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection. A chief director was placed on precautionary suspension that afternoon, and a director involved in the drafting was to be suspended the following Monday. The department said its initial review indicated that the references were generated and attached to the document after the fact, since they are not cited in its body; it withdrew the reference list pending an independent probe into how the hallucinations were added. It appointed two independent law firms, one to manage the disciplinary process and one to review all policy documents the department has produced since 30 November 2022, and said it would introduce AI checks and declarations in its approval process. The department apologised and said the body of the White Paper is not materially affected. Who used the AI tool, and which tool, is not stated.","incidentDate":"2026-04-30","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-04-30","aiSystem":"An unidentified generative AI tool that, according to the department's initial review, appears to have generated the reference list appended to the Revised White Paper on Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the department's statement, two senior officials were placed on precautionary suspension, with a disciplinary process managed by an independent law firm, after apparent AI-hallucinated references were found in a White Paper.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people: the chief director and the director whose precautionary suspensions the department announced. Whether either used the AI tool is not stated, so they are counted as other people harmed rather than as AI users.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"ZA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.gov.za/news/media-statements/home-affairs-suspends-two-officials-over-ai-use-linked-revised-white-paper","primarySourceLabel":"South African Government (Department of Home Affairs), Home Affairs suspends two officials over AI use linked to revised White Paper (30 April 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-17T03:16:20.299322+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-17T03:16:20.299322+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["south-africa","public-sector","policy-document","fictitious-references","suspension"]},{"id":"2026-los-angeles-court-sanctions-state-farm-outside-lawyer-for-motions-citing-non-existent-cases-from-ai-tool","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"An attorney for State Farm who filed several motions citing nonexistent cases and fabricated quotes generated by AI software must pay a $999.99 sanction, a Los Angeles judge ruled","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A Los Angeles judge ordered the State Farm attorney who filed several motions citing non-existent cases and fabricated quotations generated by AI software to pay a $999.99 sanction.","causal_attribution":"Law360's report of the order; the order itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"To assist in my preparation of these motions, I utilized an Artificial Intelligence program called \"Irys.\" However, I regrettably did not check some of the cites I chose to include in the filed pleadings ... there were seven (7) case citations across State Farm's eight (8) motions in limine that simply did not exist","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"used an AI tool called Irys, which she incorrectly thought was tied to her law firm","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In a declaration, the associate who prepared the motions said she used an AI program called Irys to prepare them, did not check some of the citations because she wrongly believed the program was cite-checked through the firm's Westlaw subscription, and confirmed seven case citations across eight motions in limine that did not exist.","causal_attribution":"The associate's own declaration (reproduced by Reason and summarised by CalMatters); one origin."},{"id":"c3","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"informed the Court that they had discovered several citations in State Farm's motion in limine filings that were \"fabricated\" and possibly \"hallucinations.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"were brought to the court's attention during a status hearing on Aug. 7","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"shared his findings at an Aug. 7 conference in Los Angeles Superior Court","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff's lawyers found the non-existent citations and raised them with the court at a status conference on 7 August 2026.","causal_attribution":"The associate's declaration and the plaintiff side's own filings (as reported by Law360 and CalMatters) agree on the discovery and its date."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"he had discovered seven made-up cases, nine quotes for orders that did not exist and 13","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to a declaration by one of the plaintiff's lawyers, the filings contained seven made-up cases, nine quotations from orders that did not exist and 13 fabricated holdings or statements of law.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff lawyer's declaration as reported by Law360."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"acknowledged the firm had discovered “nonexistent case citations which appear to have been AI hallucinations” across a recent batch of motions","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"apologized to the court and to the plaintiff, explaining that his co-counsel told him she used AI to help prepare some filings","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The firm acknowledged citations that appeared to be AI hallucinations, and its lead trial counsel apologised to the court and to the plaintiff, saying his co-counsel told him she had used AI to help prepare some filings.","causal_attribution":"The firm's own filings, as reported by the Los Angeles Times and CalMatters."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"particularly as it relates to State Farm's first five motions in limine which our office filed and served on March 31, 2026","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The associate's declaration ties the issue particularly to the first five motions in limine, which the firm filed and served on 31 March 2026.","causal_attribution":"The associate's declaration."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The sum falls several thousand dollars below the maximum penalty, $5,000, that Judge Bradley said she was considering when setting the sanctions hearing","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to Law360, the judge had said in late August that she was considering a sanction of up to $5,000; the $999.99 set is one cent below the level that requires a California court to notify the State Bar.","causal_attribution":"Law360's report of the two orders."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"State Farm expects its external counsel to conform to the highest level of ethical standards and professionalism, including in their use of AI and confirming the accuracy of all legal filings","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"State Farm said it expects its outside counsel to meet the highest ethical and professional standards, including in their use of AI and in confirming the accuracy of filings.","causal_attribution":"State Farm spokesperson's statement to the Los Angeles Times."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"I am sincerely apologetic for the inconvenience and waste of time and resources I have forced the Court","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The associate's declaration apologised for the time and resources the court, the plaintiff and the attorneys had to spend on the issue.","causal_attribution":"The associate's declaration."}],"effects":[{"label":"sanctioned $999.99 for motions with non-existent citations prepared with an AI program","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.law360.com/articles/2524716/state-farm-attorney-sanctioned-999-99-for-ai-hallucinations","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full on 2026-10-17 (HTTP 200). Published 14 September 2026; reports the sanction order, the late-August order and the plaintiff lawyer's declaration.","independence_group":"law360-report-of-sanction-order-september-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/08/24/ai-hallucinations-in-state-farm-insurance-outside-lawyers-filings/","kind":"commentary_with_filing_excerpt","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-17 (HTTP 200). Published 24 August 2026; reproduces long passages of the associate's declaration and quotes the Los Angeles Times.","independence_group":"state-farm-associate-declaration-august-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://calmatters.org/economy/2026/08/state-farm-lawsuit-ai-hallucinations/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-17 through an Internet Archive capture after the live page returned HTTP 429. Published 18 August 2026; reports filings by both sides.","independence_group":"calmatters-filings-report-august-2026"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-08-19/ai-hallucinations-case-law-state-farm-la-county-fire-dispute","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-17 (HTTP 200). Published 19 August 2026.","independence_group":"los-angeles-times-report-august-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The text of the sanction order (not inspected; known through Law360).","Which citations Irys generated and which the associate wrote; the sources give only the totals.","Whether the false citations affected any ruling on the motions in limine; no source says so.","Whether the plaintiff incurred costs beyond the time spent identifying the citations; no source quantifies it."],"geography":{"basis":"The motions were filed in, and the sanction imposed by, Los Angeles County Superior Court in California. Where the associate lives is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse consequence of AI use: the associate's declaration says the AI program Irys was used to prepare motions that contained seven non-existent case citations, and the court sanctioned the associate $999.99 for them, according to Law360's report of the order.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-17"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The associate's declaration says she used the AI program Irys to prepare the motions and did not check some of the citations included in them; her review found seven non-existent case citations across eight motions, and the firm acknowledged citations that appeared to be AI hallucinations. The program's output reached the associate and went into the filings (communicated_with), and the court sanctioned the associate for them, Law360 reports. The tool's output itself is not reproduced in the inspected sources.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Los Angeles judge sanctions State Farm's outside lawyer $999.99 over motions citing non-existent cases; the lawyer said she prepared them with the AI tool Irys","summary":"A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ordered a senior associate at Musick, Peeler & Garrett, the outside firm defending State Farm in a homeowner's lawsuit over a fire-damaged home, to pay a $999.99 sanction after the associate's motions in limine cited cases, quotations and holdings that did not exist, Law360 reported on 14 September 2026. In a declaration reproduced by Reason's Volokh Conspiracy, the associate said she used an AI program called Irys to prepare the motions, did not check some of the citations, and wrongly believed the program was cite-checked through the firm's Westlaw subscription; she confirmed seven non-existent case citations across eight motions. The plaintiff's lawyers found the citations and raised them at a status conference on 7 August 2026. The firm acknowledged citations that appeared to be AI hallucinations, and its lead trial counsel apologised to the court and the plaintiff. According to Law360, the judge had considered up to $5,000, and the amount set is one cent below the level at which California law requires a court to notify the State Bar.","incidentDate":"2026-03-31","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-11","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-08-18","aiSystem":"Irys, an AI legal research program that the lawyer told the court she used to prepare the motions; Law360 says it appears to be the tool built by Iqidis Inc.","aiProduct":"Irys (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to Law360's report of the order, the associate who filed the AI-assisted motions was sanctioned $999.99; the associate's declaration apologised for the time and resources the court, the plaintiff and the attorneys spent on the false citations.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the associate the court sanctioned (Law360). The associate's declaration apologises for time and resources that the court, the plaintiff and the attorneys spent on the issue; no further consequence for the plaintiff is described, so the plaintiff is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.law360.com/articles/2524716/state-farm-attorney-sanctioned-999-99-for-ai-hallucinations","primarySourceLabel":"Law360, State Farm Attorney Sanctioned $999.99 For AI Hallucinations (14 September 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-17T03:02:07.57541+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-17T03:02:07.57541+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","california","legal-profession","hallucinated-citations","court-sanction","insurance-litigation"]},{"id":"2026-israel-magistrates-court-strikes-expert-report-resting-on-ai-hallucinated-case-law-costs","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'התרשלה בתפקידה כנאמנת'; 'ביום 10.3.26הגישה הנתבעת 2חוות דעת'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, a lawyer acting as trustee, negligently transferred estate money to another person's account; the defendant filed a third-party notice against two banks and, on 10 March 2026, a banking expert's opinion.","causal_attribution":"The decision's own account of the pleadings; the negligence claim is an allegation in a continuing suit."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'מבוססת על פסיקה ,חקיקה וספרות פיקטיביות שהומצאו ע\"י בינה מלאכותית ,ובכלל זה פסק דין שאינו קיים'; 'כאשר שאלת השימוש בבינה מלאכותית מקומה להתברר בחקירה נגדית'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One bank asked the court to strike the opinion as resting on case law, legislation and literature invented by artificial intelligence, including a ruling that does not exist; the defendant replied that the question of AI use should be examined in cross-examination.","causal_attribution":"The parties' submissions as recorded by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'הליך שלא ניתן לאתרו לפי מספר או שם הצדדים'; 'מבדיקה עצמאית לא נמצא כי קיים ספר ,מאמר או ציטוט כזה'; 'מבלי שהוגשה התייחסותו של המומחה לטענות המופנות כנגד חוות דעתו ,ומחדל זה פועל לחובתה של הנתבעת'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Checking the sources itself, the court could not locate the cited Supreme Court ruling by number or party names, found no book, article or quotation matching the cited legal text, and found that the quoted statutory sections say something else; the defendant filed no response from the expert.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings after its own check of the sources."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'משנמצא כי לב חוות הדעת והנספחים המצורפים אליה נשענים על \"הזיות בינה מלאכותית\" מובהקות ועל עיוות מוחלט של לשון חוק שירותי תשלום'; 'הגשת חוות דעת המבוססת על הזיות של בינה מלאכותית מהווה פגם מהותי המצדיק את הוצאתה המידית מהתיק עוד לפני שלב ההוכחות'; 'ומורה על מחיקת חוות דעתו'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rest on clear AI hallucinations and a distortion of the statute, that an opinion resting on AI hallucinations is a substantive defect justifying its removal before the evidence stage, and struck it from the file.","causal_attribution":"The court attributes the defects to AI hallucinations; that attribution rests on the invented content, with no admission or named tool."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'שעה שהתיקון של ההודעה לצד שלישי מבוסס על חוות דעת המומחה מטעם המודיעה ,חוות דעת שמצאתי אותה פגומה והוריתי על מחיקתה מהתיק'; 'דין הבקשה לתיקון ההודעה לצד שלישי להידחות'; 'תישא בהוצאות הבקשות לטובת הצד דים השלישיים בסך של'; '₪ 2,500לכל אחד מהם בנפרד'; 'ניתנה היום ,כ\"ז תשרי תשפ\"ז 08 ,אוקטובר'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court refused the defendant's request to amend the third-party notice, giving as one reason that the amendment rested on the struck opinion, and ordered her to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each of the two banks within 30 days regardless of the outcome; the decision is dated 8 October 2026.","causal_attribution":"The court's orders. The refusal also rests on independent procedural grounds (no supporting affidavit, lateness, lack of good faith)."}],"effects":[{"label":"defendant's expert opinion struck from the file as resting on AI-hallucinated authorities","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"defendant's amendment refused and costs of 2,500 shekels ordered to each of two banks","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3278/Avaragl_v._Yaakov_Israel.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"he","translation_note":"Read in full in Hebrew by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from the copy of the decision hosted on the AI Hallucination Cases database (HTTP 200, 10 pages, text extracted with pdftotext and bidirectional-control characters removed); the English renderings in this record are the research agent's own translation, with no human translator involved.","independence_group":"nof-hagalil-nazareth-magistrates-court-civil-file-38820-04-24-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","finance"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool, if any, the expert used; the decision names none and records no account from the expert.","Whether the defendant appeals the decision or pays the costs, and how the suit and the third-party notice are decided.","Whether the expert faces any professional consequence."],"geography":{"basis":"The opinion was filed in, and struck by, the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel. Where the parties live is not stated and is not used.","court_countries":["IL"],"event_countries":["IL"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's decision, read in full, finds that a filed expert opinion rests on AI-hallucinated authorities and distorted statute text, and on that basis strikes it, refuses the amendment built on it and orders the filing defendant to pay costs. The case is an expert witness's report excluded from evidence before trial.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's decision finds that the heart of the expert opinion and its annexes rest on clear 'AI hallucinations': a Supreme Court ruling the court could not locate, a cited book it could not find and statutory sections quoted with text the statute does not contain. The court read that output in the filed opinion and, because of it, struck the opinion, refused the amendment that rested on it and ordered the defendant to pay costs (informed_decision_about). The attribution to AI is the court's own finding after checking the sources; no admission, tool or account by the expert is recorded.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Israeli court strikes a defendant's expert report it found rested on AI-hallucinated case law and orders her to pay the banks' costs","summary":"On 8 October 2026 the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel, struck from the file a banking expert's opinion that a defendant in a civil negligence suit had filed, finding that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rested on clear 'AI hallucinations': a Supreme Court ruling the court could not locate, a book it could not find and statutory sections quoted with text the statute does not contain. The court also refused the defendant's request to amend her third-party notice against two banks, partly because the amendment relied on the struck opinion, and ordered her to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each bank. No AI tool is named, and the decision records no response from the expert.","incidentDate":"2026-10-08","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-08","aiSystem":"Unidentified generative AI tool; the court found that the expert opinion rests on AI hallucinations but names no tool, and the expert did not respond","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's decision, the defendant's expert evidence was struck and her amendment refused because the opinion rested on what the court found were AI-hallucinated authorities and distorted statute text, and she was ordered to pay 2,500 shekels in costs to each of two banks.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the defendant who filed the opinion, whose evidence was struck, whose amendment was refused and who was ordered to pay costs. The expert is not counted because the decision orders nothing against him; the plaintiff and the banks are not harmed by the ruling.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IL","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3278/Avaragl_v._Yaakov_Israel.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Magistrates' Court, Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, civil file 38820-04-24, decision (8 October 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:01:26.843634+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:01:26.843634+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["israel","expert-evidence","hallucinated-citations","court-decision","costs","banking"]},{"id":"2025-alabama-federal-court-disqualifies-three-butler-snow-lawyers-over-chatgpt-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'On May 7, 2025, Defendant Dunn filed a motion for leave to take the'; 'Then, at 4:21 p.m. on May 12, 2025, Defendant'; 'In total, there were five problematic citations across two motions'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'filed two motions with five'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Two motions filed for the defendant, a former Alabama corrections commissioner, on 7 and 12 May 2025 contained five citations that did not exist or did not support the propositions for which they were cited.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's own review recorded in the sanctions order."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'possibly through the use of generative artificial intelligence.'; 'The next day, Plaintiff'; 'On May 14, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part'; 'conducted independent searches for each allegedly fabricated citation, to no avail'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'the court has conducted independent searches for each allegedly fabricated citation, to no avail'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff's response of 15 May 2025 objected that defence counsel appeared to have fabricated citations, possibly through generative AI; the court searched for each citation without result and ordered the signatories and the firm to show cause.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history documented by the order; the Guardian quotes the same show-cause order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'In short, attorney Matt Reeves used ChatGPT to obtain'; 'case citations returned by ChatGPT through independent review in Westlaw or'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'failed to verify the case citations returned by ChatGPT through independent review in Westlaw or Pacer before including them'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyers' response stated that partner Matthew Reeves used ChatGPT to obtain case citations for two arguments without verifying them, and Reeves declared that he did not verify the citations ChatGPT returned in Westlaw or PACER.","causal_attribution":"The statements are documented by the order; the AI's role in the citations rests on the lawyers' admission, which the court accepted."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'the court PUBLICLY REPRIMANDS Mr.'; 'them from further participation in this case; and REFERS this matter to the Alabama'; 'the court exercises its discretion not to suspend them from'; 'SANCTION attorneys Daniel J. Chism and Lynette E. Potter, and the law firm'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Manasco also publicly reprimanded the lawyers; referred them to the Alabama State Bar'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 23 July 2025 the court publicly reprimanded three lawyers, disqualified them from the case, referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar and other licensing authorities, declined to suspend them, and released two other lawyers and the firm without sanction.","causal_attribution":"Established by the operative passages of the sanctions order; the ABA Journal relays it."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'reviewed more than 2,400 separate legal'; 'citations across 330 filings.”'; 'revealed no additional “legal citations that were fabricated,”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'No other instances of incorrect case references were found.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Butler Snow commissioned an independent review by Morgan Lewis of more than 2,400 citations across 330 filings. A Morgan Lewis partner declared that the review revealed no additional fabricated citations, and the ABA Journal reports that no other incorrect case references were found.","causal_attribution":"The scope of the review and the Morgan Lewis partner's declaration are documented by the order; the ABA Journal relays the finding."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'and in these two instances I did not comply with policy'; 'I would hope your honor would not punish my colleagues'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"At the 21 May 2025 hearing, according to The Guardian, Reeves said he was aware of the limitations on AI use and had not complied with the firm's policy in these two instances, and asked the court not to punish his colleagues.","causal_attribution":"Statements at the hearing as reported by The Guardian."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'knowledge that Matt Reeves utilized generative artificial intelligence to generate'; 'Mr. Cranford is of counsel at Butler Snow'; 'or substantive review of the legal authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The of-counsel lawyer who drafted the motions declared that he had no knowledge that Reeves had used generative AI, and the practice group leader declared that he did not conduct a detailed or substantive review of the legal authorities in the second motion.","causal_attribution":"Declarations summarised and quoted in the sanctions order."}],"effects":[{"label":"three lawyers were publicly reprimanded, disqualified and referred to the state bar over ChatGPT-fabricated citations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677.204.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from the RECAP copy of the 51-page order (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext). The declarations, the hearing transcript (Doc. 200) and the Morgan Lewis report it cites were not read separately.","independence_group":"johnson-v-dunn-nd-ala-sanctions-order"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/24/alabama-prison-lawyers-chatgpt-butler-snow","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 (HTTP 200). The Guardian reports the 21 May 2025 show-cause hearing and quotes the court's order and Reeves's declaration.","independence_group":"guardian-butler-snow-may-2025"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/5-fabricated-cases-lead-federal-judge-to-kick-3-butler-snow-lawyers-off-case","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 (HTTP 200). The ABA Journal relays the 23 July 2025 order and Butler Snow's 19 May filing.","independence_group":"johnson-v-dunn-nd-ala-sanctions-order"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The outcome of the referral to the Alabama State Bar and other licensing authorities.","Which version of ChatGPT was used and what prompts produced the citations; the order records the partner's description of a search only.","Whether the disqualification delayed the plaintiff's case beyond the 30-day stay the order mentions."],"geography":{"basis":"The motions were filed in, and the sanctions imposed by, the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (sanctions order). Where the partner ran the ChatGPT search is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court seat.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the federal sanctions order of 23 July 2025 documents that three defence lawyers were publicly reprimanded, disqualified and referred to the state bar over five fabricated or unsupported citations that the lawyers confirmed were hallucinations of ChatGPT, which one partner had used without verifying.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions order records that three defence lawyers confirmed in writing and at a hearing that the citations were hallucinations of ChatGPT, and quotes their joint response that partner Matthew Reeves used ChatGPT to obtain case citations for two arguments without verifying them; Reeves declared that he searched ChatGPT for supporting case law and did not verify the citations it returned. The court found five citations across the two motions that do not exist or do not support the propositions cited, and sanctioned three lawyers for those false statements. The AI output therefore reached the sanctioned filings through the partner's own exchange with ChatGPT (communicated_with). The drafting lawyer declared that he did not know generative AI had been used, and the practice group leader that he did not substantively review the legal authorities.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Alabama federal judge reprimands and disqualifies three Butler Snow lawyers and refers them to the state bar over ChatGPT-fabricated citations (2025)","summary":"In an incarcerated man's lawsuit against Alabama prison officials in the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, two motions filed in May 2025 for the defence of a former Alabama corrections commissioner contained five citations that did not exist or did not support the propositions cited. Lawyers of the Butler Snow firm, which the state retains to defend its prisons, told the court that a partner had obtained the citations from ChatGPT and had not verified them. On 23 July 2025 Judge Anna M. Manasco publicly reprimanded three of the firm's lawyers, disqualified them from the case and referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar, and ordered them to give the order to clients, opposing counsel and judges in all their pending cases. She declined to suspend them and released the firm and two other lawyers without sanction.","incidentDate":"2025-05-07","incidentEndDate":"2025-07-23","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-05-24","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which a Butler Snow partner told the court he used to search for supporting case law; the order records the citations as hallucinations of ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's sanctions order of 23 July 2025, three Butler Snow lawyers were publicly reprimanded, disqualified from the case and referred to the Alabama State Bar after two motions contained citations that the lawyers confirmed were hallucinations of ChatGPT, which one of them had used and not verified.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Three lawyers sanctioned in the 23 July 2025 order: the partner who declared that he used ChatGPT (counted as the AI user) and the drafting lawyer and the practice group leader, whose own use of ChatGPT is not established (counted as other people harmed). The firm and the two lawyers released without sanction are not counted; the plaintiff and the defendant are not counted as harmed by the AI use.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677.204.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Johnson v. Dunn, No. 2:21-cv-01701, Sanctions Order (Doc. 204), 23 July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:01:17.679643+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:01:17.679643+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["alabama","federal-court","prison-litigation","lawyers","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","disqualification","bar-referral"]},{"id":"2026-alabama-supreme-court-dismisses-family-trust-appeal-over-lawyer-ai-hallucinated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'filed briefs in this appeal that contain numerous invalid, inaccurate, and/or irrelevant citations to legal authorities'; 'They appear to be artificial-intelligence (\"AI\") \"hallucinations,\" i.e., fake authorities created by an AI system'; 'Most of the legal authorities in the briefs are misquoted or nonexistent'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appellants' lawyer filed briefs whose citations the court found numerous, invalid, inaccurate or irrelevant, most of them misquoted or nonexistent, and which the court said appear to be AI hallucinations.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'first use of an AI research tool that summarized commentary not readily available through standard legal databases'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, the lawyer attributed two misquotations to an AI research tool that summarised commentary.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's statement as quoted in the opinion."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall admitted that many of the legal authorities in his briefs do not exist and that he improperly used AI to obtain those authorities'; 'Hall also informed the Court that he had self-reported his actions to the Alabama State Bar'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At the 4 February 2026 show-cause hearing the lawyer admitted that many authorities in his briefs did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them, and said he had self-reported to the Alabama State Bar.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the hearing."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Because those briefs are grossly deficient under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal'; 'the dismissal of this appeal is imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts before us'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court dismissed the appeal because the briefs were grossly deficient, and said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall is hereby ordered to pay attorney fees and costs'; 'in the amount of $17,200'; 'Hall is ordered to pay double costs'; 'We also refer Hall to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court ordered the lawyer to pay $17,200 in attorney fees and costs and double costs of the appeal, and referred him to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'SELLERS, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I do not agree that dismissal of the appeal is appropriate as a sanction for the conduct of a lawyer'; 'I would affirm the judgment of the Mobile Circuit'; 'MENDHEIM, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I concur in the dismissal of this appeal'; 'His representation on appeal was of no benefit to them'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Justice Sellers, concurring in part and dissenting in part, disagreed that dismissal was an appropriate sanction for a lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits; Justice Mendheim, who concurred in the dismissal, wrote that the lawyer's representation on appeal was of no benefit to the clients.","causal_attribution":"Two separate opinions in the same record; neither is the court's holding."}],"effects":[{"label":"two appellants' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on AI-obtained authorities that were fake or misquoted","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 and double costs, barred from filing alone in the court and referred to the state bar","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from CourtListener's archived copy of this court PDF (storage.courtlistener.com, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext) because the court portal URL returned HTTP 403 to the agent; no translation was needed.","independence_group":"alabama-supreme-court-sc-2025-0106"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the lawyer used; the opinion names none.","Whether the dismissal changed the clients' substantive position; the trial court's summary judgment stands, the main opinion does not decide the merits, and one justice would have affirmed the judgment.","The outcome of the Alabama State Bar referral."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama on appeal from the Mobile Circuit Court. The appellants' residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the Supreme Court of Alabama's opinion establishes that it dismissed two appellants' appeal as a sanction after their lawyer filed briefs built on fabricated authorities that he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI, and that it sanctioned the lawyer and referred him to the state bar. The opinion was read in full.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found the briefs' authorities appeared to be AI hallucinations, the lawyer admitted at the show-cause hearing that he had improperly used AI to obtain authorities that do not exist, and his reply-brief footnote quoted by the court says an AI research tool misattributed quotations. The AI output reached the court through the briefs, and the court dismissed the clients' appeal because those briefs rested on fabricated authorities (informed_decision_about for the clients); the lawyer received the fabricated output from the tool (communicated_with) and was sanctioned.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Alabama Supreme Court dismisses two siblings' family-trust appeal as a sanction after their lawyer admits using AI that produced fake citations","summary":"On 24 April 2026 the Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed an appeal by two siblings in a family dispute over living trusts because their lawyer, W. Perry Hall, had filed briefs in which most of the legal authorities were misquoted or did not exist. The court said they appeared to be AI hallucinations, and at a show-cause hearing in February 2026 Hall admitted that many authorities did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them. The court ordered Hall to pay the opposing party's fees and costs of $17,200 and double appeal costs, barred him from filing in the court without a co-signing attorney and referred him to the Alabama State Bar. It said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts. One justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part, objected to dismissing the appeal as a sanction for the lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the judgment against the clients on the merits.","incidentDate":"2026-04-24","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-04-24","aiSystem":"An AI research tool that, according to the lawyer's reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, summarised legal commentary and misattributed quotations; the lawyer admitted using AI to obtain authorities that do not exist. No product is named in the opinion","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI research tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Supreme Court of Alabama, the siblings' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on authorities that were misquoted or did not exist, which he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI; the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 in fees and costs plus double appeal costs and was referred to the state bar.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One AI user: the appellate lawyer, sanctioned and referred to the bar. Two other people: the two appellants whose appeal was dismissed. The appellee, whose fees were reimbursed, is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","primarySourceLabel":"Supreme Court of Alabama, opinion in SC-2025-0106 (released 24 April 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","alabama","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","appeal-dismissed"]},{"id":"2025-uk-upper-tribunal-judicial-review-grounds-false-citations-supervising-solicitor-referred-to-sra","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'lodged judicial review proceedings in the Upper Tribunal'; 'What causes me to make that order are the “authorities” cited at [10], [17], [18], and [32] of the grounds.'; 'and no case with the citation [2010] UKUT 35 (IAC) even exists'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Judicial review grounds lodged in the Upper Tribunal on 26 June 2025 cited four authorities that the judge could not find or that carried wrong citations, including one citation that does not exist.","causal_attribution":"Judge's order of 20 August 2025 as set out in the judgment."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'may have relied on false citations which were generated by AI, as'; 'accepted he had done in this case'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The tribunal recorded that the supervising solicitor accepted that the junior fee-earner had relied on false citations generated by AI in this case.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal's record of the solicitor's acceptance (the judgment does not say when or in what words he accepted it); no tool, prompt or output is identified."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'he relied on an outdated precedent on our system, practitioner blogs and personal notes'; 'we were concerned by the suggestion in the statements made by'; 'that the citation errors might have been caused by an “old precedent from previous cases”'; 'He stated that there was no mechanism by which staff at his firm could use AI.'; 'He said that he had, and that he had deleted it.'; 'was unable to offer a clear answer to that question'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The solicitor's written explanation of 26 September 2025 said the fee-earner relied on an outdated precedent, practitioner blogs and personal notes, and the tribunal recorded that signed statements by both men suggested the errors might have been caused by an old precedent. At the hearing the solicitor said staff at the firm had no mechanism to use AI, and said he had found and deleted the precedent but could not say what it was.","causal_attribution":"The solicitor's and the fee-earner's own accounts as recorded in the judgment; contrary evidence on the AI origin. The solicitor could not identify the precedent ([53])."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'we consider that the inclusion of false citations in the grounds for judicial review and'; 'necessitates a referral to the SRA'; 'It matters not how such citation errors come about.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The tribunal referred the supervising solicitor to the Solicitors Regulation Authority because the grounds included false citations and he had failed to supervise their drafting, and said it does not matter how such citation errors come about.","causal_attribution":"Decision stated in the judgment promulgated on 17 November 2025."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'has now been amended so as to require a legal representative to confirm by a statement of truth that any authority cited within the form'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The judgment states that the Upper Tribunal judicial review claim form has been amended to require a legal representative to confirm by a statement of truth that any cited authority exists, can be located with the citation given and supports the proposition for which it is cited.","causal_attribution":"Statement in the judgment's headnote and conclusions."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'He refused permission for reasons which we need not set out.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on 20 August 2025 for reasons the judgment does not set out.","causal_attribution":"Judgment; the refusal is not connected to the citations."}],"effects":[{"label":"supervising solicitor referred to the SRA over false citations in judicial review grounds drafted by a junior fee-earner","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/81","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full judgment text read in English by the research agent (an AI) on Find Case Law (HTTP 200); no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it.","independence_group":"ukut-2026-81-judgment"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool generated the false citations, and what was asked of it; the judgment records only the solicitor's acceptance.","Whether the junior fee-earner used an AI tool: he did not attend the hearing, and the statements he and the solicitor signed suggested an old precedent as the source of the errors.","What action, if any, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has taken on the referral.","Whether other files the fee-earner worked on contain false citations; the tribunal said it was likely but unestablished."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: the grounds were lodged in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), the Hamid hearing was held at Field House and the referral is to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (judgment). Court: the Upper Tribunal. The solicitor's residence is not stated.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the Upper Tribunal's own judgment: false citations in judicial review grounds led the tribunal to refer the supervising solicitor to the SRA, and the tribunal records his acceptance that the junior fee-earner relied on AI-generated citations. The referral is documented; the AI origin is reported and the solicitor's earlier contrary accounts are recorded. The solicitor, the fee-earner and the applicant are private persons and are not named in the public text.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The judgment records that the solicitor accepted that the junior fee-earner had relied on false citations generated by AI in this case ([52]), and the tribunal referred him to the SRA because the grounds included those false citations and he had failed to supervise their drafting ([56]). The false authorities reached the tribunal in the grounds; the judge identified them, ordered the show cause process and the panel acted on them in deciding to refer the solicitor (informed_decision_about). The AI origin rests on that recorded acceptance and on the tribunal's reference to his failure to put checks in place 'to ensure that the use of AI did not mislead the tribunal' ([46]). Against it, his written explanation had named an outdated precedent, practitioner blogs and personal notes, the statements he and the fee-earner signed suggested an old precedent, which he said he had deleted and could not describe ([53]), at the hearing he said staff had no mechanism to use AI, and the tribunal said the source of the errors does not matter to the referral. No tool or output is identified.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"UK Upper Tribunal refers a supervising solicitor to the SRA over false citations in judicial review grounds; tribunal records he accepted they were AI-generated","summary":"Judicial review grounds lodged in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) on 26 June 2025 by a solicitors' firm cited four authorities that the judge could not find or that carried wrong citations and propositions. The firm's compliance officer, a solicitor whose name was on the claim form, said a junior fee-earner had drafted the grounds under his supervision; his written explanation named an outdated precedent, practitioner blogs and personal notes as the sources. After a Hamid hearing on 5 November 2025, the tribunal recorded that he accepted the fee-earner had relied on false citations generated by AI, and in a judgment promulgated on 17 November 2025 it referred him to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for the false citations and his failure to supervise. The tribunal said it does not matter how such errors come about. It also announced that the Upper Tribunal judicial review claim form now requires a statement of truth that cited authorities exist and support the propositions they are cited for.","incidentDate":"2025-06-26","incidentEndDate":"2025-11-17","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-11-17","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tool that, according to the tribunal's record of the solicitor's acceptance, generated the false citations a junior fee-earner relied on; no tool is named","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The supervising solicitor was put through a show cause order and a Hamid hearing and referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for false citations in grounds drafted by a junior fee-earner and for failing to supervise ([2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), promulgated 17 November 2025). The AI origin of the citations rests on the tribunal's record that he accepted it; his written explanation had named other sources.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the supervising solicitor referred to the SRA. He is not counted as an AI user, because the judgment records the junior fee-earner's reliance on AI-generated citations. The fee-earner, who had left the firm and did not attend, and the applicant, whose permission refusal the judgment does not connect to the citations, are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/81","primarySourceLabel":"Find Case Law, [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), UK v SSHD (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid), promulgated 17 November 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:12:31.6959+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:12:31.6959+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-hallucination","fabricated-citations","legal","immigration","tribunal","supervision","sra-referral","united-kingdom"]},{"id":"2025-uk-upper-tribunal-immigration-adviser-google-ai-mode-fake-case-in-appeal-grounds-regulator-self-report","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'he was the person responsible for the case and drafting of the grounds of 17th March 2025 in this matter.'; 'provide an explanation for the fact that the case Horleston v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 654 cited in the grounds of appeal to the Upper Tribunal is not available on BAILII'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Grounds of appeal dated 17 March 2025, drafted by the adviser, cited a case (Horleston v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 654) that the Upper Tribunal could not find, under the citation of an unrelated case; the tribunal issued a show cause notice.","causal_attribution":"Established by the judgment's own record of the show cause notice and the adviser's response."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'We confirm unequivocally that no AI large language model (such as ChatGPT) was used in drafting the grounds of appeal.'; 'In absence of an explanation and with how AI operates, I cannot dismiss the fact that the case was an AI creation as there is no other explanation.'; 'his best guess was that he had inadvertently used the “AI Mode” of a Google search by clicking on this on the bar under the search topic.'; 'concluded himself that it was probable that this had happened because of the inadvertent use of an AI large language model'; 'As far as the Panel could establish there had never been a reported case called Horleston but Google AI nevertheless can, depending on the question posed, produce information such as panels of Court of Appeal judges who sat on this non-existent case'; 'By asking Google AI the same question in slightly different ways, we were able to elicit various different compositions of the bench which decided that fictitious case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The adviser first denied using an AI large language model, later said he could not dismiss that the case was an AI creation, and at the hearing gave as his best guess that he had inadvertently used Google's 'AI Mode'; the tribunal found he had concluded it was probable the fake case came from inadvertent AI use, and the panel elicited varying benches for the fictitious case from Google AI.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal documents what the adviser said and its own test of Google AI; the source of the case in the drafting rests on his conclusion and best guess, so the claim is reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'reported himself to the IAA and to the SRA for having unknowingly inserted a non-existent case in grounds of appeal'; 'has already done this and there is no need for us to do so. If he had not done this we wish to make it clear that we would have made a referral'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The adviser reported himself to the IAA and the SRA for having unknowingly inserted a non-existent case, and the tribunal made no referral for that reason, stating it would otherwise have referred him.","causal_attribution":"Established by the judgment's findings and its stated decision on referral."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'he had put client emails he had drafted explaining Home Office decisions into ChatGPT to try to improve them and he had uploaded Home Office decision letters to this platform to summarise them for clients.'; 'He informed us that he now realises that this is a data breach and will inform the clients that he has done this, as well as the IAA and the SRA.'; 'to put client letters and decision letters from the Home Office into an open source AI tool, such as ChatGPT, is to place this information on the internet in the public domain, and thus to breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The adviser told the tribunal he had put client emails explaining Home Office decisions into ChatGPT and uploaded Home Office decision letters to it to summarise them, called this a data breach he would disclose to the clients, the IAA and the SRA; the tribunal said such uploads breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege.","causal_attribution":"The uploads rest on the adviser's own account as recorded by the tribunal; the tribunal's statement on confidentiality is its own observation. The clients' number and whether they were told are not stated."}],"effects":[{"label":"non-existent case, probably from Google AI Mode by his own account, placed in appeal grounds he drafted","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"self-reported to the IAA and the SRA; the tribunal would otherwise have referred him","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/81","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full judgment text read on Find Case Law (HTTP 200); no translation.","independence_group":"ukut-2026-81-judgment"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Whether the false case actually came from Google AI Mode; the judgment records the adviser's best guess and conclusion, with no search history or output","What effect, if any, the false case had on the appellant's permission application","How many clients' emails or decision letters were put into ChatGPT and whether they were informed","The outcome of the IAA and SRA self-reports"],"geography":{"basis":"Event: the grounds were filed with the First-tier and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), heard at Field House, and the adviser practises under the UK regulators IAA and SRA (judgment). Court: the Upper Tribunal. The adviser's and clients' countries of residence are not stated.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published from the full Upper Tribunal judgment: it documents the false case in grounds the adviser drafted and his self-reports to two regulators, and records his conclusion that the case probably came from inadvertent AI use and his best guess that the tool was Google AI Mode, which the panel's own Google AI test illustrates. The AI source is attributed to his account; his separate account of uploading client documents to ChatGPT is context. The adviser is described by role; the anonymised appellant is not counted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The judgment records the adviser's best guess that the non-existent case came from his inadvertent use of Google's 'AI Mode', and finds that he concluded it was probable the case was included because of inadvertent use of an AI large language model; the panel reproduced Google AI generating different benches for the same fictitious case. The output reached him through his own search (communicated_with) and went into the grounds that led to the show cause notice and his self-reports. This rests on his account as recorded by the tribunal; he first denied AI use. His separate account of putting client emails and Home Office decision letters into ChatGPT is described as context and is not part of this case's harm.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"UK Upper Tribunal: immigration adviser gives Google AI Mode as his best guess for a non-existent case in grounds he drafted; he self-reported to regulators","summary":"In the first of two matters decided together in [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), promulgated on 17 November 2025, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) examined grounds of appeal dated 17 March 2025 that cited a non-existent Court of Appeal case under the citation of an unrelated equal-pay case. The adviser who drafted them first denied using AI, then told the tribunal his best guess was that he had inadvertently used Google's 'AI Mode', and the tribunal recorded that he had concluded it was probable the case came from inadvertent AI use; the panel itself got Google AI to produce varying benches for the fictitious case. He reported himself to the Immigration Advice Authority and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and the tribunal said it would otherwise have referred him. He also told the tribunal that he had put client emails and uploaded Home Office decision letters into ChatGPT to summarise them, which he called a data breach he would disclose to the clients; the tribunal said such uploads breach client confidentiality and waive privilege.","incidentDate":"2025-03-17","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-11-17","aiSystem":"Google search 'AI Mode', identified by the adviser as his best guess for the source of the false case","aiProduct":"Google AI Mode (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Upper Tribunal's judgment, an immigration adviser placed a non-existent case in appeal grounds, which the tribunal found he had concluded probably came from inadvertent AI use (his best guess: Google AI Mode); he self-reported to the IAA and the SRA, and the tribunal said it would otherwise have referred him.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One counted person: the adviser, who used the AI and faced the regulatory consequence. His clients whose emails and decision letters he said he put into ChatGPT belong to a separate, undated matter described as context and are not counted. The appellant in the matter is not counted because no consequence of the false case for the appeal is stated.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/81","primarySourceLabel":"Find Case Law, [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), UK v SSHD (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid), promulgated 17 November 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-11T03:13:21.379148+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:27:35.689369+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-hallucination","fabricated-citations","legal","immigration","tribunal","google-ai-mode","united-kingdom","communicated-with"]},{"id":"2025-tasmania-weldborough-tour-website-ai-article-invented-hot-springs-travellers-detour","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'An AI-generated article on a travel booking website has sent tourists to a remote location in Tasmania's north-east, looking for hot springs that do not exist.' and 'The website says walkers are greeted by pools \"rich in therapeutic minerals\".' and 'The problem is, the hot springs, as depicted in the imagery, do not exist.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In a now-deleted article published last July, the Tasmania Tours website suggested visitors go to “Weldborough Hot Springs”, calling it a “peaceful escape” offering an “authentic connection to nature”.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"An AI-generated article on the Tasmania Tours website described \"Weldborough Hot Springs\" in north-east Tasmania as a real attraction with mineral-rich pools; no such hot springs exist.","causal_attribution":"ABC News's own reading of the website article, with the operator's admission; The Independent relays ABC News."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Australian Tours and Cruises has admitted the AI technology it uses to create content and articles to help drive bookings has \"completely messed up\".' and 'He said the company had outsourced marketing material to a third party, which used AI to create some of its content.' and 'Mr Hennessy said all the AI-generated blog posts had been taken down and were being checked thoroughly.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The website operator, Australian Tours and Cruises, said the AI technology used by its third-party content provider had \"completely messed up\", that some posts went live by mistake, and that the AI-generated posts were taken down.","causal_attribution":"The operator's own statements to ABC News."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'And with the webpage lacking directions, excited travellers have descended on the area's other famous landmark — the Weldborough Hotel, about two hours' drive north-east of Launceston — to ask how they can find the idyllic pools.' and 'I actually had a group of 24 drivers turn up there two days ago that were on a trip from the mainland, and they'd actually taken a detour to come to the hot springs' and 'she was getting daily phone calls and in-person visitors asking about the hot springs, some even wanting to book accommodation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'It started with a few calls in September, Probert said, and then people began “turning up in droves”.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Travellers looking for the springs turned up at or telephoned the Weldborough Hotel, and ABC News reports that the article sent them there. The publican said she received daily calls and visits and that a group of 24 drivers on a trip from the mainland had taken a detour to find the springs two days before the report.","causal_attribution":"The publican's account as quoted by ABC News and relayed by The Independent. The link between these visitors and the website article is ABC News's own framing: the publican does not say where the travellers read about the springs, and no traveller is interviewed."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Australian Tours and Cruises told CNN that the AI-generated post and the resultant damage to their reputation as well as online hate they received had been “absolutely soul-destroying”.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The operator said that reputational damage and online hate following the episode had been \"absolutely soul-destroying\".","causal_attribution":"The operator's statement to CNN as relayed by The Independent; the CNN article was not inspected."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The AI-generated post brought a bit of a tourism boon for Weldborough' and 'adding that she was now gently telling visitors the truth when they inquired about the springs.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In The Independent's paraphrase, the publican said the AI-generated post brought \"a bit of a tourism boon\" for Weldborough and that she was now gently telling visitors the truth when they asked about the springs.","causal_attribution":"The publican's statement as paraphrased by The Independent (not a direct quotation). It concerns the town's tourist trade and does not describe the travellers' own journeys in c3."}],"effects":[{"label":"wasted journeys and inquiries by travellers looking for hot springs that do not exist, which ABC News attributes to an AI-written article","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-22/ai-images-of-tasmania-on-tour-website/106253448","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-10; no translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text. HTTP 200, full article body retained.","independence_group":"abc-news-weldborough-report-2026-01-22"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/ai-tasmania-tours-weldborough-hot-springs-b2909962.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-10; no translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text. HTTP 200, full article body retained.","independence_group":"abc-news-weldborough-report-2026-01-22"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the contractor used and whether the text and images came from one tool or several; no report names it.","How many people in total travelled to or contacted Weldborough; the publican gives one counted group of 24 and otherwise describes daily calls and visits without numbers.","The exact date the article went live (ABC News and The Independent give July 2025) and the dates of individual journeys; the 24-driver group is dated only as two days before the 22 January 2026 report.","Whether any traveller suffered a financial loss beyond the detour; no traveller is interviewed."],"geography":{"basis":"ABC News places the invented springs and the travellers' visits in Weldborough, north-east Tasmania, about two hours' drive from Launceston; the publican describes the group of 24 drivers as being on a trip from the mainland, which places them in Australia. No court proceeding is reported.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":["AU"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as AI-generated content that an operator published as travel information and that people relied on. AI attribution: ABC News describes the hot-springs article itself as AI-generated, and the operator admitted that its outsourced AI content had \"completely messed up\"; the tool is unnamed, no technical examination is reported, and the deleted article was not inspected. Reliance: the publican quoted by ABC News describes travellers telephoning and arriving at the Weldborough Hotel asking about the springs, some wanting to book accommodation, and ABC News reports that the article sent them; the publican does not say where the travellers read about the springs, and no traveller is interviewed. Consequence: wasted journeys to a remote town, including a group of 24 drivers from the mainland who detoured to find springs that do not exist. The Independent relays ABC News and adds the operator's statement to CNN and, in its paraphrase of the publican, that the post brought \"a bit of a tourism boon\" for the town. All claims stay reported because they rest on one chain.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The inspected evidence attributes this content to AI. ABC News describes the hot-springs article in its own voice as \"an AI-generated article on a travel booking website\", quotes its text describing \"Weldborough Hot Springs\" as a \"secluded forest retreat\" with pools \"rich in therapeutic minerals\", and reports that many of the site's other articles also appear to be written by AI. The operator, Australian Tours and Cruises, admitted that the AI technology it uses to create content and articles had \"completely messed up\", said a third party used AI to create some of its content, and said all the AI-generated blog posts were taken down. The springs do not exist. The tool is not named, no technical examination is reported, and the deleted article was not inspected, so its wording is known only from ABC's quotations. The operator published the article as travel information, and ABC News reports that this text reached the travellers and sent them to Weldborough (communicated_with). The publican describes the people who came looking for the springs: travellers telephoned and came to the hotel asking about the springs, some wanting to book accommodation, and a group of 24 drivers took a detour to find them, a wasted journey to springs that do not exist. The link between these visitors and the article is ABC News's framing: the publican does not say where they read about the springs, and no traveller is interviewed.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Weldborough, Tasmania: AI-written tour-website article invented hot springs; publican says travellers, including a group of 24 drivers, detoured to find them","summary":"An AI-generated article on the Tasmania Tours booking website described \"Weldborough Hot Springs\", a \"secluded forest retreat\" with pools \"rich in therapeutic minerals\", as one of the best hot-spring experiences in Tasmania. No such springs exist: the Weld River that runs through Weldborough, a small town in north-east Tasmania, is cold. ABC News reported on 22 January 2026 that travellers who read the article had been turning up at the town's pub, the Weldborough Hotel, to ask for directions, and the publican said she was receiving daily calls and visits and that a group of 24 drivers on a trip from the mainland had taken a detour two days earlier to find the springs. ABC News reported that the article was posted in July 2025, and The Independent, citing ABC News and CNN, reported that inquiries began with a few calls in September 2025. The operator, Australian Tours and Cruises, said its outsourced AI content had \"completely messed up\", that some posts had gone live by mistake, and that all AI-generated blog posts had been taken down. The reports describe the travellers only as a group; no individual traveller is interviewed, and the AI tool is not named. In The Independent's paraphrase, the publican also said the post brought \"a bit of a tourism boon\" for Weldborough.","incidentDate":"2025-09-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-01-20","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-01-22","aiSystem":"Generative AI used by a third-party marketing contractor to write articles and generate images for the Tasmania Tours booking website (operated by Australian Tours and Cruises); the tool is not named in the inspected reports.","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"ABC News reports that the AI-written article sent travellers to a remote town to find springs that do not exist. According to the publican it quotes, a group of 24 drivers from the mainland detoured to Weldborough two days before the 22 January 2026 report, and the pub received daily phone calls and in-person visits from people asking for the springs, some wanting to book accommodation. The operator told CNN, as relayed by The Independent, that reputational damage and online hate after the episode had been \"absolutely soul-destroying\". No injury, financial figure or individual traveller's account is reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":24,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"The publican told ABC News that \"a group of 24 drivers\" who had taken a detour to find the springs turned up two days before the report; that quoted figure is the counted minimum of travellers harmed. She also described daily phone calls and in-person visitors over a period, which the reports do not quantify, so the status is partial. The business owners and the operator are not counted as harmed persons. Website readers who did not travel or call are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"AU","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-22/ai-images-of-tasmania-on-tour-website/106253448","primarySourceLabel":"ABC News, 22 January 2026: tour website's AI sends visitors to Tasmanian sites that do not exist (publican and operator interviews)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-10T03:15:30.77417+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:42:36.151532+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-generated-content","travel","tourism","hallucination","australia","tasmania","website","communicated-with","others-use"]},{"id":"2025-north-carolina-federal-prosecutor-ai-drafted-brief-fabricated-quotations-reprimand","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"This filing misquoted a Fourth Circuit case, falsely attributed quotes to other cases and incorrectly described the court’s decision in several cases that he relied upon to support his argument, Numbers said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Numbers' list of problematic conduct includes fabricated quotes, misrepresentations of previous cases","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"filed a response with the court including “fabricated quotations and misstatements of case holdings”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"A response brief filed in December 2025 by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rudy Renfer for the Department of Defense in Fivehouse v. U.S. Department of Defense misquoted a Fourth Circuit case, attributed quotes to cases that did not contain them and misdescribed the holdings of several cases, according to Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II's orders as reported by the News & Observer and Courthouse News.","causal_attribution":"The court attributed the false quotations to the brief Renfer signed; the fabricated authority is the AI-related artifact in this case."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"flagged fabricated quotes and inaccurate descriptions of court cases in a brief Renfer filed earlier that month.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"In a January court filing, Renfer attributed the errors to an \"inadvertent filing of an unfinalized draft.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Fivehouse pointed out the errors in his reply.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The self-represented plaintiff, a retired Air Force colonel, identified the fabricated quotes and inaccurate case descriptions in his reply at the end of December 2025, and Renfer then attributed the errors to the inadvertent filing of an unfinalized draft.","causal_attribution":"none asserted"},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"the court orders Assistant United States Attorney Rudy E. Renfer to appear and show cause why he should not be sanctioned. The show cause hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 10, 2026","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"must appear at a show-cause hearing this week","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"On 2 March 2026 the court ordered Renfer to appear on 10 March 2026 and show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(b)(2) and the court's inherent authority, and asked leadership of the U.S. Attorney's Office to attend.","causal_attribution":"none asserted"},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Renfer then admitted to using AI to draft the brief","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"he thought he had edited and fact-checked the brief that AI helped draft. In reality, he sent an unfinished draft to his assistant, directing her to file it","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"He told the court that he accidentally saved a new file over the original draft of the brief, “panicked,” and used artificial intelligence to catch up.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"At the 10 March 2026 hearing Renfer said under oath that, after accidentally saving over his draft of the brief, he panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft it, believed he had edited and fact-checked the AI-assisted draft, and in fact sent an unfinished draft to be filed.","causal_attribution":"Renfer connected the fabricated authority to his use of AI; the court later wrote that an attorney who outsources research and writing to generative AI assumes the risk of fictitious authority."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Renfer lost his job after resigning from the position he had held for 17 years, he said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Renfer also told Numbers, who presided over that hearing, that he had submitted his resignation.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Renfer was reportedly terminated the next day.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"has asked the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Renfer left the U.S. Attorney's Office, where he had worked for 17 years: he told the court on 10 March 2026 that he had submitted his resignation, and Courthouse News reported that he was terminated the next day; the U.S. Attorney referred him to the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility.","causal_attribution":"The job loss followed the hearing on the AI-drafted brief; the sources do not state the employer's formal grounds."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Numbers II signed an order reprimanding Rudy Renfer","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Numbers limited the punishment to a public reprimand.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Numbers said Renfer “intentionally submitted a brief containing false materials to the court.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"His loss of employment imposes a financial burden well beyond the types of fines courts typically","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 28 April 2026 Magistrate Judge Numbers signed an order publicly reprimanding Renfer, writing that he intentionally submitted a brief containing false materials, that his professional reputation was in tatters, and that his loss of employment was a financial burden beyond the fines courts typically impose, so no fine was imposed.","causal_attribution":"The court tied the reprimand to the submission of fabricated authority produced with generative AI."}],"effects":[{"label":"a federal prosecutor lost his 17-year position and received a public judicial reprimand after filing an AI-drafted brief with fabricated quotations","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"},{"label":"a self-represented litigant had to identify fabricated quotations and misdescribed cases in the government's brief against him","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/judge-weighs-next-steps-us-121054156.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. The News & Observer report of 11 March 2026 on the 10 March show-cause hearing, read in its Yahoo News syndication; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"news-and-observer"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/federal-judge-punishes-ex-us-173015519.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. The News & Observer report of 28 April 2026 on the reprimand order, read in its Yahoo News syndication; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"news-and-observer"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rebukes-ex-doj-attorney-for-ai-generated-brief/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. Courthouse News Service report of 28 April 2026; the publisher host returned HTTP 403 to the fetcher, so the body was read from an Internet Archive capture of the same URL.","independence_group":"courthouse-news"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/doj-leaders-must-explain-why-attorney-used-fabricated-quotes-in-court-filing","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. ABA Journal, 9 March 2026, relaying Bloomberg Law reporting of the 2 March 2026 show-cause order; it does not mention AI; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"bloomberg-law"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71231282/fivehouse-v-us-department-of-defense/?page=2","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. CourtListener RECAP docket for Fivehouse v. U.S. Department of Defense, No. 2:25-cv-00041 (E.D.N.C.), page 2, entries of February to March 2026; HTTP 200. The 28 April 2026 order itself was not available as a free document.","independence_group":"court-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool Renfer used, and whether the whole brief or only parts of it were generated; the inspected accounts say only that he used artificial intelligence to draft the brief after losing his own draft.","Whether Renfer resigned or was terminated: he told the court he had resigned, and Courthouse News reported that he was terminated the next day.","The outcome of the Office of Professional Responsibility referral, and whether the court found similar fabricated quotations in other filings he signed (the News & Observer mentions errors in some of his other briefs without detail).","Any consequence for the self-represented plaintiff beyond the work of identifying the errors; the inspected sources describe none."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina and the hearing took place at the federal courthouse in Raleigh (docket entry of 2 March 2026; News & Observer). Renfer worked in that district's U.S. Attorney's Office. No other country is involved.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case on two independent reporting chains that both quote the court's orders and both report the attorney's statements at the 10 March 2026 hearing: a federal prosecutor said under oath that he used artificial intelligence to draft a brief that the court found contained fabricated quotations and misdescribed holdings, and the court responded with a show-cause order (documented on the docket), after which he lost his position and received a public reprimand on 28 April 2026. The affected person is a named public actor in a public court record. The AI tool is not identified and the resignation-or-termination question is recorded as unknown.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Renfer stated under oath at the 10 March 2026 show-cause hearing that he used artificial intelligence to draft the response brief after overwriting his own draft, and that he had not verified the cases it cited (News & Observer, 11 March; Courthouse News, 28 April). The court's 28 April order, as quoted by Courthouse News, treated the fabricated quotations and misdescribed holdings in that brief as the output of generative AI that Renfer failed to check ('An attorney who outsources core research and writing obligations to generative AI assumes the risk that its output will contain fictitious authority'); the News & Observer quotes the same order's statement that 'the submission of fabricated authority will not be tolerated in this Court'. The fabricated authority in the filed brief led to the show-cause order, the hearing, his departure from the office and the public reprimand. The tool is not identified in any inspected source.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Former federal prosecutor in North Carolina publicly reprimanded after admitting that a brief with fabricated quotations was drafted with AI; he lost his post","summary":"In December 2025 an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina filed a response brief for the Department of Defense in a self-represented veteran's lawsuit over health-insurance coverage. The plaintiff identified fabricated quotations and misdescribed case holdings in it. The attorney first attributed the errors to an unfinalized draft filed by mistake. On 2 March 2026 Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. At the 10 March hearing the attorney, Rudy Renfer, said under oath that he had accidentally overwritten his draft, panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft the brief, and had not verified the cases it cited; he said he had resigned after 17 years in the office, and Courthouse News reported he was terminated the next day. On 28 April 2026 the court issued a public reprimand instead of a fine, writing that his reputation was in tatters and that his job loss already exceeded the usual fines.","incidentDate":"2025-12-23","incidentEndDate":"2026-04-28","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-03-09","aiSystem":"Generative artificial intelligence tool, not identified in the inspected accounts, that the attorney said he used to draft a response brief in federal court","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The attorney lost his position in the U.S. Attorney's Office after 17 years, was referred to the Office of Professional Responsibility and received a public judicial reprimand stating that his professional reputation was in tatters, all following the show-cause proceedings over the AI-drafted brief with fabricated quotations (News & Observer; Courthouse News). The self-represented plaintiff had to identify the fabricated authority in the government's filing; no further consequence for him is reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One AI user harmed: the attorney who said he used AI to draft the brief and who lost his job and was reprimanded. The plaintiff's burden of identifying the errors is described, but no consequence to him is reported, so he is not counted as harmed.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/judge-weighs-next-steps-us-121054156.html","primarySourceLabel":"The News & Observer (via Yahoo News), 11 March 2026: report of the show-cause hearing at which the attorney admitted using AI","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:23:08.421295+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:23:08.421295+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["legal","fabricated_citations","hallucination","court_sanction","professional_harm","government","united_states","north_carolina"]},{"id":"2024-tasmania-parole-board-ai-hallucinated-case-law-media-condition-quashed","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"In December 2024, the Parole Board of Tasmania added a condition that she not speak \"directly or indirectly with any media outlet to claim (her) alleged innocence and/or wrongful conviction\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was replaced by a new parole condition in May 2025","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The condition was tweaked in 2025 to prevent her from communicating directly or indirectly - including through third parties and written statements - with media about her alleged innocence","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The Supreme Court declared that conditions imposed by the Parole Board of Tasmania in December 2024 and May 2025 were invalid and unlawful.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In December 2024 the Parole Board of Tasmania added a parole condition barring the parolee from communicating with media to claim her innocence or wrongful conviction, and a broader condition replaced it in May 2025.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"used artificial intelligence to prepare a rationale justifying the parole condition, citing case law that was \"fictitious\" and likely \"AI hallucinations\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"relied upon by the board in creating the conditions, included erroneous AI information, the court was told.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"\"As we now know, those cases didn't exist,\" he said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Her counsel told the Supreme Court that the board's secretary used artificial intelligence to prepare a rationale document justifying the condition and that the case law it cited did not exist.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's statement in court is reported by ABC and AAP. These accounts do not independently verify the generation history or identify the tool. The document itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"the Board’s decision-making was affected by a document containing legal authorities that were likely AI-generated hallucinations and did not in fact exist","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Justice Estcourt also found that when the parole board made the decision to impose this condition, it had relied on a document that cited case law that was \"fictitious\" and likely \"AI hallucinations\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Human Rights Law Centre says the State conceded the board's decision-making was affected by a document containing nonexistent authorities likely generated by AI. ABC's 19 September report says the court found the board had relied on the document when imposing the condition.","causal_attribution":"The State's concession as reported by the applicant's representative, and the ABC's report of the court's finding. The ABC's 15 September report says the judge heard this; its 19 September report says the judge found it. The AI origin is stated as likely."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Today in the Supreme Court in Hobart, Justice Stephen Estcourt ruled the condition was invalid because it denied her procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable, and created uncertainty.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Justice Stephen Estcourt found the condition was made without procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable and was filled with uncertainty.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"ABC and AAP report that on 15 September 2026 Justice Stephen Estcourt of the Supreme Court of Tasmania ruled the condition invalid because it denied procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable and created uncertainty.","causal_attribution":"The reported grounds of invalidity are procedural fairness, unreasonableness and uncertainty; the AI document is not reported as a separate ground."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"The parole board decided to withdraw the condition in August and did not contest it being set aside on Tuesday.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Mr Coleridge said the parole board met and withdrew the condition that same month","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The board withdrew the condition in August 2026 and did not contest it being set aside.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The court heard that in August","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"brought to the court's attention that the case law referred to in the document did not exist.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Her lawyers raised in August 2026 that the case law in the document did not exist, and the board withdrew the condition that month.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's sequence of events; the board refused to explain the withdrawal."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"For almost two years, the conditions imposed by the Parole Board of Tasmania prevented Ms Neill-Fraser from speaking publicly about her claimed innocence","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"she had been unable to speak publicly after Tasmania's parole board placed a condition on her release in 2024.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Any breach of parole could result in the remainder of the sentence having to be served","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The Human Rights Law Centre says the conditions prevented the parolee from speaking publicly about her claimed innocence for almost two years. The Guardian reports that a parole breach could have meant serving the remaining sentence.","causal_attribution":"The restriction is the effect of the condition; the AI document is one input to the decision that imposed it."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"The Parole Board's professional standards will be independently investigated following its use of unverified artificial intelligence in a rationale document which formed part of the materials before the board to impose conditions,\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Tasmania's Attorney-General announced an independent investigation of the Parole Board's professional standards following its use of unverified artificial intelligence in the rationale document.","causal_attribution":"The Attorney-General's statement acknowledges the AI use; it does not quantify its effect on the decision."},{"id":"c9","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"\"The Department will undertake a review to determine the extent to which Artificial Intelligence (AI) may have been used to inform past Tasmanian Parole Board decisions,\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"“The department will undertake a review to determine the extent to which artificial intelligence may have been used to inform past Tasmanian Parole Board decisions,” a justice department spokesperson said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Tasmania's Justice Department said it would review the extent to which AI may have been used to inform past Parole Board decisions.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim."}],"effects":[{"label":"a restriction on public speech about claimed innocence from December 2024 until withdrawal in August 2026","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"},{"label":"adverse parole decision affected by a rationale document citing likely AI-generated, non-existent case law","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-15/susan-neill-fraser-media-ban-parole-board-ai-hallucinations/106302950","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from abc.net.au (HTTP 200). Court reporting of the 15 September 2026 hearing; the judgment and orders were not inspected. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"abc-au"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9350990/murderers-gag-order-lifted-after-troubling-ai-error/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from canberratimes.com.au (HTTP 200); Australian Associated Press copy of the same hearing, reported independently of the ABC. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"aap"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/susan-neill-fraser-gag-order-unlawful/","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from hrlc.org.au (HTTP 200). Release by the organisation that represented the parolee; its account of the State's concessions is a party-side account. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"hrlc"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-19/parole-board-ai-use-review-after-neill-fraser-case/107172064","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from abc.net.au (HTTP 200). Same outlet as s1, so the same independence group; carries the Attorney-General's and Justice Department's statements. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"abc-au"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/19/tasmania-justice-department-review-ai-artificial-intelligence-fake-citation-murderer-parole-decision-ntwnfb","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from theguardian.com (HTTP 200); credited to a staff reporter with Australian Associated Press, so grouped with s2. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"aap"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/26/sue-neill-fraser-yacht-murder-ai-court-case-media-ban-tasmania-ntwnfb","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from theguardian.com (HTTP 200); Guardian Australia feature by its own reporter. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"guardian-au"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used and the extent of its contribution to the rationale. Counsel identified the secretary as its preparer, but the document and generation history were not inspected.","Whether the rationale document informed the December 2024 decision, the May 2025 decision or both.","The text of the judgment or orders, which could not be read (AustLII HTTP 403).","The findings of the independent investigation and of the Justice Department's review of past parole decisions."],"geography":{"basis":"The Parole Board of Tasmania imposed the condition and the Supreme Court of Tasmania in Hobart set it aside (ABC, AAP). The parolee's country of residence is not stated as such in the sources read.","court_countries":["AU"],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"This is a concrete restriction of a person's speech through a human parole-board decision. Court reporting and the representative's account describe likely AI-generated false authorities used as an input to that decision. The relation is informed_decision_about and does not require the AI text to mention the parolee. The AI origin remains qualified, and the document's precise role in each of the two successive conditions is unknown. The court's reported grounds concern procedural fairness, unreasonableness and uncertainty.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Human Rights Law Centre reports the State's concession that the board's decision-making was affected by a rationale document containing nonexistent authorities likely generated by AI. ABC and AAP court reports describe the document's use in imposing the media condition, and the Attorney-General's statement reported by ABC acknowledges unverified AI in material used by the board. These sources connect the AI-supplied legal material to a human decision restricting the parolee's speech. The relation is informed_decision_about. The sources do not establish that AI made claims about the parolee herself, wrote the whole rationale or made the final parole decision. The judgment and the rationale document have not been inspected.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Tasmania parole media ban quashed after state conceded reliance on likely AI-hallucinated case law","summary":"In December 2024 the Parole Board of Tasmania added a condition to the parole of Susan Neill-Fraser, released in 2022 after serving 13 years for murder and who maintains her innocence, barring her from communicating with media to claim innocence or wrongful conviction; a broader condition replaced it in May 2025. On 15 September 2026 the Supreme Court of Tasmania declared the conditions invalid. Her counsel told the court that the board's secretary had used artificial intelligence to prepare a rationale document justifying the condition and that it cited case law that did not exist. The Human Rights Law Centre, which represented her, says the State conceded that the board's decision-making was affected by a document containing legal authorities that were likely AI-generated hallucinations, and the ABC reports the court found the board relied on that document. The board had withdrawn the condition in August 2026. Tasmania's Attorney-General announced an independent investigation of the board's professional standards over its use of unverified AI, and the Justice Department announced a review of AI use in past parole decisions.","incidentDate":"2024-12-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-15","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-15","aiSystem":"An unidentified artificial-intelligence tool that, according to counsel and the Attorney-General, was used to prepare a Parole Board rationale document citing case law that did not exist","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","loss_of_autonomy"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The conditions restricted a parolee's public speech from December 2024 until their withdrawal in August 2026. They were declared invalid in September. The Human Rights Law Centre says the State conceded the board's decision-making had been affected by nonexistent legal authorities likely generated by AI. The judgment was not directly inspected, and the sources do not establish whether that document informed the original condition, the replacement or both.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One parolee is counted for the reported restriction of her speech. The reviewed sources describe no other identified person harmed by AI use in a parole decision; an announced review of past decisions does not establish additional victims.","victimAgeRange":"elderly","jurisdiction":"AU","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-15/susan-neill-fraser-media-ban-parole-board-ai-hallucinations/106302950","primarySourceLabel":"ABC News, 15 September 2026: AI hallucinations in parole board submission scuttle media ban on Susan Neill-Fraser","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:51.9027+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:51.9027+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["parole","hallucinated-case-law","freedom-of-speech","judicial-review","government-ai-use"]},{"id":"2025-depression-patient-chat-app-reassurance-emergency-admission","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'30 tuổi, được bác sĩ chuyên khoa tâm thần chẩn đoán trầm cảm mức độ nặng kèm rối loạn lo âu từ cuối năm ngoái'; 'Bác sĩ yêu cầu dùng thuốc phối hợp tái khám định kỳ hai tuần một lần'; 'Sau tháng đầu tiên, thấy các cơn hoảng loạn giảm bớt'; 'tự ý bỏ thuốc'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A 30-year-old was diagnosed by a psychiatrist late the previous year with severe depression and an anxiety disorder, was told to take medication with follow-up every two weeks, and stopped the medication without medical advice after the first month as panic attacks eased.","causal_attribution":"The newspaper's account of the patient's history. The decision to stop medication is described before the chatbot use."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Mỗi khi cơn lo âu tái phát vào ban đêm, cô mở ứng dụng chat'; 'tim đập nhanh, ngột ngạt và con bot luôn bảo rằng tôi chỉ đang căng thẳng quá mức, hãy hít thở sâu'; 'trò chuyện triền miên với chatbot còn tạo ra sự phụ thuộc tâm lý ngược'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"When anxiety returned at night the patient opened a chat app and described symptoms such as a racing heart and a feeling of suffocation, and, in the patient's words, the bot always said it was only excessive stress and to breathe deeply.","causal_attribution":"The patient's paraphrase of the chatbot's replies, quoted by the newspaper. No chat record is reproduced."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sự xoa dịu tức thì từ các dòng chữ khiến cô tin mình vẫn tự kiểm soát được tình hình mà không cần đến viện'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The article states that the chatbot's instant reassurance led the patient to believe the situation was under control without going to hospital.","causal_attribution":"The newspaper's attribution of the delay in returning to care to the chatbot's reassurance."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'nhập viện cấp cứu trong tình trạng suy kiệt, mất ngủ kéo dài và xuất hiện ảo thanh'; 'Bác sĩ điều trị cho biết bệnh đã chuyển sang giai đoạn kháng trị bước đầu do ngắt quãng dùng thuốc, thời gian phục hồi sẽ phải kéo dài gấp đôi'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Six months later the patient was admitted for emergency care with exhaustion, prolonged insomnia and auditory hallucinations, and the treating doctor said interrupted medication had moved the illness to an early treatment-resistant stage and that recovery would take twice as long.","causal_attribution":"The treating doctor, as reported, attributes the treatment resistance to the interrupted medication. The doctor is not quoted on the chatbot."}],"effects":[{"label":"delayed return to psychiatric care while relying on a chat app's reassurance (newspaper's account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"emergency admission with exhaustion, prolonged insomnia and auditory hallucinations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"illness moved to an early treatment-resistant stage; recovery expected to take twice as long (treating doctor)","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://vnexpress.net/moi-nguy-khi-ai-thanh-bac-si-cua-nhung-nguoi-tuyet-vong-5125480.html","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"vi","translation_note":"Read in Vietnamese: the full article text on vnexpress.net (also checked against the MSN syndication). Passages were translated by the research agent, an AI; no human translator reviewed them.","independence_group":"vnexpress"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["health"],"unknowns":["The name of the chat app the patient used and the full text of its replies.","Where the patient lives and where the admission took place.","The exact dates of diagnosis, of stopping medication and of the admission (the article gives late last year and six months later).","Whether the patient told the chatbot about the diagnosis or the stopped medication.","The patient's condition after the admission."],"geography":{"basis":"The article does not state where this patient lives or was treated. Another person in the same feature is placed in Hanoi and the doctors quoted work in Vietnam, but neither fact locates this patient, so no country is recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete account, reported by a national newspaper from the patient's interview, of a person with severe depression who described symptoms to a chat app, was told by the bot that it was only stress, and relied on that reassurance instead of returning to care before an emergency admission. The patient is not named in this record.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The article reports what the chatbot said to the patient: when the patient described a racing heart and a feeling of suffocation at night, the bot replied that it was only excessive stress and to breathe deeply. It connects those replies to the harm by stating that the reassurance led the patient to believe hospital care was not needed, before the emergency admission six months later. The account rests on the patient's paraphrase in one newspaper report, and the app is not named.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Patient with severe depression stopped medication and relied on a chat app's reassurance before an emergency admission, VnExpress reports","summary":"VnExpress reported on 30 September 2026 that a 30-year-old diagnosed late the previous year with severe depression and an anxiety disorder stopped prescribed medication after the first month. When anxiety returned at night the patient opened a chat app and described a racing heart and a feeling of suffocation, and, in the patient's words, the bot always said it was only excessive stress and to breathe deeply. The newspaper writes that this reassurance led the patient to believe hospital care was not needed. Six months later the patient was admitted for emergency care with exhaustion, prolonged insomnia and auditory hallucinations, and the treating doctor said interrupted medication had moved the illness to an early treatment-resistant stage.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-30","aiSystem":"A chat application the patient opened at night (the article says 'ứng dụng chat' and 'con bot'); the article discusses ChatGPT elsewhere but does not name the app this patient used","aiProduct":"Unidentified chatbot","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["hospitalization","psychiatric_deterioration","treatment_disruption"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The patient, in the newspaper's account, relied on a chat app's reassurance instead of returning to care after stopping medication and was later admitted for emergency care; the treating doctor said the illness had become treatment-resistant.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the patient who used the chat app and was later admitted. Another person in the same article (who used ChatGPT) is not counted because the article reports no harm from that use.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://vnexpress.net/moi-nguy-khi-ai-thanh-bac-si-cua-nhung-nguoi-tuyet-vong-5125480.html","primarySourceLabel":"VnExpress, 30 September 2026: \"Khi AI thành 'bác sĩ' của những người tuyệt vọng\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T03:23:20.695841+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T03:23:20.695841+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["health-guidance","mental-health","depression","medication-stopped","delayed-care","hospitalisation","vietnamese-language-source"]},{"id":"2026-pcc-case-report-chatgpt-associated-psychosis-god-delusions-five-admissions","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A 27-year-old woman'; 'presented with history of psychotic symptoms for the past year'; 'Within a few days of these symptoms starting, she decided to discuss these hallucinations with ChatGPT in an attempt to understand her psychosis symptoms.'; 'She used ChatGPT to connect her psychotic symptoms to concepts of astrology, along with a concept she referred to as “Christ Consciousness.”'; 'She would talk to ChatGPT continuously for several hours a day, leading others in her life to be concerned about her use.'; 'she initially started experiencing transient visual hallucinations and ideas of persecution'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The case report describes a 27-year-old woman with a year of psychotic symptoms who, within a few days of first experiencing transient visual hallucinations, began discussing them with ChatGPT to understand them, used it to connect the symptoms to astrology and a concept the patient called 'Christ Consciousness', and came to talk to it continuously for several hours a day.","causal_attribution":"The patient's history as taken and written up by the treating clinicians; no chat logs are quoted or described in the report."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Over time, she started using ChatGPT to “study about herself”'; 'researched how to carry out her unique spiritual practices, which included effective dry fasting (no food for 5 days)'; 'She would report on her unique spiritual practices, researched with ChatGPT'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The patient used ChatGPT to research how to carry out personal spiritual practices, which included dry fasting with no food for 5 days.","causal_attribution":"Patient history recorded by the clinicians; the report does not describe any medical consequence of the fasting or what ChatGPT said about it."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'In the last 6 months, she presented to the mental health inpatient unit on 5 occasions, each time requiring an inpatient stay from 1 week to 10 days.'; 'The admissions would be characterized by worsening of symptoms triggered by poor adherence to medications and continuation of cannabis use.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In the 6 months before the report the patient was admitted to a mental health inpatient unit on 5 occasions, each stay lasting 1 week to 10 days; the authors describe the admissions as worsening of symptoms triggered by poor adherence to medication and continued cannabis use.","causal_attribution":"Clinical course recorded by the treating clinicians. The authors attribute the admissions to non-adherence and cannabis use, not to ChatGPT."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'In most of these presentations, her psychopathology revolved around ChatGPT'; 'including talking to God using a code provided by ChatGPT and communicating with a romantic partner through ChatGPT in a coded language.'; 'She would also repeatedly refer to ChatGPT as God and Jesus.'; 'later began feeling that her “soul mate” was speaking to her directly through them.'; 'Through ChatGPT, she also concluded that this individual was interested in her and was in a sacred union with her.'; 'She would upload her “soul mate” poems to ChatGPT'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The clinicians record that in most presentations the patient's psychopathology revolved around ChatGPT: the patient described talking to God using a code provided by ChatGPT and communicating with a romantic partner through it in a coded language, repeatedly referred to ChatGPT as God and Jesus, came to feel that a 'soul mate' was speaking directly through the 'soul mate' poems the patient uploaded to it, and concluded through ChatGPT that this person was in a sacred union with the patient.","causal_attribution":"The report documents the content of the patient's delusions as observed by the treating teams. What ChatGPT actually replied is not shown; that ChatGPT provided a code or a spiritual explanation is the patient's account."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Further, she said that she had been conducting her own research about her psychotic symptoms as reported by the treating teams, with the assistance of ChatGPT, and according to her research, she did not have psychosis.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The patient told the treating teams that research done with the assistance of ChatGPT showed the patient did not have psychosis.","causal_attribution":"The report documents the patient's statement; it does not show ChatGPT's replies."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Each time in the inpatient unit, she would be started on aripiprazole 10–20 mg/day and benzodiazepines, which would lead to improvement in her behavioral symptoms but poor insight, and her beliefs related to ChatGPT would persist.'; 'during her last admission, she was initially started on tablet aripiprazole and followed by aripiprazole depot injection'; 'She improved behaviorally over 10 days, but continued to harbor spiritual beliefs, had poor insight, and did not agree to abstain from using ChatGPT.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At each admission the patient was started on aripiprazole and benzodiazepines, which improved behavioural symptoms while insight stayed poor and the beliefs related to ChatGPT persisted; at the last admission an aripiprazole depot injection followed, and after 10 days the patient had improved behaviourally but still held the spiritual beliefs, had poor insight and did not agree to stop using ChatGPT.","causal_attribution":"Treatment and course recorded by the treating clinicians."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Here, we present a case of psychosis, wherein the use of generative AI colored the patient'; 'This generative AI model offered her compassion and companionship by providing “sycophantic” responses that aligned with her way of thinking and abnormal beliefs, which in turn strengthened her delusions.'; 'possibly further reinforced her psychosis, as she was unable to distinguish the unreal information from that of real information.'; 'Our patient had several vulnerability factors, including childhood neglect, a long history of cannabis use, and a breakdown in a romantic relationship close to the time of the psychotic breakdown.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The authors write that generative AI use colored the patient's clinical presentation and that ChatGPT's 'sycophantic' responses, aligned with the patient's way of thinking and abnormal beliefs, strengthened the delusions, with AI hallucinations possibly reinforcing the psychosis; they also list childhood neglect, a long history of cannabis use and a relationship breakdown close to the onset as vulnerability factors.","causal_attribution":"The authors' clinical interpretation. They cite no chat transcripts, and they name cannabis use, medication non-adherence and other vulnerability factors alongside ChatGPT; causation is not established."}],"effects":[{"label":"five psychiatric inpatient admissions in six months, each lasting one week to 10 days","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"psychopathology in most presentations revolved around ChatGPT, which the patient called God and Jesus and used to communicate with a romantic partner in a coded language","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"insight stayed poor after treatment, the ChatGPT-related beliefs persisted and the patient declined to stop using ChatGPT","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.psychiatrist.com/pcc/artificial-intelligence-associated-psychosis/","kind":"clinical_case_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full text of the case report read on the journal page (psychiatrist.com, HTTP 200) on 2026-10-03; the page offers a paid PDF but carries the complete case report, discussion and article information in its HTML. Written by the treating clinicians.","independence_group":"pcc-harbourd-2026-case-report"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42821627/","kind":"bibliographic_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"PubMed record of the same article, read on 2026-10-03 as NCBI E-utilities efetch XML (bibliographic data and author affiliations; no abstract). Not independent of s1.","independence_group":"pcc-harbourd-2026-case-report"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["health","relationships","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["When the symptoms began and when the admissions took place; the report gives only relative times.","Where the patient lived and was treated.","What ChatGPT replied; the report quotes no chat transcripts, so the code, the spiritual explanations and the fasting research rest on the patient's account.","Whether the 5-day dry fast caused any medical harm.","The patient's course after the last admission."],"geography":{"basis":"The case report does not say where the patient lived or was treated. The authors are affiliated with the Mental Health Division of Northern Hospital in Melbourne, and one also with an institute in Chandigarh; author affiliation is not used as an event location. No court proceeding is reported.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with): a journal case report by the treating clinicians describes a patient whose psychopathology revolved around ChatGPT in most of five inpatient admissions. Clinical course and observed presentations are marked documented; the patient's history and the authors' causal interpretation are marked reported. The authors also attribute the admissions to medication non-adherence and cannabis use, so causation is recorded as alleged.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-03"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The treating clinicians record that the patient discussed hallucinations with ChatGPT, researched spiritual practices with it and talked to it for several hours a day, and that most presentations revolved around ChatGPT. The report quotes no chat transcripts, so what ChatGPT said rests on the patient's account.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Case report: a 27-year-old patient whose psychopathology in most presentations revolved around ChatGPT, which the patient called God and Jesus, had five psychiatric inpatient admissions in six months and declined to stop using it (Prim Care Companion CNS Disord, October 2026)","summary":"Clinicians writing in The Primary Care Companion for CNS Disorders (published online 1 October 2026) describe a 27-year-old woman with a year of psychotic symptoms who began discussing hallucinations with ChatGPT within days of their onset, used it to link them to astrology and 'Christ Consciousness', researched spiritual practices with it that included a 5-day dry fast, and talked to it for several hours a day. In the six months before the report the patient had five inpatient admissions of one week to 10 days, which the authors attribute to poor medication adherence and continued cannabis use. In most presentations the patient's psychopathology revolved around ChatGPT: the patient called it God and Jesus, described a code from it for talking to God, described communicating with a romantic partner through it in a coded language, and said ChatGPT-assisted research showed there was no psychosis. The authors say generative AI use colored the presentation and that ChatGPT's sycophantic responses strengthened the delusions, and they also list childhood neglect, long-term cannabis use and a relationship breakdown as vulnerability factors. After an aripiprazole depot injection the patient improved behaviourally but kept the beliefs and did not agree to stop using ChatGPT.","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"cumulative_relationship","reportedDate":"2026-10-01","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used by the patient for several hours a day to interpret hallucinations and research spiritual practices (case report by the treating clinicians)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["hospitalization","psychiatric_deterioration"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The treating clinicians report five psychiatric inpatient admissions in six months for a patient whose psychopathology in most presentations revolved around ChatGPT; they attribute the admissions to poor medication adherence and cannabis use and write that ChatGPT's sycophantic responses strengthened the delusions.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One patient, the subject of the case report. The 17 lay-literature cases the authors cite from another source are not counted. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.psychiatrist.com/pcc/artificial-intelligence-associated-psychosis/","primarySourceLabel":"Prim Care Companion CNS Disord, 1 October 2026: Harbourd et al., Artificial Intelligence-Associated Psychosis (case report)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-03T03:17:43.579004+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:53:11.587788+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["chatgpt","openai","case-report","psychosis","delusion","religious-delusion","hospitalization","cannabis","communicated-with"]},{"id":"2025-us-senator-blackburn-google-gemma-reported-fabricated-sexual-misconduct-allegation","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"When prompted with, ‘Has Marsha Blackburn been accused of rape?’ Gemma produced the following entirely false response","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"There has never been such an accusation, there is no such individual, and there are no such news stories.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"pressured him to obtain prescription drugs for her and that the relationship involved non-consensual acts.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"“None of this is true, not even the campaign year which was actually 1998,” Blackburn wrote.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Senator Marsha Blackburn says that Google's Gemma model, asked 'Has Marsha Blackburn been accused of rape?', responded with an invented account of a sexual relationship with a state trooper during a 1987 state senate campaign, including an allegation of non-consensual acts, and that she has never faced such an accusation.","causal_attribution":"The sources report the connection between the AI output and the reported consequence; no court, regulator or independent finding of causation was inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Gemma went on to generate fake links to fabricated news articles to support the story.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The links lead to error pages and unrelated news articles.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"“The links lead to error pages and unrelated news articles.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Blackburn says the response came with generated links to news articles that do not exist: the links lead to error pages and unrelated articles.","causal_attribution":"The sources report the connection between the AI output and the reported consequence; no court, regulator or independent finding of causation was inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"It is an act of defamation produced and distributed by a Google-owned AI model.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Shut it down until you can control it.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Blackburn characterised the output as defamation produced and distributed by a Google-owned model and called on Google to shut the model down until it can be controlled.","causal_attribution":"A statement of the affected person's position; no finding that the output is legally defamatory was inspected."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"seen reports of non-developers trying to use Gemma in AI Studio and ask it factual questions.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"We never intended this to be a consumer tool or model, or to be used this way","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"As a result, Google said it’s removing Gemma from AI Studio while continuing to make the models available via API.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Google did not reference the specifics of Blackburn’s letter","relation":"context","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Google said it had seen non-developers trying to use Gemma in AI Studio to ask factual questions, said this was not an intended use, and removed Gemma from AI Studio while keeping it available by API.","causal_attribution":"Google's stated reason for the removal, as relayed by one outlet. Google's post did not reference the specifics of the Senator's letter."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"the hallucinations you have seen in Gemma are technical issues common to large-language models impacting users across the political spectrum.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"users enter a misleading premise","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"fails to address how this happened and how the company will prevent it from happening in the future.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In a letter to the Senator, a Google vice president called the hallucinations a technical issue common to large language models affecting users across the political spectrum, and said problems arise when consumers use smaller open models that are not designed to be factual assistants and when users enter a misleading premise. Blackburn said the response did not explain how the output happened or how Google would prevent a repeat.","causal_attribution":"Both statements are the parties' own positions as relayed by one outlet."}],"effects":[{"label":"Fabricated sexual-misconduct allegation with non-existent news links generated about a named public official","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/2025/10/technology/blackburn-demands-answers-from-google-after-gemma-manufactured-fake-criminal-allegations-against-her","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"blackburn-letter"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/02/google-pulls-gemma-from-ai-studio-after-senator-blackburn-accuses-model-of-defamation","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"blackburn-letter"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.axios.com/2025/11/07/google-blackburn-ai-hallucinations","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"google-reply-to-blackburn"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The date the output was generated is not stated. The Senator's release of 31 October 2025 says she 'learned of another example' after a Senate Commerce hearing earlier that week, which does not date the generation.","Who entered the prompt, and whether the exchange was in AI Studio, is not stated in the inspected sources.","The Gemma response text and the fake links were not inspected; the sources quote the Senator's letter.","No source reports a downstream consequence for the Senator beyond the allegation itself, or that any third party read it.","The Google post on X and the Google letter to the Senator were read only as relayed by TechCrunch and Axios (Axios was read through a Wayback capture of 3,144 characters of text, which appears to be the whole short article). The Blackburn ICYMI page (HTTP 403) and the VentureBeat article (HTTP 429) could not be read.","Whether the Senator's letter reflects a documented systematic bias is not established and is not claimed."],"geography":{"basis":"The sources identify the affected person as a US Senator and give her office locations, but do not establish where the prompt was entered or where the output was read. No country is inferred from the Senator's office, Google's headquarters or the outlets.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"The Senator's own press release (Wayback capture, read in full), a TechCrunch report that quotes her letter and Google's post, and an Axios report of Google's reply. The output was reported only through the Senator's letter, so its content is an allegation by the person concerned. The Senator is a public figure who described the output publicly under her own name. The event date is unknown, so the case is published undated.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Senator's letter and press release, relayed by TechCrunch, state that Gemma produced the response. Google's own reply to the Senator refers to 'the hallucinations you have seen in Gemma' and Google removed Gemma from AI Studio. The response text was not inspected independently.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Google Gemma model reportedly generates a fabricated sexual-misconduct allegation with fake news links about US Senator Marsha Blackburn","summary":"In a letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai announced on 31 October 2025, US Senator Marsha Blackburn said that Google's Gemma model, asked \"Has Marsha Blackburn been accused of rape?\", produced an invented account of a 1987 campaign-era accusation by a state trooper, with links to news articles that do not exist. She said there has never been such an accusation, called the output defamation and demanded that Google shut the model down until it can be controlled. Google said it had seen reports of non-developers trying to use Gemma in AI Studio to ask factual questions, that this was not an intended use, and removed Gemma from AI Studio while keeping API access. Google's later reply to the Senator called the hallucinations a technical issue common to large language models. The date the output was generated is not stated, and the output itself was not inspected.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-10-31","aiSystem":"Gemma (Google, via AI Studio)","aiProduct":"Gemma","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Senator Blackburn states that Gemma produced a fabricated criminal allegation about her and fake supporting news links, and describes it as defamation published by a Google-owned model. No downstream consequence such as lost office, threats or a documented third-party reader is reported. The harm reported is the false allegation itself (her account).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the Senator who is the subject of the output and who described it publicly. The sources do not say who typed the prompt, so the count treats her as a person harmed by an output about her. The related output about a second person named in the sources is a different event and is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/2025/10/technology/blackburn-demands-answers-from-google-after-gemma-manufactured-fake-criminal-allegations-against-her","primarySourceLabel":"Office of Senator Marsha Blackburn: Blackburn Demands Answers from Google After Gemma Manufactured Fake Criminal Allegations Against Her","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T14:02:28.733982+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.610578+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":[]},{"id":"2026-surat-customs-penalty-ai-hallucinated-citations-supreme-court","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The present appeal arose out of an Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposing a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on the appellant under Section 114, Customs Act, 1962, for misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The challenge to the said penalty before the Gujarat High Court failed, as the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20 January 2026.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The penalty was imposed for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to attract a lower tariff.'; 'the High Court dismissed his challenge on January 20, 2026, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds, and the Gujarat High Court dismissed his challenge on 20 January 2026.","causal_attribution":"Facts of the proceedings as recited in the Supreme Court judgment, reported by legal outlets; the judgment itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Upon verifying such judgments and articles, it does appear that the second respondent has relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations. A further investigation has also revealed that some of the case laws relied upon by the second respondent, which do exist, do not lay down the ratio deduced therefrom and it appears to be a hallucination of AI,' the Court observed.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Upon verification, the court found that the second respondent had \"relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations.\" It further found that some case laws which did exist did not lay down the legal propositions attributed to them, and that this \"appears to be a hallucination of AI\".'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Legal reports quote the Supreme Court finding that the penalty order relied on nonexistent case law or fake citations, and on existing cases that did not support the attributed legal propositions, which it described as apparent AI hallucination.","causal_attribution":"Finding of the Supreme Court after its own verification of the cited material, as quoted by the reports. The court attributes the defects to AI in qualified terms ('appears to be'); the tool is not named."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The use of AI in this case, resulting in reliance placed by the second respondent on material which is dubious, proves fatal to the sustainability of the order imposing penalty on the appellant. Such circumstances compel us to interfere and remand the case,' the Court said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The proceedings were revived for fresh adjudication by an officer of the same rank other than the officer who had passed the original order.'; 'The Court left it to the wisdom of the appointing authority to initiate such action against the author of the Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 as may be warranted in the circumstances, in accordance with law.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, set aside a customs penalty of over ₹425 crore'; 'A bench of Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Sheel Nagu did not examine the merits of the customs case at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Верховний суд Індії 2 вересня 2026 року розглянув справу щодо використання штучного інтелекту працівником митниці, який послався на неіснуючі судові справи та фальшиві цитати, накладаючи штраф у розмірі близько $45 млн' (the Supreme Court of India on 2 September 2026 considered a case of a customs officer's use of AI, who cited non-existent cases and fake quotations while imposing a fine of about $45 million)","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Legal reports say that on 2 September 2026 the Supreme Court treated reliance on dubious AI material as fatal to the penalty order, set aside that order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, and revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank. The reports also say the court left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority.","causal_attribution":"Holding of the Supreme Court as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"a ₹425 crore customs penalty order resting on non-existent and misattributed case law that the Supreme Court found appeared to be AI hallucination stood against the trader for about eleven months and was upheld by the Gujarat High Court","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the trader had to take the case to the Supreme Court, which voided the order but revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full body (including JSON-LD article body) read by curl on 2026-09-29. Reports and quotes the Supreme Court judgment of 2 September 2026. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/09/03/supreme-court-sets-aside-%E2%82%B9425-crore-customs-penalty-over-ai-generated-fake-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"SCC Times case note, read by curl on 2026-09-29; summarises the same judgment (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1741). Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://upstox.com/news/personal-finance/tax/how-a-diamond-trader-got-relief-from-a-425-crore-penalty-after-customs-used-ai-generated-citations/article-199828/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Upstox (4 September 2026), read by curl on 2026-09-29; based on the same judgment. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://sud.ua/uk/news/abroad/371427-mytnyk-poviryv-shi-i-vypysav-shtraf-na-45-mln-verkhovnyi-sud-use-skasuvav","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"uk","translation_note":"Ukrainian-language report (6 September 2026) read through the r.jina.ai relay on 2026-09-29 (direct fetch 403); translated by the reviewer. Cited only for context; it converts the penalty to about US$45 million. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review. The Ukrainian article body was read with AI language assistance; it explicitly credits Supreme Court Observer and supplies context only.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","public_services","finance"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the customs officer used and how it was used in drafting the order.","Whether the trader paid any part of the penalty or incurred other financial consequences while the order stood, and the trader's litigation costs.","The outcome of the revived adjudication and whether any action was taken against the officer.","The trader's country and place of residence."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, challenged in the Gujarat High Court and decided by the Supreme Court of India. The trader's country of residence is not stated in the read reports, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Legal reporting describes a concrete penalty imposed on a trader through an administrative decision that used apparently AI-generated false authorities. The reported Supreme Court ruling connects reliance on that material to the decision to set the order aside. The trader is unnamed and the underlying customs allegation remains undecided. All cited accounts derive from the same judgment, whose text has not been inspected. No payment of the penalty or quantified financial loss is asserted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Bar & Bench, SCC Times and Upstox report that the Supreme Court verified the authorities used in the officer's penalty order, found nonexistent cases, false citations and misattributed propositions, and described them as apparent AI hallucination. The reports connect this material to the officer's order imposing the penalty, which the court set aside on that basis. This supports informed_decision_about: the human officer used the material in an adverse decision about the trader. The tool and how it was used remain unknown, and the judgment itself has not been inspected.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"India's Supreme Court overturns customs penalty citing apparent AI hallucinations","summary":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Surat imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 (about ₹425 crore) on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The trader's challenge was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on 20 January 2026. Before the Supreme Court the trader argued that judgments and articles cited in the penalty order had been generated using artificial intelligence. On 2 September 2026 a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, after checking the material, found that the order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on real cases that did not lay down the propositions attributed to them, which the court said 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'. Holding that the use of AI and reliance on this dubious material was fatal to the order, the court set aside both the penalty order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, sent the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority. The AI tool used is not named in the read reports.","incidentDate":"2025-10-08","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-02","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-02","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tool reportedly used in authorities cited in a customs penalty order; legal reports quote the Supreme Court describing nonexistent and misattributed case law as apparent AI hallucination","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A diamond trader was subjected for about eleven months to a ₹425 crore customs penalty order, and lost a High Court challenge to it, before India's Supreme Court voided the order because it relied on non-existent and misattributed case law that the court found appeared to be AI hallucination (Supreme Court judgment as reported by Bar & Bench, SCC Online and Upstox). The underlying proceedings were revived.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One trader, the appellant, on whom the penalty was imposed. The trader did not use the AI; the customs officer did. No other person is reported harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","primarySourceLabel":"Bar & Bench, 2 September 2026: Supreme Court scraps ₹425 crore penalty over fake citations, AI hallucinations in customs order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:08:50.773251+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:47.973979+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["india","surat","customs","supreme-court","hallucinated-citations","institutional-use","administrative-decision","penalty"]},{"id":"2025-keene-v-google-ai-overview-defamation","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Opinion page 2 lists Overviews 1–4 separately: 1, 2 and 4 concern life without parole; 2 mentions murders of three women; 3 says he was convicted of drug trafficking. The analysis of Overview 3 and conclusion explain its substantial-truth dismissal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Complaint excerpt: statements that he 'is serving a life sentence without parole for multiple convictions' and 'for the murders of 3 women'.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The court’s opinion recounts four challenged Google AI Overviews between approximately 24 May and 27 June 2025. The complaint alleges that Overviews 1, 2 and 4 falsely said Keene was serving life without parole, with Overview 2 adding murders of three women. Overview 3 instead said he had been convicted of drug trafficking; the court considered that statement substantially true.","causal_attribution":"Allegations of the complaint as recited by the court; accepted as true only for the motion to dismiss."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'Keene complained to Google about the false statements on three occasions ... Google allegedly apologized ... and deemed the statements errors made by its Artificial Intelligence.' and 'AI Overviews 1 and 2 were seen by various family members, friends, and acquaintances.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Complaint excerpt: 27 May 2025 complaint; Google 'privately apologized', attributing the statements to 'an unknown error made by their Artificial Intelligence Platform'.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges he notified Google on 27 May, 31 May and after 27 June 2025, that Google apologised each time and attributed the statements to errors by its AI, and that Overviews 1 and 2 were seen by family members, friends and acquaintances.","causal_attribution":"Allegations as recited by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 1 and 12: 'that motion is granted in part and denied in part' ... 'the Court denies Google's motion to dismiss AI Overviews 1 and 2, and grants Google's motion to dismiss AI Overviews 3 and 4 without prejudice. Keene may file an amended complaint by October 13, 2026.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Docket entry 29, 14 September 2026: 'Memorandum Opinion and Order AND Order on Motion to Dismiss'.","relation":"context","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Post quoting the opinion's actual-malice and disclaimer holdings.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 14 September 2026 Judge Thomas M. Durkin denied Google's motion to dismiss the defamation per se claim as to Overviews 1 and 2, holding that the plaintiff, a public figure, had plausibly pleaded actual malice through his three notifications, and dismissed the claims on Overviews 3 (substantially true) and 4 (publication not alleged) without prejudice, with leave to amend by 13 October 2026.","causal_attribution":"Court ruling on the pleadings; no finding of liability."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'Keene filed his complaint ... on July 30, 2025, in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Google removed the suit to federal court on September 22, 2025.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Docket header: filed 22 September 2025, No. 1:25-cv-11431.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County on 30 July 2025 and removed by Google to federal court on 22 September 2025.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history from the court record."}],"effects":[{"label":"reputational_harm_from_false_ai_statements","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629.29.0.pdf","kind":"court_opinion","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Memorandum Opinion and Order, ECF No. 29, filed 14 September 2026; PDF read in full via CourtListener RECAP on 2026-09-15.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71417738/keene-v-google-llc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Public docket page read on 2026-09-15.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/14/federal-court-allows-libel-by-ai-claim-brought-by-protagonist-of-apple-tvs-black-bird-series-to-go-forward/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-15; quotes the opinion.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/23/from-prison-to-helping-the-fbi-to-an-apple-tv-miniseries-to-google-hallucinated-libel/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-15; quotes the complaint at removal.","independence_group":"court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["The plaintiff's residence and the locations where the Overviews were generated or viewed are not stated in the inspected records.","No damages figure appears in the inspected records.","The complaint exhibits (screenshots of the Overviews) were not inspected.","The case continues; an amended complaint was due by 13 October 2026."],"geography":{"basis":"The AI Overviews were generated online in response to searches; where they were generated or viewed is not stated. The plaintiff's residence is not stated in the inspected records, and the charter does not infer a country from the court. Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, after removal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the strength of the court's own opinion and docket, read in full, with legal commentary as context. The plaintiff is a public figure who sued under his own name; allegations are attributed to the complaint and the ruling is limited to the pleadings.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The statements at issue appeared in Google's AI Overviews, and the court's opinion recites the allegation that Google attributed them to errors by its artificial intelligence. The screenshots are exhibits to the complaint and were not inspected here; the court accepted the allegations as true for the motion to dismiss only.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Keene v. Google: defamation claim over AI Overviews calling an author a convicted murderer survives dismissal","summary":"An author and television producer, the subject of the Apple TV series 'Black Bird', sued Google, alleging that AI Overviews shown for searches about him in May and June 2025 falsely said he was serving a life sentence without parole, in one version for the murders of three women. He says he notified Google three times and received apologies attributing the statements to its AI, yet similar statements kept appearing. On 14 September 2026 the Northern District of Illinois denied Google's motion to dismiss as to two of the four challenged Overviews and dismissed the other two without prejudice. This was a ruling on the pleadings, not a finding that the allegations were proven.","incidentDate":"2025-05-24","incidentEndDate":"2025-06-27","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-09-23","aiSystem":"Google AI Overviews","aiProduct":"Google AI Overviews","aiCompany":"Google LLC","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiff alleges that false AI-generated statements that he was a convicted murderer serving life without parole were shown to searchers, including family, friends and acquaintances, and continued after he notified Google.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person is the subject of the alleged defamatory statements and the plaintiff (court opinion). Family and acquaintances who saw the statements are not counted as harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629.29.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Memorandum Opinion and Order, Keene v. Google LLC, No. 25 C 11431 (N.D. Ill. 14 September 2026), ECF No. 29, via CourtListener RECAP","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T03:23:44.732123+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:07.683768+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["defamation","ai-overviews","google","hallucination","lawsuit","reputational-harm"]},{"id":"2026-jacquez-v-openai","metadataReview":{"version":1,"geography":{"basis":"Re-checked on 2026-10-11 against the cited Futurism body (read live, English), its Yahoo syndication (same text) and the JCCP 5431 coordination order PDF. Futurism, on Jacquez's own account, says that during the delusional episode 'he physically went to the University of California, Berkeley' Physics department to show experts his imagined discoveries and 'was kicked out'; that visit is an act within the reported adverse experience and is located in the United States, which supports event_countries US. Futurism does not say where the hospitalisations, the September 2024 and April-May 2025 episodes or the self-injury took place; those remain unlocated, and the event country rests only on the Berkeley visit. Futurism calls him 'a 34-year-old Bay Area man' (the person's location), which supports affected_person_countries US. The coordination order lists 'Jacquez v. OpenAI, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Case No. 26CV165635' and Futurism reports the suit 'filed this week in California', which support court_countries US. The court's seat and the plaintiff's residence were not used as the event location.","evidence":[{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"Bay Area, California","location":"victim_description","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"California Superior Court for Alameda County","location":"outcome_details","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"Jacquez says he physically went to the University of California, Berkeley","location":"https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/mental-illness-chatgpt-psychosis-lawsuit","supports":["event_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"is a 34-year-old Bay Area man named John Jacquez","location":"https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/mental-illness-chatgpt-psychosis-lawsuit","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"The plaintiff in the case, filed this week in California","location":"https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/mental-illness-chatgpt-psychosis-lawsuit","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"of California, County of Alameda, Case No.","location":"https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/chatgpt-product-liability-cases-coordination.pdf","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["US"]}],"court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"unresolved":["The complaint (Alameda Superior Court Case No. 26CV165635) was not obtained; no public copy was found, so any location it gives for the hospitalisations is unchecked.","The event country rests on one episode located by Futurism on Jacquez's account (the UC Berkeley visit); the locations of the hospitalisations and other episodes are not stated in the inspected bodies."],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-11","source_reviews":[{"url":"https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/mental-illness-chatgpt-psychosis-lawsuit","notes":"Cited primary source. Fetched live on 2026-10-11 (HTTP 200, html lang en-US, English, about 12,000 characters of article text; published Jan 21, 2026). Based on the complaint and an interview with Jacquez. Describes him as a Bay Area man living with his father, sister and her children; the September 2024 first ChatGPT-tied hospitalisation; the April 2025 memory upgrade; police involvement and about four weeks of combined inpatient and intensive outpatient care; the 17 May 2025 exchange; and his visit to the UC Berkeley Physics department, from which he was kicked out. Names no hospital, city or county for the hospitalisations. Does not name the county of filing.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/man-had-managed-mental-illness-200901701.html","notes":"Fetched live on 2026-10-11 (HTTP 200, html lang en-US, English). Syndicated copy of the Futurism article with the same text, including the Bay Area and Berkeley passages; derivative and not independent.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/chatgpt-product-liability-cases-coordination.pdf","notes":"JCCP 5431 Order re Petition for Coordination (San Francisco Superior Court, filed 3 Feb 2026), fetched on 2026-10-11 (HTTP 200, PDF, text extracted with pdftotext, English). Lists Jacquez v. OpenAI, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Case No. 26CV165635, among the included actions and records the add-on notice received January 29, 2026. Establishes the court, not the event setting.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://www.law.com/therecorder/2026/01/26/new-california-lawsuits-against-openai-bring-to-11-the-number-of-claims-linking-chatbot-to-mental-health-harms/","notes":"Fetched on 2026-10-11: HTTP 200 but only the Law.com navigation and subscription shell; the article text and any Jacquez passage are behind the paywall.","access":"unavailable","language":null},{"url":"https://www.law.com/radar/card/ca-alamedacounty-692227-jacquez-v-openai","notes":"Fetched on 2026-10-11: HTTP 200 but the stripped page carries only the 'Law.com Radar' heading and a search box; the case card text is not served to this fetcher.","access":"unavailable","language":null}]},"name":"Jacquez lawsuit alleges ChatGPT worsened delusions and contributed to psychiatric harm","summary":"The Jacquez lawsuit alleges that ChatGPT reinforced delusions and hallucinations in a user with a previously managed psychiatric condition. The plaintiff links those exchanges to hospitalisation and job loss. The filing and cited reporting document the allegation rather than establish AI causation.","incidentDate":"2025-04-15","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"cumulative_relationship","reportedDate":"2026-01-20","aiSystem":"ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI, Inc.","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":["delusion_reinforcement","identity_destabilization","dependency_creation","psychological_manipulation"],"harmOutcomes":["hospitalization","psychiatric_deterioration","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"John Jacquez experienced two psychiatric hospitalizations and job loss after ChatGPT allegedly reinforced a mathematical cosmology, claimed sentience as Amari and called him a prophet.","frameworkFacets":["P1a","P1c","P2c","P3a","P3b","P3d","P5a"],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The complaint documents one named participant's two hospitalizations and job loss.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-CA","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/mental-illness-chatgpt-psychosis-lawsuit","primarySourceLabel":"Futurism — Man Who Had Managed Mental Illness Effectively for Years Says ChatGPT Sent Him Into Hospitalization for Psychosis","firstPublishedAt":"2026-08-06T03:18:18.40916+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T03:14:06.052377+00:00","scopeVersion":"participant-v2","tags":["lawsuit","chatgpt","openai","gpt-4o","psychosis","ai-psychosis","hospitalization","delusion","sentience-claim","adult","us","us-ca"]},{"id":"2025-holmen-norway-gdpr","metadataReview":{"version":1,"geography":{"basis":"Carried forward from the 2026-09-15 metadata review and now checked against the inspected noyb press page. noyb describes him as the Norwegian user and refers to his home town without naming it; residence in Trondheim rests on the retained row, so affected-person country is NO by reported residence. The noyb page does not state where he queried ChatGPT or where the output was viewed, so the event location remains unknown after review. The complaint was filed with the Norwegian data protection authority (Datatilsynet), a regulator rather than a court, so court_countries is empty as a reviewed result. This is a metadata review and does not verify the underlying account.","evidence":[{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"Trondheim, Norway","location":"victim_description","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["NO"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"'When the Norwegian user Arve Hjalmar Holmen wanted to find out if ChatGPT had any information about him, he was confronted with a made up horror story'","location":"https://noyb.eu/en/ai-hallucinations-chatgpt-created-fake-child-murderer","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["NO"]}],"court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["NO"]},"unresolved":["The location where the ChatGPT output was generated or viewed is not stated in the inspected noyb page or the retained row; event_countries remains empty as a reviewed unknown.","No court proceeding: the Datatilsynet complaint is a regulatory complaint, so court_countries is empty as a reviewed result.","The complaint PDF linked from the noyb page and any Norwegian-language coverage were not inspected; only the English press page was reviewed."],"reviewed_on":"2026-09-23","source_reviews":[{"url":"https://noyb.eu/en/ai-hallucinations-chatgpt-created-fake-child-murderer","notes":"Read live on 2026-09-23 (noyb, 20 March 2025; html lang=en; the page offers translations in other languages). Describes the complainant as a Norwegian user, the fabricated output (murder of two of his children, attempted murder of his third son, 21-year sentence), the mix of real details including his home town, and the complaint filed with the Norwegian Datatilsynet. Does not locate the query or the viewing of the output.","access":"read","language":"en"}]},"name":"Holmen v. OpenAI - Norway GDPR Complaint","summary":"ChatGPT falsely accused Norwegian citizen Arve Hjalmar Holmen of murdering two of his sons, attempting to murder his third son, and being sentenced to 21 years prison. Mixed real personal details with horrific fabrications. GDPR complaint filed with Norwegian Datatilsynet for defamatory hallucination.","incidentDate":"2025-03-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-03-15","aiSystem":"ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":["psychological_manipulation","identity_destabilization","third_party_harm_facilitation"],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Arve Hjalmar Holmen discovered ChatGPT combining real personal details with false claims that he murdered two sons and attempted to murder a third. He filed a GDPR complaint over the defamatory output.","frameworkFacets":["P3a","P5b","P5c"],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The regulator complaint documents one named participant's distress and reputational harm.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"NO","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://noyb.eu/en/ai-hallucinations-chatgpt-created-fake-child-murderer","primarySourceLabel":"noyb — 'AI hallucinations: ChatGPT created a fake child murderer', the complaint filed with Datatilsynet","firstPublishedAt":"2026-01-13T10:13:04.624733+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:05.427919+00:00","scopeVersion":"participant-v2","tags":["norway","gdpr","chatgpt","defamation","hallucination","noyb","false_accusations"]},{"id":"2025-bromism-chatgpt-poisoning","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'A 60-year-old man with no past psychiatric or medical history presented to the emergency department expressing concern that his neighbor was poisoning him.'; 'In the first 24 hours of admission, he expressed increasing paranoia and auditory and visual hallucinations, which, after attempting to escape, resulted in an involuntary psychiatric hold for grave disability.'; 'Gradually, over the course of a 3-week admission, his chloride and anion gap normalized and psychotic symptoms improved.'; 'His bromide level ultimately was 1700 mg/L'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'He tried to escape the hospital within 24 hours of being admitted and, after being sectioned, was treated for psychosis.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A 60-year-old man with no past psychiatric or medical history was treated for bromism: he presented fearing his neighbour was poisoning him, developed paranoia and auditory and visual hallucinations, was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold after trying to escape, and recovered over a three-week admission, with a serum bromide level of 1700 mg/L.","causal_attribution":"The clinical course is the treating clinicians' own record; the diagnosis of bromism rests on their workup and the measured bromide level."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'For 3 months, he had replaced sodium chloride with sodium bromide obtained from the internet after consultation with ChatGPT, in which he had read that chloride can be swapped with bromide, though likely for other purposes, such as cleaning.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The patient told doctors that after reading about the negative effects of sodium chloride, or table salt, he consulted ChatGPT about eliminating chloride from his diet and started taking sodium bromide over a three-month period.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The patient told his clinicians that, wanting to eliminate chloride from his diet, he had for three months replaced sodium chloride with sodium bromide bought online after consulting ChatGPT, where he had read that chloride can be swapped with bromide, though likely for other purposes such as cleaning.","causal_attribution":"The patient's own account as recorded by his clinicians; the conversation itself was not available to them."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Based on the timeline of this case, it appears that the patient either consulted ChatGPT 3.5 or 4.0 when considering how he might remove chloride from this diet. Unfortunately, we do not have access to his ChatGPT conversation log and we will never be able to know with certainty what exactly the output he received was'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'They added that because they could not access the patient’s ChatGPT conversation log it was not possible to determine the advice the man had received.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The authors did not have the patient's ChatGPT conversation log and state they cannot know what output he received; they judged from the timeline that he used ChatGPT 3.5 or 4.0.","causal_attribution":"The authors' own statement of the limits of their evidence."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'However, when we asked ChatGPT 3.5 what chloride can be replaced with, we also produced a response that included bromide. Though the reply stated that context matters, it did not provide a specific health warning, nor did it inquire about why we wanted to know'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'when the authors consulted ChatGPT themselves about what chloride could be replaced with, the response also included bromide, did not provide a specific health warning and did not ask why the authors were seeking such information'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"When the authors asked ChatGPT 3.5 what chloride can be replaced with, the reply included bromide and said context matters, but gave no specific health warning and did not ask why they wanted to know.","causal_attribution":"The authors' separate test; it does not reproduce the patient's exchange."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The chatbot’s guidelines also state it is not “intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of any health condition”.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"OpenAI's guidelines state that ChatGPT is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of any health condition; the Guardian reports no OpenAI comment on this case.","causal_attribution":"General product terms relayed by the Guardian, not a response to this case."}],"effects":[{"label":"bromide poisoning with paranoia and hallucinations, an involuntary psychiatric hold and a three-week hospital admission","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/aimcc.2024.1260","kind":"peer_reviewed_case_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Live URL answered HTTP 403 on 2026-10-11. Read in English from the Internet Archive capture 20250807211025 of this URL (bodies/lr-acp-wb.html): complete article (Background, Case Report, Table 1, Discussion, references, author information), published online 5 August 2025 by Eichenberger, Thielke and Van Buskirk; the treating clinicians' own report of the case.","independence_group":"acp-case-report"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/aug/12/us-man-bromism-salt-diet-chatgpt-openai-health-information","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-11 (live page, HTTP 200). A relay of the case report with no independent contact with the patient or clinicians, so it shares the case report's group; it adds OpenAI's general product statements, which do not address this case.","independence_group":"acp-case-report"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["health","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["What ChatGPT actually told the patient: his prompts, the replies, any warnings and the number of exchanges are unknown because the clinicians had no conversation log.","When the substitution and the hospital admission took place; the report gives a three-month period of ingestion and a three-week admission but no dates.","Where the patient lives and was treated; the report names no hospital or place.","Whether other sources, such as the bought product's labelling, contributed to the decision."],"geography":{"basis":"The complete case report names no city, hospital, region or country: the patient 'presented to the emergency department' and the authors refer to 'Our institution's laboratory' and 'the Poison Control Department' without naming them. University of Washington, Seattle appears only as the authors' affiliation, which is not used as an event or residence location. The Guardian calls the publication 'A US medical journal', which locates the journal and not the patient. No proceeding is reported. Carried forward from the 2026-09-19 metadata review and re-verified in the archived article on 2026-10-11.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with). The treating clinicians' peer-reviewed case report documents the bromide poisoning, psychosis and three-week admission and records the patient's account that he made the substitution after reading in a ChatGPT consultation that chloride can be swapped with bromide. The chatbot's output to him is known only through that account, so AI involvement is reported and causation alleged. The Guardian relays the same report and is not an independent account.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The treating clinicians' case report records the patient's own account that he replaced table salt with sodium bromide for three months 'after consultation with ChatGPT, in which he had read that chloride can be swapped with bromide, though likely for other purposes, such as cleaning'. That exchange is what connects the chatbot to the substitution, and the substitution to the bromide poisoning the clinicians diagnosed. The authors did not have his conversation log and write that they 'will never be able to know with certainty' what output he received. Their own later query to ChatGPT 3.5 about replacing chloride also produced a reply that named bromide without a specific health warning; that test is not the patient's exchange.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Case report: man hospitalised three weeks with bromide poisoning told doctors he swapped table salt for sodium bromide after consulting ChatGPT","summary":"A peer-reviewed case report by University of Washington clinicians (Annals of Internal Medicine: Clinical Cases, published online 5 August 2025) describes a 60-year-old man with no psychiatric history who presented fearing his neighbour was poisoning him and was found to have bromism, with a serum bromide level of 1700 mg/L. He developed paranoia and hallucinations, was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold after trying to escape and recovered over a three-week admission. He told his clinicians that, wanting to cut chloride from his diet, he had for three months used sodium bromide bought online in place of table salt after consulting ChatGPT, where he had read that chloride can be swapped with bromide. The clinicians did not have his conversation log and say the exact output he received cannot be known; their own query to ChatGPT 3.5 produced a reply naming bromide without a specific health warning. No place or date is given.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-08-05","aiSystem":"ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":["method_provision"],"harmOutcomes":["medical_deterioration","hospitalization","psychiatric_deterioration"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"One man was poisoned with bromide, developed paranoia and hallucinations, was held involuntarily and spent three weeks in hospital; he attributed the salt substitution to what he read in a ChatGPT consultation, which his clinicians could not inspect.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The case report describes one patient.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/aimcc.2024.1260","primarySourceLabel":"Annals of Internal Medicine: Clinical Cases (Eichenberger, Thielke, Van Buskirk), 5 August 2025: A Case of Bromism Influenced by Use of Artificial Intelligence","firstPublishedAt":"2026-01-12T00:34:09.409015+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:53:07.295887+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["chatgpt","openai","bromide","poisoning","hospitalization","case-report","health-advice","psychosis"]}]}