{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T16:30:45.356Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"hallucination","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":9,"coverage":{"cases":9,"countries":5,"languages":4,"unknownLocation":3,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":1,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":4,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":9,"mixedRelations":2,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"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-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-israel-magistrates-court-strikes-expert-report-resting-on-ai-hallucinated-case-law-costs","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'התרשלה בתפקידה כנאמנת'; 'ביום 10.3.26הגישה הנתבעת 2חוות דעת'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, a lawyer acting as trustee, negligently transferred estate money to another person's account; the defendant filed a third-party notice against two banks and, on 10 March 2026, a banking expert's opinion.","causal_attribution":"The decision's own account of the pleadings; the negligence claim is an allegation in a continuing suit."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'מבוססת על פסיקה ,חקיקה וספרות פיקטיביות שהומצאו ע\"י בינה מלאכותית ,ובכלל זה פסק דין שאינו קיים'; 'כאשר שאלת השימוש בבינה מלאכותית מקומה להתברר בחקירה נגדית'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One bank asked the court to strike the opinion as resting on case law, legislation and literature invented by artificial intelligence, including a ruling that does not exist; the defendant replied that the question of AI use should be examined in cross-examination.","causal_attribution":"The parties' submissions as recorded by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'הליך שלא ניתן לאתרו לפי מספר או שם הצדדים'; 'מבדיקה עצמאית לא נמצא כי קיים ספר ,מאמר או ציטוט כזה'; 'מבלי שהוגשה התייחסותו של המומחה לטענות המופנות כנגד חוות דעתו ,ומחדל זה פועל לחובתה של הנתבעת'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Checking the sources itself, the court could not locate the cited Supreme Court ruling by number or party names, found no book, article or quotation matching the cited legal text, and found that the quoted statutory sections say something else; the defendant filed no response from the expert.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings after its own check of the sources."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'משנמצא כי לב חוות הדעת והנספחים המצורפים אליה נשענים על \"הזיות בינה מלאכותית\" מובהקות ועל עיוות מוחלט של לשון חוק שירותי תשלום'; 'הגשת חוות דעת המבוססת על הזיות של בינה מלאכותית מהווה פגם מהותי המצדיק את הוצאתה המידית מהתיק עוד לפני שלב ההוכחות'; 'ומורה על מחיקת חוות דעתו'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rest on clear AI hallucinations and a distortion of the statute, that an opinion resting on AI hallucinations is a substantive defect justifying its removal before the evidence stage, and struck it from the file.","causal_attribution":"The court attributes the defects to AI hallucinations; that attribution rests on the invented content, with no admission or named tool."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'שעה שהתיקון של ההודעה לצד שלישי מבוסס על חוות דעת המומחה מטעם המודיעה ,חוות דעת שמצאתי אותה פגומה והוריתי על מחיקתה מהתיק'; 'דין הבקשה לתיקון ההודעה לצד שלישי להידחות'; 'תישא בהוצאות הבקשות לטובת הצד דים השלישיים בסך של'; '₪ 2,500לכל אחד מהם בנפרד'; 'ניתנה היום ,כ\"ז תשרי תשפ\"ז 08 ,אוקטובר'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court refused the defendant's request to amend the third-party notice, giving as one reason that the amendment rested on the struck opinion, and ordered her to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each of the two banks within 30 days regardless of the outcome; the decision is dated 8 October 2026.","causal_attribution":"The court's orders. The refusal also rests on independent procedural grounds (no supporting affidavit, lateness, lack of good faith)."}],"effects":[{"label":"defendant's expert opinion struck from the file as resting on AI-hallucinated authorities","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"defendant's amendment refused and costs of 2,500 shekels ordered to each of two banks","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3278/Avaragl_v._Yaakov_Israel.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"he","translation_note":"Read in full in Hebrew by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from the copy of the decision hosted on the AI Hallucination Cases database (HTTP 200, 10 pages, text extracted with pdftotext and bidirectional-control characters removed); the English renderings in this record are the research agent's own translation, with no human translator involved.","independence_group":"nof-hagalil-nazareth-magistrates-court-civil-file-38820-04-24-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","finance"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool, if any, the expert used; the decision names none and records no account from the expert.","Whether the defendant appeals the decision or pays the costs, and how the suit and the third-party notice are decided.","Whether the expert faces any professional consequence."],"geography":{"basis":"The opinion was filed in, and struck by, the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel. Where the parties live is not stated and is not used.","court_countries":["IL"],"event_countries":["IL"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's decision, read in full, finds that a filed expert opinion rests on AI-hallucinated authorities and distorted statute text, and on that basis strikes it, refuses the amendment built on it and orders the filing defendant to pay costs. The case is an expert witness's report excluded from evidence before trial.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's decision finds that the heart of the expert opinion and its annexes rest on clear 'AI hallucinations': a Supreme Court ruling the court could not locate, a cited book it could not find and statutory sections quoted with text the statute does not contain. The court read that output in the filed opinion and, because of it, struck the opinion, refused the amendment that rested on it and ordered the defendant to pay costs (informed_decision_about). The attribution to AI is the court's own finding after checking the sources; no admission, tool or account by the expert is recorded.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Israeli court strikes a defendant's expert report it found rested on AI-hallucinated case law and orders her to pay the banks' costs","summary":"On 8 October 2026 the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel, struck from the file a banking expert's opinion that a defendant in a civil negligence suit had filed, finding that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rested on clear 'AI hallucinations': a Supreme Court ruling the court could not locate, a book it could not find and statutory sections quoted with text the statute does not contain. The court also refused the defendant's request to amend her third-party notice against two banks, partly because the amendment relied on the struck opinion, and ordered her to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each bank. No AI tool is named, and the decision records no response from the expert.","incidentDate":"2026-10-08","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-08","aiSystem":"Unidentified generative AI tool; the court found that the expert opinion rests on AI hallucinations but names no tool, and the expert did not respond","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's decision, the defendant's expert evidence was struck and her amendment refused because the opinion rested on what the court found were AI-hallucinated authorities and distorted statute text, and she was ordered to pay 2,500 shekels in costs to each of two banks.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the defendant who filed the opinion, whose evidence was struck, whose amendment was refused and who was ordered to pay costs. The expert is not counted because the decision orders nothing against him; the plaintiff and the banks are not harmed by the ruling.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IL","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3278/Avaragl_v._Yaakov_Israel.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Magistrates' Court, Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, civil file 38820-04-24, decision (8 October 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:01:26.843634+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:01:26.843634+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["israel","expert-evidence","hallucinated-citations","court-decision","costs","banking"]},{"id":"2026-alabama-supreme-court-dismisses-family-trust-appeal-over-lawyer-ai-hallucinated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'filed briefs in this appeal that contain numerous invalid, inaccurate, and/or irrelevant citations to legal authorities'; 'They appear to be artificial-intelligence (\"AI\") \"hallucinations,\" i.e., fake authorities created by an AI system'; 'Most of the legal authorities in the briefs are misquoted or nonexistent'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appellants' lawyer filed briefs whose citations the court found numerous, invalid, inaccurate or irrelevant, most of them misquoted or nonexistent, and which the court said appear to be AI hallucinations.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'first use of an AI research tool that summarized commentary not readily available through standard legal databases'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, the lawyer attributed two misquotations to an AI research tool that summarised commentary.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's statement as quoted in the opinion."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall admitted that many of the legal authorities in his briefs do not exist and that he improperly used AI to obtain those authorities'; 'Hall also informed the Court that he had self-reported his actions to the Alabama State Bar'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At the 4 February 2026 show-cause hearing the lawyer admitted that many authorities in his briefs did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them, and said he had self-reported to the Alabama State Bar.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the hearing."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Because those briefs are grossly deficient under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal'; 'the dismissal of this appeal is imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts before us'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court dismissed the appeal because the briefs were grossly deficient, and said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall is hereby ordered to pay attorney fees and costs'; 'in the amount of $17,200'; 'Hall is ordered to pay double costs'; 'We also refer Hall to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court ordered the lawyer to pay $17,200 in attorney fees and costs and double costs of the appeal, and referred him to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'SELLERS, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I do not agree that dismissal of the appeal is appropriate as a sanction for the conduct of a lawyer'; 'I would affirm the judgment of the Mobile Circuit'; 'MENDHEIM, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I concur in the dismissal of this appeal'; 'His representation on appeal was of no benefit to them'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Justice Sellers, concurring in part and dissenting in part, disagreed that dismissal was an appropriate sanction for a lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits; Justice Mendheim, who concurred in the dismissal, wrote that the lawyer's representation on appeal was of no benefit to the clients.","causal_attribution":"Two separate opinions in the same record; neither is the court's holding."}],"effects":[{"label":"two appellants' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on AI-obtained authorities that were fake or misquoted","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 and double costs, barred from filing alone in the court and referred to the state bar","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from CourtListener's archived copy of this court PDF (storage.courtlistener.com, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext) because the court portal URL returned HTTP 403 to the agent; no translation was needed.","independence_group":"alabama-supreme-court-sc-2025-0106"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the lawyer used; the opinion names none.","Whether the dismissal changed the clients' substantive position; the trial court's summary judgment stands, the main opinion does not decide the merits, and one justice would have affirmed the judgment.","The outcome of the Alabama State Bar referral."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama on appeal from the Mobile Circuit Court. The appellants' residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the Supreme Court of Alabama's opinion establishes that it dismissed two appellants' appeal as a sanction after their lawyer filed briefs built on fabricated authorities that he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI, and that it sanctioned the lawyer and referred him to the state bar. The opinion was read in full.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found the briefs' authorities appeared to be AI hallucinations, the lawyer admitted at the show-cause hearing that he had improperly used AI to obtain authorities that do not exist, and his reply-brief footnote quoted by the court says an AI research tool misattributed quotations. The AI output reached the court through the briefs, and the court dismissed the clients' appeal because those briefs rested on fabricated authorities (informed_decision_about for the clients); the lawyer received the fabricated output from the tool (communicated_with) and was sanctioned.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Alabama Supreme Court dismisses two siblings' family-trust appeal as a sanction after their lawyer admits using AI that produced fake citations","summary":"On 24 April 2026 the Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed an appeal by two siblings in a family dispute over living trusts because their lawyer, W. Perry Hall, had filed briefs in which most of the legal authorities were misquoted or did not exist. The court said they appeared to be AI hallucinations, and at a show-cause hearing in February 2026 Hall admitted that many authorities did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them. The court ordered Hall to pay the opposing party's fees and costs of $17,200 and double appeal costs, barred him from filing in the court without a co-signing attorney and referred him to the Alabama State Bar. It said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts. One justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part, objected to dismissing the appeal as a sanction for the lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the judgment against the clients on the merits.","incidentDate":"2026-04-24","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-04-24","aiSystem":"An AI research tool that, according to the lawyer's reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, summarised legal commentary and misattributed quotations; the lawyer admitted using AI to obtain authorities that do not exist. No product is named in the opinion","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI research tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Supreme Court of Alabama, the siblings' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on authorities that were misquoted or did not exist, which he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI; the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 in fees and costs plus double appeal costs and was referred to the state bar.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One AI user: the appellate lawyer, sanctioned and referred to the bar. Two other people: the two appellants whose appeal was dismissed. The appellee, whose fees were reimbursed, is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","primarySourceLabel":"Supreme Court of Alabama, opinion in SC-2025-0106 (released 24 April 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","alabama","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","appeal-dismissed"]},{"id":"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":"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-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"]}]}