{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T16:31:50.935Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"hallucination","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2024","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":0,"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":"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"]}]}