{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T16:31:50.986Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"hallucination","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":10,"coverage":{"cases":10,"countries":4,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":4,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":4,"minors":0,"coreRelations":5,"contextualRelations":3,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":2,"relationPending":2,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-alabama-federal-court-disqualifies-three-butler-snow-lawyers-over-chatgpt-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'On May 7, 2025, Defendant Dunn filed a motion for leave to take the'; 'Then, at 4:21 p.m. on May 12, 2025, Defendant'; 'In total, there were five problematic citations across two motions'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'filed two motions with five'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Two motions filed for the defendant, a former Alabama corrections commissioner, on 7 and 12 May 2025 contained five citations that did not exist or did not support the propositions for which they were cited.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's own review recorded in the sanctions order."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'possibly through the use of generative artificial intelligence.'; 'The next day, Plaintiff'; 'On May 14, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part'; 'conducted independent searches for each allegedly fabricated citation, to no avail'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'the court has conducted independent searches for each allegedly fabricated citation, to no avail'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff's response of 15 May 2025 objected that defence counsel appeared to have fabricated citations, possibly through generative AI; the court searched for each citation without result and ordered the signatories and the firm to show cause.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history documented by the order; the Guardian quotes the same show-cause order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'In short, attorney Matt Reeves used ChatGPT to obtain'; 'case citations returned by ChatGPT through independent review in Westlaw or'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'failed to verify the case citations returned by ChatGPT through independent review in Westlaw or Pacer before including them'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyers' response stated that partner Matthew Reeves used ChatGPT to obtain case citations for two arguments without verifying them, and Reeves declared that he did not verify the citations ChatGPT returned in Westlaw or PACER.","causal_attribution":"The statements are documented by the order; the AI's role in the citations rests on the lawyers' admission, which the court accepted."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'the court PUBLICLY REPRIMANDS Mr.'; 'them from further participation in this case; and REFERS this matter to the Alabama'; 'the court exercises its discretion not to suspend them from'; 'SANCTION attorneys Daniel J. Chism and Lynette E. Potter, and the law firm'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Manasco also publicly reprimanded the lawyers; referred them to the Alabama State Bar'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 23 July 2025 the court publicly reprimanded three lawyers, disqualified them from the case, referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar and other licensing authorities, declined to suspend them, and released two other lawyers and the firm without sanction.","causal_attribution":"Established by the operative passages of the sanctions order; the ABA Journal relays it."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'reviewed more than 2,400 separate legal'; 'citations across 330 filings.”'; 'revealed no additional “legal citations that were fabricated,”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'No other instances of incorrect case references were found.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Butler Snow commissioned an independent review by Morgan Lewis of more than 2,400 citations across 330 filings. A Morgan Lewis partner declared that the review revealed no additional fabricated citations, and the ABA Journal reports that no other incorrect case references were found.","causal_attribution":"The scope of the review and the Morgan Lewis partner's declaration are documented by the order; the ABA Journal relays the finding."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'and in these two instances I did not comply with policy'; 'I would hope your honor would not punish my colleagues'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"At the 21 May 2025 hearing, according to The Guardian, Reeves said he was aware of the limitations on AI use and had not complied with the firm's policy in these two instances, and asked the court not to punish his colleagues.","causal_attribution":"Statements at the hearing as reported by The Guardian."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'knowledge that Matt Reeves utilized generative artificial intelligence to generate'; 'Mr. Cranford is of counsel at Butler Snow'; 'or substantive review of the legal authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The of-counsel lawyer who drafted the motions declared that he had no knowledge that Reeves had used generative AI, and the practice group leader declared that he did not conduct a detailed or substantive review of the legal authorities in the second motion.","causal_attribution":"Declarations summarised and quoted in the sanctions order."}],"effects":[{"label":"three lawyers were publicly reprimanded, disqualified and referred to the state bar over ChatGPT-fabricated citations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677.204.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from the RECAP copy of the 51-page order (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext). The declarations, the hearing transcript (Doc. 200) and the Morgan Lewis report it cites were not read separately.","independence_group":"johnson-v-dunn-nd-ala-sanctions-order"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/24/alabama-prison-lawyers-chatgpt-butler-snow","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 (HTTP 200). The Guardian reports the 21 May 2025 show-cause hearing and quotes the court's order and Reeves's declaration.","independence_group":"guardian-butler-snow-may-2025"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/5-fabricated-cases-lead-federal-judge-to-kick-3-butler-snow-lawyers-off-case","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 (HTTP 200). The ABA Journal relays the 23 July 2025 order and Butler Snow's 19 May filing.","independence_group":"johnson-v-dunn-nd-ala-sanctions-order"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The outcome of the referral to the Alabama State Bar and other licensing authorities.","Which version of ChatGPT was used and what prompts produced the citations; the order records the partner's description of a search only.","Whether the disqualification delayed the plaintiff's case beyond the 30-day stay the order mentions."],"geography":{"basis":"The motions were filed in, and the sanctions imposed by, the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (sanctions order). Where the partner ran the ChatGPT search is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court seat.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the federal sanctions order of 23 July 2025 documents that three defence lawyers were publicly reprimanded, disqualified and referred to the state bar over five fabricated or unsupported citations that the lawyers confirmed were hallucinations of ChatGPT, which one partner had used without verifying.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions order records that three defence lawyers confirmed in writing and at a hearing that the citations were hallucinations of ChatGPT, and quotes their joint response that partner Matthew Reeves used ChatGPT to obtain case citations for two arguments without verifying them; Reeves declared that he searched ChatGPT for supporting case law and did not verify the citations it returned. The court found five citations across the two motions that do not exist or do not support the propositions cited, and sanctioned three lawyers for those false statements. The AI output therefore reached the sanctioned filings through the partner's own exchange with ChatGPT (communicated_with). The drafting lawyer declared that he did not know generative AI had been used, and the practice group leader that he did not substantively review the legal authorities.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Alabama federal judge reprimands and disqualifies three Butler Snow lawyers and refers them to the state bar over ChatGPT-fabricated citations (2025)","summary":"In an incarcerated man's lawsuit against Alabama prison officials in the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, two motions filed in May 2025 for the defence of a former Alabama corrections commissioner contained five citations that did not exist or did not support the propositions cited. Lawyers of the Butler Snow firm, which the state retains to defend its prisons, told the court that a partner had obtained the citations from ChatGPT and had not verified them. On 23 July 2025 Judge Anna M. Manasco publicly reprimanded three of the firm's lawyers, disqualified them from the case and referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar, and ordered them to give the order to clients, opposing counsel and judges in all their pending cases. She declined to suspend them and released the firm and two other lawyers without sanction.","incidentDate":"2025-05-07","incidentEndDate":"2025-07-23","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-05-24","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which a Butler Snow partner told the court he used to search for supporting case law; the order records the citations as hallucinations of ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's sanctions order of 23 July 2025, three Butler Snow lawyers were publicly reprimanded, disqualified from the case and referred to the Alabama State Bar after two motions contained citations that the lawyers confirmed were hallucinations of ChatGPT, which one of them had used and not verified.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Three lawyers sanctioned in the 23 July 2025 order: the partner who declared that he used ChatGPT (counted as the AI user) and the drafting lawyer and the practice group leader, whose own use of ChatGPT is not established (counted as other people harmed). The firm and the two lawyers released without sanction are not counted; the plaintiff and the defendant are not counted as harmed by the AI use.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677.204.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Johnson v. Dunn, No. 2:21-cv-01701, Sanctions Order (Doc. 204), 23 July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:01:17.679643+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:01:17.679643+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["alabama","federal-court","prison-litigation","lawyers","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","disqualification","bar-referral"]},{"id":"2025-uk-upper-tribunal-judicial-review-grounds-false-citations-supervising-solicitor-referred-to-sra","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'lodged judicial review proceedings in the Upper Tribunal'; 'What causes me to make that order are the “authorities” cited at [10], [17], [18], and [32] of the grounds.'; 'and no case with the citation [2010] UKUT 35 (IAC) even exists'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Judicial review grounds lodged in the Upper Tribunal on 26 June 2025 cited four authorities that the judge could not find or that carried wrong citations, including one citation that does not exist.","causal_attribution":"Judge's order of 20 August 2025 as set out in the judgment."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'may have relied on false citations which were generated by AI, as'; 'accepted he had done in this case'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The tribunal recorded that the supervising solicitor accepted that the junior fee-earner had relied on false citations generated by AI in this case.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal's record of the solicitor's acceptance (the judgment does not say when or in what words he accepted it); no tool, prompt or output is identified."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'he relied on an outdated precedent on our system, practitioner blogs and personal notes'; 'we were concerned by the suggestion in the statements made by'; 'that the citation errors might have been caused by an “old precedent from previous cases”'; 'He stated that there was no mechanism by which staff at his firm could use AI.'; 'He said that he had, and that he had deleted it.'; 'was unable to offer a clear answer to that question'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The solicitor's written explanation of 26 September 2025 said the fee-earner relied on an outdated precedent, practitioner blogs and personal notes, and the tribunal recorded that signed statements by both men suggested the errors might have been caused by an old precedent. At the hearing the solicitor said staff at the firm had no mechanism to use AI, and said he had found and deleted the precedent but could not say what it was.","causal_attribution":"The solicitor's and the fee-earner's own accounts as recorded in the judgment; contrary evidence on the AI origin. The solicitor could not identify the precedent ([53])."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'we consider that the inclusion of false citations in the grounds for judicial review and'; 'necessitates a referral to the SRA'; 'It matters not how such citation errors come about.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The tribunal referred the supervising solicitor to the Solicitors Regulation Authority because the grounds included false citations and he had failed to supervise their drafting, and said it does not matter how such citation errors come about.","causal_attribution":"Decision stated in the judgment promulgated on 17 November 2025."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'has now been amended so as to require a legal representative to confirm by a statement of truth that any authority cited within the form'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The judgment states that the Upper Tribunal judicial review claim form has been amended to require a legal representative to confirm by a statement of truth that any cited authority exists, can be located with the citation given and supports the proposition for which it is cited.","causal_attribution":"Statement in the judgment's headnote and conclusions."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'He refused permission for reasons which we need not set out.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on 20 August 2025 for reasons the judgment does not set out.","causal_attribution":"Judgment; the refusal is not connected to the citations."}],"effects":[{"label":"supervising solicitor referred to the SRA over false citations in judicial review grounds drafted by a junior fee-earner","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/81","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full judgment text read in English by the research agent (an AI) on Find Case Law (HTTP 200); no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it.","independence_group":"ukut-2026-81-judgment"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool generated the false citations, and what was asked of it; the judgment records only the solicitor's acceptance.","Whether the junior fee-earner used an AI tool: he did not attend the hearing, and the statements he and the solicitor signed suggested an old precedent as the source of the errors.","What action, if any, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has taken on the referral.","Whether other files the fee-earner worked on contain false citations; the tribunal said it was likely but unestablished."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: the grounds were lodged in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), the Hamid hearing was held at Field House and the referral is to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (judgment). Court: the Upper Tribunal. The solicitor's residence is not stated.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the Upper Tribunal's own judgment: false citations in judicial review grounds led the tribunal to refer the supervising solicitor to the SRA, and the tribunal records his acceptance that the junior fee-earner relied on AI-generated citations. The referral is documented; the AI origin is reported and the solicitor's earlier contrary accounts are recorded. The solicitor, the fee-earner and the applicant are private persons and are not named in the public text.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The judgment records that the solicitor accepted that the junior fee-earner had relied on false citations generated by AI in this case ([52]), and the tribunal referred him to the SRA because the grounds included those false citations and he had failed to supervise their drafting ([56]). The false authorities reached the tribunal in the grounds; the judge identified them, ordered the show cause process and the panel acted on them in deciding to refer the solicitor (informed_decision_about). The AI origin rests on that recorded acceptance and on the tribunal's reference to his failure to put checks in place 'to ensure that the use of AI did not mislead the tribunal' ([46]). Against it, his written explanation had named an outdated precedent, practitioner blogs and personal notes, the statements he and the fee-earner signed suggested an old precedent, which he said he had deleted and could not describe ([53]), at the hearing he said staff had no mechanism to use AI, and the tribunal said the source of the errors does not matter to the referral. No tool or output is identified.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"UK Upper Tribunal refers a supervising solicitor to the SRA over false citations in judicial review grounds; tribunal records he accepted they were AI-generated","summary":"Judicial review grounds lodged in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) on 26 June 2025 by a solicitors' firm cited four authorities that the judge could not find or that carried wrong citations and propositions. The firm's compliance officer, a solicitor whose name was on the claim form, said a junior fee-earner had drafted the grounds under his supervision; his written explanation named an outdated precedent, practitioner blogs and personal notes as the sources. After a Hamid hearing on 5 November 2025, the tribunal recorded that he accepted the fee-earner had relied on false citations generated by AI, and in a judgment promulgated on 17 November 2025 it referred him to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for the false citations and his failure to supervise. The tribunal said it does not matter how such errors come about. It also announced that the Upper Tribunal judicial review claim form now requires a statement of truth that cited authorities exist and support the propositions they are cited for.","incidentDate":"2025-06-26","incidentEndDate":"2025-11-17","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-11-17","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tool that, according to the tribunal's record of the solicitor's acceptance, generated the false citations a junior fee-earner relied on; no tool is named","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The supervising solicitor was put through a show cause order and a Hamid hearing and referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for false citations in grounds drafted by a junior fee-earner and for failing to supervise ([2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), promulgated 17 November 2025). The AI origin of the citations rests on the tribunal's record that he accepted it; his written explanation had named other sources.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the supervising solicitor referred to the SRA. He is not counted as an AI user, because the judgment records the junior fee-earner's reliance on AI-generated citations. The fee-earner, who had left the firm and did not attend, and the applicant, whose permission refusal the judgment does not connect to the citations, are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/81","primarySourceLabel":"Find Case Law, [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), UK v SSHD (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid), promulgated 17 November 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:12:31.6959+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:12:31.6959+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-hallucination","fabricated-citations","legal","immigration","tribunal","supervision","sra-referral","united-kingdom"]},{"id":"2025-uk-upper-tribunal-immigration-adviser-google-ai-mode-fake-case-in-appeal-grounds-regulator-self-report","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'he was the person responsible for the case and drafting of the grounds of 17th March 2025 in this matter.'; 'provide an explanation for the fact that the case Horleston v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 654 cited in the grounds of appeal to the Upper Tribunal is not available on BAILII'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Grounds of appeal dated 17 March 2025, drafted by the adviser, cited a case (Horleston v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 654) that the Upper Tribunal could not find, under the citation of an unrelated case; the tribunal issued a show cause notice.","causal_attribution":"Established by the judgment's own record of the show cause notice and the adviser's response."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'We confirm unequivocally that no AI large language model (such as ChatGPT) was used in drafting the grounds of appeal.'; 'In absence of an explanation and with how AI operates, I cannot dismiss the fact that the case was an AI creation as there is no other explanation.'; 'his best guess was that he had inadvertently used the “AI Mode” of a Google search by clicking on this on the bar under the search topic.'; 'concluded himself that it was probable that this had happened because of the inadvertent use of an AI large language model'; 'As far as the Panel could establish there had never been a reported case called Horleston but Google AI nevertheless can, depending on the question posed, produce information such as panels of Court of Appeal judges who sat on this non-existent case'; 'By asking Google AI the same question in slightly different ways, we were able to elicit various different compositions of the bench which decided that fictitious case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The adviser first denied using an AI large language model, later said he could not dismiss that the case was an AI creation, and at the hearing gave as his best guess that he had inadvertently used Google's 'AI Mode'; the tribunal found he had concluded it was probable the fake case came from inadvertent AI use, and the panel elicited varying benches for the fictitious case from Google AI.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal documents what the adviser said and its own test of Google AI; the source of the case in the drafting rests on his conclusion and best guess, so the claim is reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'reported himself to the IAA and to the SRA for having unknowingly inserted a non-existent case in grounds of appeal'; 'has already done this and there is no need for us to do so. If he had not done this we wish to make it clear that we would have made a referral'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The adviser reported himself to the IAA and the SRA for having unknowingly inserted a non-existent case, and the tribunal made no referral for that reason, stating it would otherwise have referred him.","causal_attribution":"Established by the judgment's findings and its stated decision on referral."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'he had put client emails he had drafted explaining Home Office decisions into ChatGPT to try to improve them and he had uploaded Home Office decision letters to this platform to summarise them for clients.'; 'He informed us that he now realises that this is a data breach and will inform the clients that he has done this, as well as the IAA and the SRA.'; 'to put client letters and decision letters from the Home Office into an open source AI tool, such as ChatGPT, is to place this information on the internet in the public domain, and thus to breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The adviser told the tribunal he had put client emails explaining Home Office decisions into ChatGPT and uploaded Home Office decision letters to it to summarise them, called this a data breach he would disclose to the clients, the IAA and the SRA; the tribunal said such uploads breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege.","causal_attribution":"The uploads rest on the adviser's own account as recorded by the tribunal; the tribunal's statement on confidentiality is its own observation. The clients' number and whether they were told are not stated."}],"effects":[{"label":"non-existent case, probably from Google AI Mode by his own account, placed in appeal grounds he drafted","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"self-reported to the IAA and the SRA; the tribunal would otherwise have referred him","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/81","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full judgment text read on Find Case Law (HTTP 200); no translation.","independence_group":"ukut-2026-81-judgment"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Whether the false case actually came from Google AI Mode; the judgment records the adviser's best guess and conclusion, with no search history or output","What effect, if any, the false case had on the appellant's permission application","How many clients' emails or decision letters were put into ChatGPT and whether they were informed","The outcome of the IAA and SRA self-reports"],"geography":{"basis":"Event: the grounds were filed with the First-tier and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), heard at Field House, and the adviser practises under the UK regulators IAA and SRA (judgment). Court: the Upper Tribunal. The adviser's and clients' countries of residence are not stated.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published from the full Upper Tribunal judgment: it documents the false case in grounds the adviser drafted and his self-reports to two regulators, and records his conclusion that the case probably came from inadvertent AI use and his best guess that the tool was Google AI Mode, which the panel's own Google AI test illustrates. The AI source is attributed to his account; his separate account of uploading client documents to ChatGPT is context. The adviser is described by role; the anonymised appellant is not counted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The judgment records the adviser's best guess that the non-existent case came from his inadvertent use of Google's 'AI Mode', and finds that he concluded it was probable the case was included because of inadvertent use of an AI large language model; the panel reproduced Google AI generating different benches for the same fictitious case. The output reached him through his own search (communicated_with) and went into the grounds that led to the show cause notice and his self-reports. This rests on his account as recorded by the tribunal; he first denied AI use. His separate account of putting client emails and Home Office decision letters into ChatGPT is described as context and is not part of this case's harm.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"UK Upper Tribunal: immigration adviser gives Google AI Mode as his best guess for a non-existent case in grounds he drafted; he self-reported to regulators","summary":"In the first of two matters decided together in [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), promulgated on 17 November 2025, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) examined grounds of appeal dated 17 March 2025 that cited a non-existent Court of Appeal case under the citation of an unrelated equal-pay case. The adviser who drafted them first denied using AI, then told the tribunal his best guess was that he had inadvertently used Google's 'AI Mode', and the tribunal recorded that he had concluded it was probable the case came from inadvertent AI use; the panel itself got Google AI to produce varying benches for the fictitious case. He reported himself to the Immigration Advice Authority and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and the tribunal said it would otherwise have referred him. He also told the tribunal that he had put client emails and uploaded Home Office decision letters into ChatGPT to summarise them, which he called a data breach he would disclose to the clients; the tribunal said such uploads breach client confidentiality and waive privilege.","incidentDate":"2025-03-17","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-11-17","aiSystem":"Google search 'AI Mode', identified by the adviser as his best guess for the source of the false case","aiProduct":"Google AI Mode (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Upper Tribunal's judgment, an immigration adviser placed a non-existent case in appeal grounds, which the tribunal found he had concluded probably came from inadvertent AI use (his best guess: Google AI Mode); he self-reported to the IAA and the SRA, and the tribunal said it would otherwise have referred him.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One counted person: the adviser, who used the AI and faced the regulatory consequence. His clients whose emails and decision letters he said he put into ChatGPT belong to a separate, undated matter described as context and are not counted. The appellant in the matter is not counted because no consequence of the false case for the appeal is stated.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/81","primarySourceLabel":"Find Case Law, [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), UK v SSHD (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid), promulgated 17 November 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-11T03:13:21.379148+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:27:35.689369+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-hallucination","fabricated-citations","legal","immigration","tribunal","google-ai-mode","united-kingdom","communicated-with"]},{"id":"2025-tasmania-weldborough-tour-website-ai-article-invented-hot-springs-travellers-detour","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'An AI-generated article on a travel booking website has sent tourists to a remote location in Tasmania's north-east, looking for hot springs that do not exist.' and 'The website says walkers are greeted by pools \"rich in therapeutic minerals\".' and 'The problem is, the hot springs, as depicted in the imagery, do not exist.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In a now-deleted article published last July, the Tasmania Tours website suggested visitors go to “Weldborough Hot Springs”, calling it a “peaceful escape” offering an “authentic connection to nature”.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"An AI-generated article on the Tasmania Tours website described \"Weldborough Hot Springs\" in north-east Tasmania as a real attraction with mineral-rich pools; no such hot springs exist.","causal_attribution":"ABC News's own reading of the website article, with the operator's admission; The Independent relays ABC News."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Australian Tours and Cruises has admitted the AI technology it uses to create content and articles to help drive bookings has \"completely messed up\".' and 'He said the company had outsourced marketing material to a third party, which used AI to create some of its content.' and 'Mr Hennessy said all the AI-generated blog posts had been taken down and were being checked thoroughly.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The website operator, Australian Tours and Cruises, said the AI technology used by its third-party content provider had \"completely messed up\", that some posts went live by mistake, and that the AI-generated posts were taken down.","causal_attribution":"The operator's own statements to ABC News."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'And with the webpage lacking directions, excited travellers have descended on the area's other famous landmark — the Weldborough Hotel, about two hours' drive north-east of Launceston — to ask how they can find the idyllic pools.' and 'I actually had a group of 24 drivers turn up there two days ago that were on a trip from the mainland, and they'd actually taken a detour to come to the hot springs' and 'she was getting daily phone calls and in-person visitors asking about the hot springs, some even wanting to book accommodation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'It started with a few calls in September, Probert said, and then people began “turning up in droves”.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Travellers looking for the springs turned up at or telephoned the Weldborough Hotel, and ABC News reports that the article sent them there. The publican said she received daily calls and visits and that a group of 24 drivers on a trip from the mainland had taken a detour to find the springs two days before the report.","causal_attribution":"The publican's account as quoted by ABC News and relayed by The Independent. The link between these visitors and the website article is ABC News's own framing: the publican does not say where the travellers read about the springs, and no traveller is interviewed."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Australian Tours and Cruises told CNN that the AI-generated post and the resultant damage to their reputation as well as online hate they received had been “absolutely soul-destroying”.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The operator said that reputational damage and online hate following the episode had been \"absolutely soul-destroying\".","causal_attribution":"The operator's statement to CNN as relayed by The Independent; the CNN article was not inspected."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The AI-generated post brought a bit of a tourism boon for Weldborough' and 'adding that she was now gently telling visitors the truth when they inquired about the springs.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In The Independent's paraphrase, the publican said the AI-generated post brought \"a bit of a tourism boon\" for Weldborough and that she was now gently telling visitors the truth when they asked about the springs.","causal_attribution":"The publican's statement as paraphrased by The Independent (not a direct quotation). It concerns the town's tourist trade and does not describe the travellers' own journeys in c3."}],"effects":[{"label":"wasted journeys and inquiries by travellers looking for hot springs that do not exist, which ABC News attributes to an AI-written article","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-22/ai-images-of-tasmania-on-tour-website/106253448","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-10; no translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text. HTTP 200, full article body retained.","independence_group":"abc-news-weldborough-report-2026-01-22"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/ai-tasmania-tours-weldborough-hot-springs-b2909962.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-10; no translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text. HTTP 200, full article body retained.","independence_group":"abc-news-weldborough-report-2026-01-22"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the contractor used and whether the text and images came from one tool or several; no report names it.","How many people in total travelled to or contacted Weldborough; the publican gives one counted group of 24 and otherwise describes daily calls and visits without numbers.","The exact date the article went live (ABC News and The Independent give July 2025) and the dates of individual journeys; the 24-driver group is dated only as two days before the 22 January 2026 report.","Whether any traveller suffered a financial loss beyond the detour; no traveller is interviewed."],"geography":{"basis":"ABC News places the invented springs and the travellers' visits in Weldborough, north-east Tasmania, about two hours' drive from Launceston; the publican describes the group of 24 drivers as being on a trip from the mainland, which places them in Australia. No court proceeding is reported.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":["AU"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as AI-generated content that an operator published as travel information and that people relied on. AI attribution: ABC News describes the hot-springs article itself as AI-generated, and the operator admitted that its outsourced AI content had \"completely messed up\"; the tool is unnamed, no technical examination is reported, and the deleted article was not inspected. Reliance: the publican quoted by ABC News describes travellers telephoning and arriving at the Weldborough Hotel asking about the springs, some wanting to book accommodation, and ABC News reports that the article sent them; the publican does not say where the travellers read about the springs, and no traveller is interviewed. Consequence: wasted journeys to a remote town, including a group of 24 drivers from the mainland who detoured to find springs that do not exist. The Independent relays ABC News and adds the operator's statement to CNN and, in its paraphrase of the publican, that the post brought \"a bit of a tourism boon\" for the town. All claims stay reported because they rest on one chain.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The inspected evidence attributes this content to AI. ABC News describes the hot-springs article in its own voice as \"an AI-generated article on a travel booking website\", quotes its text describing \"Weldborough Hot Springs\" as a \"secluded forest retreat\" with pools \"rich in therapeutic minerals\", and reports that many of the site's other articles also appear to be written by AI. The operator, Australian Tours and Cruises, admitted that the AI technology it uses to create content and articles had \"completely messed up\", said a third party used AI to create some of its content, and said all the AI-generated blog posts were taken down. The springs do not exist. The tool is not named, no technical examination is reported, and the deleted article was not inspected, so its wording is known only from ABC's quotations. The operator published the article as travel information, and ABC News reports that this text reached the travellers and sent them to Weldborough (communicated_with). The publican describes the people who came looking for the springs: travellers telephoned and came to the hotel asking about the springs, some wanting to book accommodation, and a group of 24 drivers took a detour to find them, a wasted journey to springs that do not exist. The link between these visitors and the article is ABC News's framing: the publican does not say where they read about the springs, and no traveller is interviewed.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Weldborough, Tasmania: AI-written tour-website article invented hot springs; publican says travellers, including a group of 24 drivers, detoured to find them","summary":"An AI-generated article on the Tasmania Tours booking website described \"Weldborough Hot Springs\", a \"secluded forest retreat\" with pools \"rich in therapeutic minerals\", as one of the best hot-spring experiences in Tasmania. No such springs exist: the Weld River that runs through Weldborough, a small town in north-east Tasmania, is cold. ABC News reported on 22 January 2026 that travellers who read the article had been turning up at the town's pub, the Weldborough Hotel, to ask for directions, and the publican said she was receiving daily calls and visits and that a group of 24 drivers on a trip from the mainland had taken a detour two days earlier to find the springs. ABC News reported that the article was posted in July 2025, and The Independent, citing ABC News and CNN, reported that inquiries began with a few calls in September 2025. The operator, Australian Tours and Cruises, said its outsourced AI content had \"completely messed up\", that some posts had gone live by mistake, and that all AI-generated blog posts had been taken down. The reports describe the travellers only as a group; no individual traveller is interviewed, and the AI tool is not named. In The Independent's paraphrase, the publican also said the post brought \"a bit of a tourism boon\" for Weldborough.","incidentDate":"2025-09-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-01-20","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-01-22","aiSystem":"Generative AI used by a third-party marketing contractor to write articles and generate images for the Tasmania Tours booking website (operated by Australian Tours and Cruises); the tool is not named in the inspected reports.","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"ABC News reports that the AI-written article sent travellers to a remote town to find springs that do not exist. According to the publican it quotes, a group of 24 drivers from the mainland detoured to Weldborough two days before the 22 January 2026 report, and the pub received daily phone calls and in-person visits from people asking for the springs, some wanting to book accommodation. The operator told CNN, as relayed by The Independent, that reputational damage and online hate after the episode had been \"absolutely soul-destroying\". No injury, financial figure or individual traveller's account is reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":24,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"The publican told ABC News that \"a group of 24 drivers\" who had taken a detour to find the springs turned up two days before the report; that quoted figure is the counted minimum of travellers harmed. She also described daily phone calls and in-person visitors over a period, which the reports do not quantify, so the status is partial. The business owners and the operator are not counted as harmed persons. Website readers who did not travel or call are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"AU","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-22/ai-images-of-tasmania-on-tour-website/106253448","primarySourceLabel":"ABC News, 22 January 2026: tour website's AI sends visitors to Tasmanian sites that do not exist (publican and operator interviews)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-10T03:15:30.77417+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:42:36.151532+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-generated-content","travel","tourism","hallucination","australia","tasmania","website","communicated-with","others-use"]},{"id":"2025-north-carolina-federal-prosecutor-ai-drafted-brief-fabricated-quotations-reprimand","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"This filing misquoted a Fourth Circuit case, falsely attributed quotes to other cases and incorrectly described the court’s decision in several cases that he relied upon to support his argument, Numbers said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Numbers' list of problematic conduct includes fabricated quotes, misrepresentations of previous cases","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"filed a response with the court including “fabricated quotations and misstatements of case holdings”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"A response brief filed in December 2025 by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rudy Renfer for the Department of Defense in Fivehouse v. U.S. Department of Defense misquoted a Fourth Circuit case, attributed quotes to cases that did not contain them and misdescribed the holdings of several cases, according to Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II's orders as reported by the News & Observer and Courthouse News.","causal_attribution":"The court attributed the false quotations to the brief Renfer signed; the fabricated authority is the AI-related artifact in this case."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"flagged fabricated quotes and inaccurate descriptions of court cases in a brief Renfer filed earlier that month.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"In a January court filing, Renfer attributed the errors to an \"inadvertent filing of an unfinalized draft.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Fivehouse pointed out the errors in his reply.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The self-represented plaintiff, a retired Air Force colonel, identified the fabricated quotes and inaccurate case descriptions in his reply at the end of December 2025, and Renfer then attributed the errors to the inadvertent filing of an unfinalized draft.","causal_attribution":"none asserted"},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"the court orders Assistant United States Attorney Rudy E. Renfer to appear and show cause why he should not be sanctioned. The show cause hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 10, 2026","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"must appear at a show-cause hearing this week","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"On 2 March 2026 the court ordered Renfer to appear on 10 March 2026 and show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(b)(2) and the court's inherent authority, and asked leadership of the U.S. Attorney's Office to attend.","causal_attribution":"none asserted"},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Renfer then admitted to using AI to draft the brief","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"he thought he had edited and fact-checked the brief that AI helped draft. In reality, he sent an unfinished draft to his assistant, directing her to file it","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"He told the court that he accidentally saved a new file over the original draft of the brief, “panicked,” and used artificial intelligence to catch up.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"At the 10 March 2026 hearing Renfer said under oath that, after accidentally saving over his draft of the brief, he panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft it, believed he had edited and fact-checked the AI-assisted draft, and in fact sent an unfinished draft to be filed.","causal_attribution":"Renfer connected the fabricated authority to his use of AI; the court later wrote that an attorney who outsources research and writing to generative AI assumes the risk of fictitious authority."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Renfer lost his job after resigning from the position he had held for 17 years, he said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Renfer also told Numbers, who presided over that hearing, that he had submitted his resignation.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Renfer was reportedly terminated the next day.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"has asked the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Renfer left the U.S. Attorney's Office, where he had worked for 17 years: he told the court on 10 March 2026 that he had submitted his resignation, and Courthouse News reported that he was terminated the next day; the U.S. Attorney referred him to the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility.","causal_attribution":"The job loss followed the hearing on the AI-drafted brief; the sources do not state the employer's formal grounds."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Numbers II signed an order reprimanding Rudy Renfer","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Numbers limited the punishment to a public reprimand.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Numbers said Renfer “intentionally submitted a brief containing false materials to the court.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"His loss of employment imposes a financial burden well beyond the types of fines courts typically","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 28 April 2026 Magistrate Judge Numbers signed an order publicly reprimanding Renfer, writing that he intentionally submitted a brief containing false materials, that his professional reputation was in tatters, and that his loss of employment was a financial burden beyond the fines courts typically impose, so no fine was imposed.","causal_attribution":"The court tied the reprimand to the submission of fabricated authority produced with generative AI."}],"effects":[{"label":"a federal prosecutor lost his 17-year position and received a public judicial reprimand after filing an AI-drafted brief with fabricated quotations","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"},{"label":"a self-represented litigant had to identify fabricated quotations and misdescribed cases in the government's brief against him","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/judge-weighs-next-steps-us-121054156.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. The News & Observer report of 11 March 2026 on the 10 March show-cause hearing, read in its Yahoo News syndication; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"news-and-observer"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/federal-judge-punishes-ex-us-173015519.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. The News & Observer report of 28 April 2026 on the reprimand order, read in its Yahoo News syndication; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"news-and-observer"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rebukes-ex-doj-attorney-for-ai-generated-brief/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. Courthouse News Service report of 28 April 2026; the publisher host returned HTTP 403 to the fetcher, so the body was read from an Internet Archive capture of the same URL.","independence_group":"courthouse-news"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/doj-leaders-must-explain-why-attorney-used-fabricated-quotes-in-court-filing","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. ABA Journal, 9 March 2026, relaying Bloomberg Law reporting of the 2 March 2026 show-cause order; it does not mention AI; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"bloomberg-law"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71231282/fivehouse-v-us-department-of-defense/?page=2","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. CourtListener RECAP docket for Fivehouse v. U.S. Department of Defense, No. 2:25-cv-00041 (E.D.N.C.), page 2, entries of February to March 2026; HTTP 200. The 28 April 2026 order itself was not available as a free document.","independence_group":"court-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool Renfer used, and whether the whole brief or only parts of it were generated; the inspected accounts say only that he used artificial intelligence to draft the brief after losing his own draft.","Whether Renfer resigned or was terminated: he told the court he had resigned, and Courthouse News reported that he was terminated the next day.","The outcome of the Office of Professional Responsibility referral, and whether the court found similar fabricated quotations in other filings he signed (the News & Observer mentions errors in some of his other briefs without detail).","Any consequence for the self-represented plaintiff beyond the work of identifying the errors; the inspected sources describe none."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina and the hearing took place at the federal courthouse in Raleigh (docket entry of 2 March 2026; News & Observer). Renfer worked in that district's U.S. Attorney's Office. No other country is involved.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case on two independent reporting chains that both quote the court's orders and both report the attorney's statements at the 10 March 2026 hearing: a federal prosecutor said under oath that he used artificial intelligence to draft a brief that the court found contained fabricated quotations and misdescribed holdings, and the court responded with a show-cause order (documented on the docket), after which he lost his position and received a public reprimand on 28 April 2026. The affected person is a named public actor in a public court record. The AI tool is not identified and the resignation-or-termination question is recorded as unknown.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Renfer stated under oath at the 10 March 2026 show-cause hearing that he used artificial intelligence to draft the response brief after overwriting his own draft, and that he had not verified the cases it cited (News & Observer, 11 March; Courthouse News, 28 April). The court's 28 April order, as quoted by Courthouse News, treated the fabricated quotations and misdescribed holdings in that brief as the output of generative AI that Renfer failed to check ('An attorney who outsources core research and writing obligations to generative AI assumes the risk that its output will contain fictitious authority'); the News & Observer quotes the same order's statement that 'the submission of fabricated authority will not be tolerated in this Court'. The fabricated authority in the filed brief led to the show-cause order, the hearing, his departure from the office and the public reprimand. The tool is not identified in any inspected source.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Former federal prosecutor in North Carolina publicly reprimanded after admitting that a brief with fabricated quotations was drafted with AI; he lost his post","summary":"In December 2025 an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina filed a response brief for the Department of Defense in a self-represented veteran's lawsuit over health-insurance coverage. The plaintiff identified fabricated quotations and misdescribed case holdings in it. The attorney first attributed the errors to an unfinalized draft filed by mistake. On 2 March 2026 Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. At the 10 March hearing the attorney, Rudy Renfer, said under oath that he had accidentally overwritten his draft, panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft the brief, and had not verified the cases it cited; he said he had resigned after 17 years in the office, and Courthouse News reported he was terminated the next day. On 28 April 2026 the court issued a public reprimand instead of a fine, writing that his reputation was in tatters and that his job loss already exceeded the usual fines.","incidentDate":"2025-12-23","incidentEndDate":"2026-04-28","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-03-09","aiSystem":"Generative artificial intelligence tool, not identified in the inspected accounts, that the attorney said he used to draft a response brief in federal court","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The attorney lost his position in the U.S. Attorney's Office after 17 years, was referred to the Office of Professional Responsibility and received a public judicial reprimand stating that his professional reputation was in tatters, all following the show-cause proceedings over the AI-drafted brief with fabricated quotations (News & Observer; Courthouse News). The self-represented plaintiff had to identify the fabricated authority in the government's filing; no further consequence for him is reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One AI user harmed: the attorney who said he used AI to draft the brief and who lost his job and was reprimanded. The plaintiff's burden of identifying the errors is described, but no consequence to him is reported, so he is not counted as harmed.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/judge-weighs-next-steps-us-121054156.html","primarySourceLabel":"The News & Observer (via Yahoo News), 11 March 2026: report of the show-cause hearing at which the attorney admitted using AI","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:23:08.421295+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:23:08.421295+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["legal","fabricated_citations","hallucination","court_sanction","professional_harm","government","united_states","north_carolina"]},{"id":"2025-depression-patient-chat-app-reassurance-emergency-admission","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'30 tuổi, được bác sĩ chuyên khoa tâm thần chẩn đoán trầm cảm mức độ nặng kèm rối loạn lo âu từ cuối năm ngoái'; 'Bác sĩ yêu cầu dùng thuốc phối hợp tái khám định kỳ hai tuần một lần'; 'Sau tháng đầu tiên, thấy các cơn hoảng loạn giảm bớt'; 'tự ý bỏ thuốc'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A 30-year-old was diagnosed by a psychiatrist late the previous year with severe depression and an anxiety disorder, was told to take medication with follow-up every two weeks, and stopped the medication without medical advice after the first month as panic attacks eased.","causal_attribution":"The newspaper's account of the patient's history. The decision to stop medication is described before the chatbot use."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Mỗi khi cơn lo âu tái phát vào ban đêm, cô mở ứng dụng chat'; 'tim đập nhanh, ngột ngạt và con bot luôn bảo rằng tôi chỉ đang căng thẳng quá mức, hãy hít thở sâu'; 'trò chuyện triền miên với chatbot còn tạo ra sự phụ thuộc tâm lý ngược'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"When anxiety returned at night the patient opened a chat app and described symptoms such as a racing heart and a feeling of suffocation, and, in the patient's words, the bot always said it was only excessive stress and to breathe deeply.","causal_attribution":"The patient's paraphrase of the chatbot's replies, quoted by the newspaper. No chat record is reproduced."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sự xoa dịu tức thì từ các dòng chữ khiến cô tin mình vẫn tự kiểm soát được tình hình mà không cần đến viện'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The article states that the chatbot's instant reassurance led the patient to believe the situation was under control without going to hospital.","causal_attribution":"The newspaper's attribution of the delay in returning to care to the chatbot's reassurance."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'nhập viện cấp cứu trong tình trạng suy kiệt, mất ngủ kéo dài và xuất hiện ảo thanh'; 'Bác sĩ điều trị cho biết bệnh đã chuyển sang giai đoạn kháng trị bước đầu do ngắt quãng dùng thuốc, thời gian phục hồi sẽ phải kéo dài gấp đôi'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Six months later the patient was admitted for emergency care with exhaustion, prolonged insomnia and auditory hallucinations, and the treating doctor said interrupted medication had moved the illness to an early treatment-resistant stage and that recovery would take twice as long.","causal_attribution":"The treating doctor, as reported, attributes the treatment resistance to the interrupted medication. The doctor is not quoted on the chatbot."}],"effects":[{"label":"delayed return to psychiatric care while relying on a chat app's reassurance (newspaper's account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"emergency admission with exhaustion, prolonged insomnia and auditory hallucinations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"illness moved to an early treatment-resistant stage; recovery expected to take twice as long (treating doctor)","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://vnexpress.net/moi-nguy-khi-ai-thanh-bac-si-cua-nhung-nguoi-tuyet-vong-5125480.html","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"vi","translation_note":"Read in Vietnamese: the full article text on vnexpress.net (also checked against the MSN syndication). Passages were translated by the research agent, an AI; no human translator reviewed them.","independence_group":"vnexpress"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["health"],"unknowns":["The name of the chat app the patient used and the full text of its replies.","Where the patient lives and where the admission took place.","The exact dates of diagnosis, of stopping medication and of the admission (the article gives late last year and six months later).","Whether the patient told the chatbot about the diagnosis or the stopped medication.","The patient's condition after the admission."],"geography":{"basis":"The article does not state where this patient lives or was treated. Another person in the same feature is placed in Hanoi and the doctors quoted work in Vietnam, but neither fact locates this patient, so no country is recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete account, reported by a national newspaper from the patient's interview, of a person with severe depression who described symptoms to a chat app, was told by the bot that it was only stress, and relied on that reassurance instead of returning to care before an emergency admission. The patient is not named in this record.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The article reports what the chatbot said to the patient: when the patient described a racing heart and a feeling of suffocation at night, the bot replied that it was only excessive stress and to breathe deeply. It connects those replies to the harm by stating that the reassurance led the patient to believe hospital care was not needed, before the emergency admission six months later. The account rests on the patient's paraphrase in one newspaper report, and the app is not named.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Patient with severe depression stopped medication and relied on a chat app's reassurance before an emergency admission, VnExpress reports","summary":"VnExpress reported on 30 September 2026 that a 30-year-old diagnosed late the previous year with severe depression and an anxiety disorder stopped prescribed medication after the first month. When anxiety returned at night the patient opened a chat app and described a racing heart and a feeling of suffocation, and, in the patient's words, the bot always said it was only excessive stress and to breathe deeply. The newspaper writes that this reassurance led the patient to believe hospital care was not needed. Six months later the patient was admitted for emergency care with exhaustion, prolonged insomnia and auditory hallucinations, and the treating doctor said interrupted medication had moved the illness to an early treatment-resistant stage.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-30","aiSystem":"A chat application the patient opened at night (the article says 'ứng dụng chat' and 'con bot'); the article discusses ChatGPT elsewhere but does not name the app this patient used","aiProduct":"Unidentified chatbot","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["hospitalization","psychiatric_deterioration","treatment_disruption"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The patient, in the newspaper's account, relied on a chat app's reassurance instead of returning to care after stopping medication and was later admitted for emergency care; the treating doctor said the illness had become treatment-resistant.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the patient who used the chat app and was later admitted. Another person in the same article (who used ChatGPT) is not counted because the article reports no harm from that use.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://vnexpress.net/moi-nguy-khi-ai-thanh-bac-si-cua-nhung-nguoi-tuyet-vong-5125480.html","primarySourceLabel":"VnExpress, 30 September 2026: \"Khi AI thành 'bác sĩ' của những người tuyệt vọng\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T03:23:20.695841+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T03:23:20.695841+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["health-guidance","mental-health","depression","medication-stopped","delayed-care","hospitalisation","vietnamese-language-source"]},{"id":"2026-surat-customs-penalty-ai-hallucinated-citations-supreme-court","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The present appeal arose out of an Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposing a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on the appellant under Section 114, Customs Act, 1962, for misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The challenge to the said penalty before the Gujarat High Court failed, as the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20 January 2026.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The penalty was imposed for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to attract a lower tariff.'; 'the High Court dismissed his challenge on January 20, 2026, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds, and the Gujarat High Court dismissed his challenge on 20 January 2026.","causal_attribution":"Facts of the proceedings as recited in the Supreme Court judgment, reported by legal outlets; the judgment itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Upon verifying such judgments and articles, it does appear that the second respondent has relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations. A further investigation has also revealed that some of the case laws relied upon by the second respondent, which do exist, do not lay down the ratio deduced therefrom and it appears to be a hallucination of AI,' the Court observed.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Upon verification, the court found that the second respondent had \"relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations.\" It further found that some case laws which did exist did not lay down the legal propositions attributed to them, and that this \"appears to be a hallucination of AI\".'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Legal reports quote the Supreme Court finding that the penalty order relied on nonexistent case law or fake citations, and on existing cases that did not support the attributed legal propositions, which it described as apparent AI hallucination.","causal_attribution":"Finding of the Supreme Court after its own verification of the cited material, as quoted by the reports. The court attributes the defects to AI in qualified terms ('appears to be'); the tool is not named."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The use of AI in this case, resulting in reliance placed by the second respondent on material which is dubious, proves fatal to the sustainability of the order imposing penalty on the appellant. Such circumstances compel us to interfere and remand the case,' the Court said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The proceedings were revived for fresh adjudication by an officer of the same rank other than the officer who had passed the original order.'; 'The Court left it to the wisdom of the appointing authority to initiate such action against the author of the Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 as may be warranted in the circumstances, in accordance with law.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, set aside a customs penalty of over ₹425 crore'; 'A bench of Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Sheel Nagu did not examine the merits of the customs case at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Верховний суд Індії 2 вересня 2026 року розглянув справу щодо використання штучного інтелекту працівником митниці, який послався на неіснуючі судові справи та фальшиві цитати, накладаючи штраф у розмірі близько $45 млн' (the Supreme Court of India on 2 September 2026 considered a case of a customs officer's use of AI, who cited non-existent cases and fake quotations while imposing a fine of about $45 million)","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Legal reports say that on 2 September 2026 the Supreme Court treated reliance on dubious AI material as fatal to the penalty order, set aside that order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, and revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank. The reports also say the court left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority.","causal_attribution":"Holding of the Supreme Court as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"a ₹425 crore customs penalty order resting on non-existent and misattributed case law that the Supreme Court found appeared to be AI hallucination stood against the trader for about eleven months and was upheld by the Gujarat High Court","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the trader had to take the case to the Supreme Court, which voided the order but revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full body (including JSON-LD article body) read by curl on 2026-09-29. Reports and quotes the Supreme Court judgment of 2 September 2026. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/09/03/supreme-court-sets-aside-%E2%82%B9425-crore-customs-penalty-over-ai-generated-fake-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"SCC Times case note, read by curl on 2026-09-29; summarises the same judgment (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1741). Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://upstox.com/news/personal-finance/tax/how-a-diamond-trader-got-relief-from-a-425-crore-penalty-after-customs-used-ai-generated-citations/article-199828/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Upstox (4 September 2026), read by curl on 2026-09-29; based on the same judgment. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://sud.ua/uk/news/abroad/371427-mytnyk-poviryv-shi-i-vypysav-shtraf-na-45-mln-verkhovnyi-sud-use-skasuvav","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"uk","translation_note":"Ukrainian-language report (6 September 2026) read through the r.jina.ai relay on 2026-09-29 (direct fetch 403); translated by the reviewer. Cited only for context; it converts the penalty to about US$45 million. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review. The Ukrainian article body was read with AI language assistance; it explicitly credits Supreme Court Observer and supplies context only.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","public_services","finance"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the customs officer used and how it was used in drafting the order.","Whether the trader paid any part of the penalty or incurred other financial consequences while the order stood, and the trader's litigation costs.","The outcome of the revived adjudication and whether any action was taken against the officer.","The trader's country and place of residence."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, challenged in the Gujarat High Court and decided by the Supreme Court of India. The trader's country of residence is not stated in the read reports, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Legal reporting describes a concrete penalty imposed on a trader through an administrative decision that used apparently AI-generated false authorities. The reported Supreme Court ruling connects reliance on that material to the decision to set the order aside. The trader is unnamed and the underlying customs allegation remains undecided. All cited accounts derive from the same judgment, whose text has not been inspected. No payment of the penalty or quantified financial loss is asserted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Bar & Bench, SCC Times and Upstox report that the Supreme Court verified the authorities used in the officer's penalty order, found nonexistent cases, false citations and misattributed propositions, and described them as apparent AI hallucination. The reports connect this material to the officer's order imposing the penalty, which the court set aside on that basis. This supports informed_decision_about: the human officer used the material in an adverse decision about the trader. The tool and how it was used remain unknown, and the judgment itself has not been inspected.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"India's Supreme Court overturns customs penalty citing apparent AI hallucinations","summary":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Surat imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 (about ₹425 crore) on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The trader's challenge was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on 20 January 2026. Before the Supreme Court the trader argued that judgments and articles cited in the penalty order had been generated using artificial intelligence. On 2 September 2026 a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, after checking the material, found that the order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on real cases that did not lay down the propositions attributed to them, which the court said 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'. Holding that the use of AI and reliance on this dubious material was fatal to the order, the court set aside both the penalty order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, sent the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority. The AI tool used is not named in the read reports.","incidentDate":"2025-10-08","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-02","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-02","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tool reportedly used in authorities cited in a customs penalty order; legal reports quote the Supreme Court describing nonexistent and misattributed case law as apparent AI hallucination","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A diamond trader was subjected for about eleven months to a ₹425 crore customs penalty order, and lost a High Court challenge to it, before India's Supreme Court voided the order because it relied on non-existent and misattributed case law that the court found appeared to be AI hallucination (Supreme Court judgment as reported by Bar & Bench, SCC Online and Upstox). The underlying proceedings were revived.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One trader, the appellant, on whom the penalty was imposed. The trader did not use the AI; the customs officer did. No other person is reported harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","primarySourceLabel":"Bar & Bench, 2 September 2026: Supreme Court scraps ₹425 crore penalty over fake citations, AI hallucinations in customs order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:08:50.773251+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:47.973979+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["india","surat","customs","supreme-court","hallucinated-citations","institutional-use","administrative-decision","penalty"]},{"id":"2025-keene-v-google-ai-overview-defamation","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Opinion page 2 lists Overviews 1–4 separately: 1, 2 and 4 concern life without parole; 2 mentions murders of three women; 3 says he was convicted of drug trafficking. The analysis of Overview 3 and conclusion explain its substantial-truth dismissal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Complaint excerpt: statements that he 'is serving a life sentence without parole for multiple convictions' and 'for the murders of 3 women'.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The court’s opinion recounts four challenged Google AI Overviews between approximately 24 May and 27 June 2025. The complaint alleges that Overviews 1, 2 and 4 falsely said Keene was serving life without parole, with Overview 2 adding murders of three women. Overview 3 instead said he had been convicted of drug trafficking; the court considered that statement substantially true.","causal_attribution":"Allegations of the complaint as recited by the court; accepted as true only for the motion to dismiss."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'Keene complained to Google about the false statements on three occasions ... Google allegedly apologized ... and deemed the statements errors made by its Artificial Intelligence.' and 'AI Overviews 1 and 2 were seen by various family members, friends, and acquaintances.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Complaint excerpt: 27 May 2025 complaint; Google 'privately apologized', attributing the statements to 'an unknown error made by their Artificial Intelligence Platform'.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges he notified Google on 27 May, 31 May and after 27 June 2025, that Google apologised each time and attributed the statements to errors by its AI, and that Overviews 1 and 2 were seen by family members, friends and acquaintances.","causal_attribution":"Allegations as recited by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 1 and 12: 'that motion is granted in part and denied in part' ... 'the Court denies Google's motion to dismiss AI Overviews 1 and 2, and grants Google's motion to dismiss AI Overviews 3 and 4 without prejudice. Keene may file an amended complaint by October 13, 2026.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Docket entry 29, 14 September 2026: 'Memorandum Opinion and Order AND Order on Motion to Dismiss'.","relation":"context","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Post quoting the opinion's actual-malice and disclaimer holdings.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 14 September 2026 Judge Thomas M. Durkin denied Google's motion to dismiss the defamation per se claim as to Overviews 1 and 2, holding that the plaintiff, a public figure, had plausibly pleaded actual malice through his three notifications, and dismissed the claims on Overviews 3 (substantially true) and 4 (publication not alleged) without prejudice, with leave to amend by 13 October 2026.","causal_attribution":"Court ruling on the pleadings; no finding of liability."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'Keene filed his complaint ... on July 30, 2025, in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Google removed the suit to federal court on September 22, 2025.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Docket header: filed 22 September 2025, No. 1:25-cv-11431.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County on 30 July 2025 and removed by Google to federal court on 22 September 2025.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history from the court record."}],"effects":[{"label":"reputational_harm_from_false_ai_statements","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629.29.0.pdf","kind":"court_opinion","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Memorandum Opinion and Order, ECF No. 29, filed 14 September 2026; PDF read in full via CourtListener RECAP on 2026-09-15.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71417738/keene-v-google-llc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Public docket page read on 2026-09-15.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/14/federal-court-allows-libel-by-ai-claim-brought-by-protagonist-of-apple-tvs-black-bird-series-to-go-forward/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-15; quotes the opinion.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/23/from-prison-to-helping-the-fbi-to-an-apple-tv-miniseries-to-google-hallucinated-libel/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-15; quotes the complaint at removal.","independence_group":"court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["The plaintiff's residence and the locations where the Overviews were generated or viewed are not stated in the inspected records.","No damages figure appears in the inspected records.","The complaint exhibits (screenshots of the Overviews) were not inspected.","The case continues; an amended complaint was due by 13 October 2026."],"geography":{"basis":"The AI Overviews were generated online in response to searches; where they were generated or viewed is not stated. The plaintiff's residence is not stated in the inspected records, and the charter does not infer a country from the court. Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, after removal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the strength of the court's own opinion and docket, read in full, with legal commentary as context. The plaintiff is a public figure who sued under his own name; allegations are attributed to the complaint and the ruling is limited to the pleadings.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The statements at issue appeared in Google's AI Overviews, and the court's opinion recites the allegation that Google attributed them to errors by its artificial intelligence. The screenshots are exhibits to the complaint and were not inspected here; the court accepted the allegations as true for the motion to dismiss only.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Keene v. Google: defamation claim over AI Overviews calling an author a convicted murderer survives dismissal","summary":"An author and television producer, the subject of the Apple TV series 'Black Bird', sued Google, alleging that AI Overviews shown for searches about him in May and June 2025 falsely said he was serving a life sentence without parole, in one version for the murders of three women. He says he notified Google three times and received apologies attributing the statements to its AI, yet similar statements kept appearing. On 14 September 2026 the Northern District of Illinois denied Google's motion to dismiss as to two of the four challenged Overviews and dismissed the other two without prejudice. This was a ruling on the pleadings, not a finding that the allegations were proven.","incidentDate":"2025-05-24","incidentEndDate":"2025-06-27","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-09-23","aiSystem":"Google AI Overviews","aiProduct":"Google AI Overviews","aiCompany":"Google LLC","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiff alleges that false AI-generated statements that he was a convicted murderer serving life without parole were shown to searchers, including family, friends and acquaintances, and continued after he notified Google.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person is the subject of the alleged defamatory statements and the plaintiff (court opinion). Family and acquaintances who saw the statements are not counted as harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629.29.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Memorandum Opinion and Order, Keene v. Google LLC, No. 25 C 11431 (N.D. Ill. 14 September 2026), ECF No. 29, via CourtListener RECAP","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T03:23:44.732123+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:07.683768+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["defamation","ai-overviews","google","hallucination","lawsuit","reputational-harm"]},{"id":"2026-jacquez-v-openai","metadataReview":{"version":1,"geography":{"basis":"Re-checked on 2026-10-11 against the cited Futurism body (read live, English), its Yahoo syndication (same text) and the JCCP 5431 coordination order PDF. Futurism, on Jacquez's own account, says that during the delusional episode 'he physically went to the University of California, Berkeley' Physics department to show experts his imagined discoveries and 'was kicked out'; that visit is an act within the reported adverse experience and is located in the United States, which supports event_countries US. Futurism does not say where the hospitalisations, the September 2024 and April-May 2025 episodes or the self-injury took place; those remain unlocated, and the event country rests only on the Berkeley visit. Futurism calls him 'a 34-year-old Bay Area man' (the person's location), which supports affected_person_countries US. The coordination order lists 'Jacquez v. OpenAI, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Case No. 26CV165635' and Futurism reports the suit 'filed this week in California', which support court_countries US. The court's seat and the plaintiff's residence were not used as the event location.","evidence":[{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"Bay Area, California","location":"victim_description","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"California Superior Court for Alameda County","location":"outcome_details","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"Jacquez says he physically went to the University of California, Berkeley","location":"https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/mental-illness-chatgpt-psychosis-lawsuit","supports":["event_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"is a 34-year-old Bay Area man named John Jacquez","location":"https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/mental-illness-chatgpt-psychosis-lawsuit","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"The plaintiff in the case, filed this week in California","location":"https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/mental-illness-chatgpt-psychosis-lawsuit","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"of California, County of Alameda, Case No.","location":"https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/chatgpt-product-liability-cases-coordination.pdf","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["US"]}],"court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"unresolved":["The complaint (Alameda Superior Court Case No. 26CV165635) was not obtained; no public copy was found, so any location it gives for the hospitalisations is unchecked.","The event country rests on one episode located by Futurism on Jacquez's account (the UC Berkeley visit); the locations of the hospitalisations and other episodes are not stated in the inspected bodies."],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-11","source_reviews":[{"url":"https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/mental-illness-chatgpt-psychosis-lawsuit","notes":"Cited primary source. Fetched live on 2026-10-11 (HTTP 200, html lang en-US, English, about 12,000 characters of article text; published Jan 21, 2026). Based on the complaint and an interview with Jacquez. Describes him as a Bay Area man living with his father, sister and her children; the September 2024 first ChatGPT-tied hospitalisation; the April 2025 memory upgrade; police involvement and about four weeks of combined inpatient and intensive outpatient care; the 17 May 2025 exchange; and his visit to the UC Berkeley Physics department, from which he was kicked out. Names no hospital, city or county for the hospitalisations. Does not name the county of filing.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/man-had-managed-mental-illness-200901701.html","notes":"Fetched live on 2026-10-11 (HTTP 200, html lang en-US, English). Syndicated copy of the Futurism article with the same text, including the Bay Area and Berkeley passages; derivative and not independent.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/chatgpt-product-liability-cases-coordination.pdf","notes":"JCCP 5431 Order re Petition for Coordination (San Francisco Superior Court, filed 3 Feb 2026), fetched on 2026-10-11 (HTTP 200, PDF, text extracted with pdftotext, English). Lists Jacquez v. OpenAI, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Case No. 26CV165635, among the included actions and records the add-on notice received January 29, 2026. Establishes the court, not the event setting.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://www.law.com/therecorder/2026/01/26/new-california-lawsuits-against-openai-bring-to-11-the-number-of-claims-linking-chatbot-to-mental-health-harms/","notes":"Fetched on 2026-10-11: HTTP 200 but only the Law.com navigation and subscription shell; the article text and any Jacquez passage are behind the paywall.","access":"unavailable","language":null},{"url":"https://www.law.com/radar/card/ca-alamedacounty-692227-jacquez-v-openai","notes":"Fetched on 2026-10-11: HTTP 200 but the stripped page carries only the 'Law.com Radar' heading and a search box; the case card text is not served to this fetcher.","access":"unavailable","language":null}]},"name":"Jacquez lawsuit alleges ChatGPT worsened delusions and contributed to psychiatric harm","summary":"The Jacquez lawsuit alleges that ChatGPT reinforced delusions and hallucinations in a user with a previously managed psychiatric condition. The plaintiff links those exchanges to hospitalisation and job loss. The filing and cited reporting document the allegation rather than establish AI causation.","incidentDate":"2025-04-15","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"cumulative_relationship","reportedDate":"2026-01-20","aiSystem":"ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI, Inc.","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":["delusion_reinforcement","identity_destabilization","dependency_creation","psychological_manipulation"],"harmOutcomes":["hospitalization","psychiatric_deterioration","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"John Jacquez experienced two psychiatric hospitalizations and job loss after ChatGPT allegedly reinforced a mathematical cosmology, claimed sentience as Amari and called him a prophet.","frameworkFacets":["P1a","P1c","P2c","P3a","P3b","P3d","P5a"],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The complaint documents one named participant's two hospitalizations and job loss.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-CA","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/mental-illness-chatgpt-psychosis-lawsuit","primarySourceLabel":"Futurism — Man Who Had Managed Mental Illness Effectively for Years Says ChatGPT Sent Him Into Hospitalization for Psychosis","firstPublishedAt":"2026-08-06T03:18:18.40916+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T03:14:06.052377+00:00","scopeVersion":"participant-v2","tags":["lawsuit","chatgpt","openai","gpt-4o","psychosis","ai-psychosis","hospitalization","delusion","sentience-claim","adult","us","us-ca"]},{"id":"2025-holmen-norway-gdpr","metadataReview":{"version":1,"geography":{"basis":"Carried forward from the 2026-09-15 metadata review and now checked against the inspected noyb press page. noyb describes him as the Norwegian user and refers to his home town without naming it; residence in Trondheim rests on the retained row, so affected-person country is NO by reported residence. The noyb page does not state where he queried ChatGPT or where the output was viewed, so the event location remains unknown after review. The complaint was filed with the Norwegian data protection authority (Datatilsynet), a regulator rather than a court, so court_countries is empty as a reviewed result. This is a metadata review and does not verify the underlying account.","evidence":[{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"Trondheim, Norway","location":"victim_description","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["NO"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"'When the Norwegian user Arve Hjalmar Holmen wanted to find out if ChatGPT had any information about him, he was confronted with a made up horror story'","location":"https://noyb.eu/en/ai-hallucinations-chatgpt-created-fake-child-murderer","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["NO"]}],"court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["NO"]},"unresolved":["The location where the ChatGPT output was generated or viewed is not stated in the inspected noyb page or the retained row; event_countries remains empty as a reviewed unknown.","No court proceeding: the Datatilsynet complaint is a regulatory complaint, so court_countries is empty as a reviewed result.","The complaint PDF linked from the noyb page and any Norwegian-language coverage were not inspected; only the English press page was reviewed."],"reviewed_on":"2026-09-23","source_reviews":[{"url":"https://noyb.eu/en/ai-hallucinations-chatgpt-created-fake-child-murderer","notes":"Read live on 2026-09-23 (noyb, 20 March 2025; html lang=en; the page offers translations in other languages). Describes the complainant as a Norwegian user, the fabricated output (murder of two of his children, attempted murder of his third son, 21-year sentence), the mix of real details including his home town, and the complaint filed with the Norwegian Datatilsynet. Does not locate the query or the viewing of the output.","access":"read","language":"en"}]},"name":"Holmen v. OpenAI - Norway GDPR Complaint","summary":"ChatGPT falsely accused Norwegian citizen Arve Hjalmar Holmen of murdering two of his sons, attempting to murder his third son, and being sentenced to 21 years prison. Mixed real personal details with horrific fabrications. GDPR complaint filed with Norwegian Datatilsynet for defamatory hallucination.","incidentDate":"2025-03-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-03-15","aiSystem":"ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":["psychological_manipulation","identity_destabilization","third_party_harm_facilitation"],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Arve Hjalmar Holmen discovered ChatGPT combining real personal details with false claims that he murdered two sons and attempted to murder a third. He filed a GDPR complaint over the defamatory output.","frameworkFacets":["P3a","P5b","P5c"],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The regulator complaint documents one named participant's distress and reputational harm.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"NO","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://noyb.eu/en/ai-hallucinations-chatgpt-created-fake-child-murderer","primarySourceLabel":"noyb — 'AI hallucinations: ChatGPT created a fake child murderer', the complaint filed with Datatilsynet","firstPublishedAt":"2026-01-13T10:13:04.624733+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:05.427919+00:00","scopeVersion":"participant-v2","tags":["norway","gdpr","chatgpt","defamation","hallucination","noyb","false_accusations"]}]}